Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed Now Look Beyond the Promises

Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed Now Look Beyond the Promises By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed - Now Look Beyond the Promises The nominations are closed. The names are on the ballot, the campaigns are underway, and now the most important part of the municipal election begins: the voters have to do their homework. Over the coming weeks, residents are going to hear a lot of promises. Some will sound exciting. Some will make great headlines. Some will fit nicely on a campaign sign or into a 30-second social-media video. But I would encourage every voter to ask one additional question whenever a candidate makes a promise: How are you actually going to do it? Ideas matter. But the plan behind the idea matters even more. If somebody running for municipal office tells you they are going to "eliminate homelessness," for example, ask them how. Homelessness is an extraordinarily complicated issue involving housing supply and affordability, mental health, addiction, income, health care, supportive housing, policing, social services and responsibilities divided among municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments. No municipal politician can simply wave a wand and eliminate it. A serious candidate should understand the jurisdiction they are seeking to govern, what powers that municipality actually possesses, what resources are available and what partnerships would be required to produce measurable improvement. That doesn't mean we accept homelessness. Quite the opposite. It means we need candidates with realistic strategies instead of unrealistic slogans. Now consider another candidate who says municipal taxes are too high and proposes a comprehensive review of municipal services to determine what taxpayers are funding, which services are mandated, which are discretionary, where duplication exists and whether programs are producing measurable value. Whether you ultimately agree with that candidate or not, at least there is a mechanism attached to the promise. That's what voters should be looking for: the mechanism. Don't just ask candidates what they want to accomplish. Ask them how they intend to accomplish it, how much it will cost, where the money will come from and how they will measure whether it worked. Municipal elections can sometimes become competitions over who can grab the "sexiest" issue. Candidates see something dominating the television news or social media and suddenly everybody has a position on it. But municipal government isn't supposed to be a collection of trending topics. Municipal government is roads. It's bridges, water, sewer, waste collection, parks, recreation, fire protection, policing, planning, transit, infrastructure and the countless other services residents depend upon every single day. And there is another responsibility that receives far too little attention during election campaigns: constituent service. I want councillors who will roll up their sleeves. I want them returning telephone calls and answering emails. I want them meeting residents. I want them walking neighbourhoods. I want them understanding the problems facing local businesses, seniors, young families and people struggling to make ends meet. I want them to know why a particular intersection isn't working, why residents are frustrated about a development application, why a park needs attention and why somebody has been trying unsuccessfully for three weeks to get an answer from municipal government. You cannot properly represent a community that you don't know. And you don't get to know a community by sitting behind a desk or spending four years arguing politics on social media. You learn it by being there. Municipal government is also different from the provincial and federal levels. Councillors aren't elected to be miniature premiers or prime ministers. Their responsibility is much closer to home. When they take their seat at that council rail, their job is to represent the people who put them there and exercise responsible stewardship over the public's money. That's why I encourage residents during this election to look beyond political labels as well. I've met excellent municipal candidates from the right, the left and the centre. I've also met poor candidates from every part of the political spectrum. The question shouldn't simply be which political team somebody identifies with. Ask instead: Can this person make good decisions for my community? Do they understand a municipal budget? Do they understand what services the municipality is legally required to provide? Do they understand infrastructure? Do they understand development and growth? Can they distinguish between something that sounds good and something taxpayers can actually afford? And perhaps most importantly, will they listen? Because after all the signs come down and all the campaign literature goes into the recycling bin, somebody still has to govern. The potholes will still need fixing. The roads will still need rebuilding. The fire trucks will still need replacing. The water will still have to flow. The garbage will still have to be collected. And residents will still expect somebody at municipal hall to answer the telephone when they have a problem. So over the next several weeks, don't simply count the promises. Examine the plans behind them. Ask every candidate what they want to accomplish - and then ask them how they're going to accomplish it. Look for candidates who understand the limits of municipal government but aren't afraid to challenge the way it operates. Look for people prepared to review spending, establish priorities and make difficult decisions. Look for candidates who understand that every dollar government spends first came from somebody who earned it. And look for people who are willing to roll up their sleeves, get to know their communities and become the strongest possible voice for the residents they represent. The nominations are closed. Now it's time for the voters to conduct the job interviews.

It Is Official

It Is Official By Joe Ingino Well, it is official. The 2026 candidate registration deadline has come and gone. The names registered are your 2026 candidates and choices. Now let’s look at the very important word, “choice.” As perception leads us to all kinds of interesting interpretations. Choice — Core Meanings of Choice (As a Noun) The act of picking: Making a decision between different paths or items. An option: A specific thing available to be picked. Freedom: The right or power to decide for yourself. Interesting definitions... Now let’s look at the roster of candidates across the region. Do we really have a choice? Or is our choice dictated by the limited information candidates put out in such a short time? Or are we to believe that our choice, as per the definition — the right or power to decide for yourself — will be determined by the number of signs we see on roadways in the upcoming month? How are we going to choose? If history has taught us anything, it is that most citizens, when they go to the polls, tend to vote based on name recognition. This, in part, is why we have such a low number of new candidates winning elections. Part of the problem is the electoral process itself. There are too many names to choose from, and it becomes overwhelming. When people become confused, they often turn to names they recognize — names that at times may not be worthy of representing you. Names that, in many cases, have not worked in your best interest. For example: taxation. Why do taxes continue to increase with no real accountability other than excuses as to why they need to go up? Looking at Oshawa, for example, we have three elected council members running for the open mayor’s position. Are Tito-Dante, Derek Giberson, and Jim Lee worthy of the position? The answer is obvious... NO. I say this with such certainty because they all allowed property taxes to increase every year they sat in office. Has the quality of life improved for the citizens of the City? NO. Have they done anything to fix the problems associated with the poor condition of the city core? NO. Then, if there are so many NO’s, should your consideration be based on the same record of their efforts? NO, NO, NO to any one of the above, as they have failed us on the most important core values we cherish. Then, if they are not the choice... who is? Well, let’s look at what is left. We have six candidates to choose from. Two of them are too young to run for the mayor’s office. Two should not be running because they don’t even return phone calls. And two of them have potential but need a lot of work. Running for mayor is not just another job. It is not like running a business. The mayor’s position is much like a giant Rubik’s cube that is constantly changing. The pieces never match, and the pressure from staff, fellow council members, and the general public requires a special set of skills. Look at the current mayor.He does not return calls, he has given up on working with the community, and he pretty much leaves the city to survive on the crumbs we receive from the feds and the Province. That is not leadership. I have always questioned how our current mayor and the three councillors who now sit as mayoral candidates can sleep at night knowing people are living on the streets and some are passing away. No moral integrity, in my opinion. Now they want a pay raise to do more of nothing. Not on my watch. Remember to ask the questions. New candidates should, at the very least, know the basics. Do not fall for empty promises or words like resilience, working together, cooperation, and the likes. When you talk to a candidate, ask the HOW’s. How are you going to freeze my taxes, if not lowering them? If they start with, “Well, we can’t lower them,” say NO to them. If they go on a speech about re-evaluating budgets and cutting expenditures, say NO to them. Now you have the choice to say NO. Don’t vote for an incumbent, then wait to have your taxes go up. The candidate you select should give you solid plans for action. They should be telling you that under their administration, a tax freeze will be the first thing to pass. That all department heads will have to adjust to zero budget increases. That all expenses will be frozen until fully audited. That all outstanding legal matters, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, will be settled and all outstanding contracts reviewed. A candidate should not promise — but deliver — a course of action that benefits you. The candidate you should consider should bring to the table real solutions to problems that have been lingering for decades. Now is the time to vote for real leaders. Keep reading your community newspaper, as soon we will be releasing a list of our endorsed candidates. Now is the time to make your voice heard.

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On August 19, 1942, before dawn had fully broken over the English Channel, thousands of Canadian soldiers approached the French port of Dieppe. Their mission, known as Operation Jubilee, was intended to test German coastal defences, gather intelligence, destroy military installations and demonstrate that the Allies could strike occupied Europe. What followed became one of the darkest and most costly days in Canadian military history. Nearly 5,000 Canadians took part in the raid. Within a matter of hours, 916 Canadians were dead, almost 2,000 were prisoners of war, and many more were wounded. Units that had trained for months were shattered on the beaches beneath cliffs, concrete fortifications, artillery and machine-gun positions. Eighty-four years later, the memory of Dieppe deserves more than a ceremonial acknowledgement. It deserves reflection. Canada remembers Dieppe not because it was a great military victory. It was not. Canada remembers because national memory must include sacrifice, courage, failure, responsibility and the human cost of decisions made in war. The men who landed at Dieppe came from communities across Canada. Among them were soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, the Essex Scottish Regiment, Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the South Saskatchewan Regiment, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada and the Calgary Regiment. They were Canadians from different provinces, backgrounds and languages, brought together by service and their objective was extraordinarily difficult. German forces had transformed Dieppe and the surrounding coastline into a heavily defended position. The beaches were exposed. High cliffs dominated the approaches. Concrete bunkers protected machine guns and artillery. Tanks struggled to move across the loose stones of the beach and could not easily penetrate the town. Surprise, essential to the operation, was compromised but Canadian soldiers nevertheless pressed forward. Some units were pinned down almost immediately after landing. Others fought their way inland under devastating fire. Men attempted to rescue wounded comrades while themselves exposed to enemy positions. Commanders tried to reorganize surviving troops in the confusion of smoke, explosions and communications failures. By late morning, withdrawal had become unavoidable. The beaches that only hours earlier had carried the hopes of an ambitious Allied operation had become scenes of terrible destruction. For decades, historians have debated Dieppe. One argument maintains that the lessons learned from the raid contributed significantly to the planning of later amphibious operations, particularly the Normandy invasion of June 1944. Allied planners understood more clearly the importance of overwhelming fire support, specialized armoured vehicles, detailed intelligence, effective communications and the need to avoid heavily fortified ports during the initial assault. There is truth in that argument. However, Canadians should also resist the temptation to turn every tragedy into a necessary stepping stone toward later victory. Military history must allow difficult questions. Was the operation properly planned? Were its objectives realistic? Was sufficient intelligence available? Was adequate naval and air support provided? Were Canadian soldiers asked to undertake a mission whose risks had not been fully appreciated? Those questions do not diminish the courage of those who fought. Quite the opposite. The distinction between the bravery of soldiers and the quality of decisions made by senior leadership is essential to an honest military tradition. Soldiers do not choose the strategic circumstances into which they are sent. They carry out the missions assigned to them. That is why Dieppe contains a lesson extending far beyond the Second World War. Whenever Canada considers sending military personnel into danger, political and military leaders assume an enormous responsibility. Objectives must be clear. Intelligence must be sound. Equipment must be adequate. Allies must be reliable, and Canadians must understand why their sons and daughters are being placed at risk. Courage at the tactical level cannot compensate indefinitely for mistakes at the strategic level. There is another part of the Dieppe story that deserves remembrance. Two years after the disastrous raid, Canadian troops returned. On September 1, 1944, soldiers of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division entered Dieppe after German forces withdrew. This time the Canadians came not as raiders fighting desperately to escape the beaches, but as liberators advancing across France. For the people of Dieppe, the connection with Canada had been sealed in blood two years earlier. The return of Canadian soldiers transformed that relationship from tragedy into liberation. Even today, memorials, cemeteries and regimental monuments in and around Dieppe testify to the enduring relationship between Canada and France. Visitors walking along the waterfront can look toward the same cliffs and beaches that confronted Canadian soldiers in 1942. The Second World War is passing from living memory into history. Younger Canadians are increasingly separated from the events by generations. That makes public remembrance more important, not less. Students should learn about Dieppe not simply as a paragraph in a textbook but as a human story. They should understand that the soldiers who landed there were often very young. Many had families waiting at home. Many had never seen combat before that morning. Some would spend years in German prisoner-of-war camps. Hundreds would never return. Behind every casualty number was a person. A mother received a telegram. A wife lost a husband. A child lost a father. A community lost a neighbour. Canada has a proud military history, but pride should never require mythology. The strongest nations are capable of remembering both victories and failures. Vimy Ridge represents determination and national achievement. Normandy represents liberation. Kapyong represents courage under overwhelming pressure. Afghanistan represents service in a very different generation of conflict. Dieppe represents something equally important: sacrifice under circumstances where bravery could not overcome the limitations of the operation itself. There is dignity in remembering such events honestly. There is also a warning. War has changed dramatically since 1942. Technology, drones, missiles, cyberwarfare and precision weapons have altered the battlefield. However, one fundamental reality has not changed. Political decisions eventually become personal realities for soldiers. A strategic concept discussed around a conference table may become, hours or months later, a young Canadian standing somewhere far from home facing mortal danger. That distance between decision and consequence must never be forgotten. As Canada marks the 84th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid, ceremonies will again honour those who served. These traditions matter. However, remembrance must be more than ritual. It should strengthen our understanding of history and deepen our sense of responsibility toward those who serve today. The generation that fought at Dieppe did not ask to become symbols. They were soldiers doing what their country had asked of them. Many never had the opportunity to grow old. They never saw the Allied victory of 1945. They never saw the Canada that emerged after the war — prosperous, democratic. We inherited that country. Our obligation is therefore simple. Remember their courage. Remember their suffering. Learn from the decisions that sent them into battle, and ensure that future generations understand what happened on those beaches on August 19, 1942. The stones of Dieppe are quiet today. The guns have been silent for more than eight decades. Memory must not become silent with them. Canada remembers Dieppe. Canada remembers those who fought. Canada remembers those who never came home. Lest we forget.

Casino Revenue Is an Advantage Not a Guarantee

Casino Revenue Is an Advantage Not a Guarantee By John Meloche Pickering has something many municipalities would love to have: a significant source of revenue that does not come directly from property taxes. During the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s 2025–2026 fiscal year, Pickering received more than $16.3 million in gaming revenue from hosting Pickering Casino Resort. Since the casino opened in July 2021, nearly $76 million had flowed to the City by May 2026. That is an extraordinary financial advantage. The question is what we do with it. Casino revenue has already helped fund recreation facilities, parks, municipal infrastructure, library improvements, fire services and other capital projects. These are legitimate investments, and Pickering should absolutely benefit from having the casino in our community. But there is an important difference between benefiting from extraordinary revenue and becoming dependent on it. Pickering’s long-term capital forecast anticipates drawing significantly on casino reserves in the years ahead. Approximately $96.7 million in casino-reserve-supported capital financing is currently forecast between 2027 and 2035. That deserves our attention. The reason is simple: we control how casino revenue is spent, but we do not control how much casino revenue arrives We are seeing a timely example right now. Workers at Pickering Casino Resort and Casino Ajax began strike action on July 31. The Pickering casino remains open, but some services and operations have been disrupted. Why should taxpayers care? Because Pickering does not receive a guaranteed annual cheque. OLG host-municipality payments are calculated using a formula based on gaming revenue generated at the casino. That means circumstances outside City Hall can affect what we receive. Today it may be a labour dispute. Tomorrow it could be an economic downturn, growing competition, changing consumer habits, further expansion of online gambling and sports betting, regulatory changes, or business decisions made by the casino operator. None of those things are under municipal control. That is why I believe extraordinary revenues should be used primarily to make a municipality financially stronger. If a business suddenly received a substantial new revenue stream that could not be guaranteed indefinitely, the prudent response would not be to immediately build permanent spending around it. You would strengthen the balance sheet. Municipal government should think similarly. Use windfall revenue to repair aging infrastructure before it becomes an emergency. Reduce expensive debt. Strengthen reserves. Make one-time capital investments that provide lasting public value. Fund projects that reduce future operating costs. Wherever possible, use those dollars to prevent future costs from landing on the property-tax bill. What we should be cautious about is creating permanent obligations that eventually have to be transferred to taxpayers if the extraordinary revenue declines. Because once spending becomes permanent, the bill does not disappear when the revenue does. Someone still has to pay it. This does not mean Pickering should stop investing. Quite the opposite. Casino revenue represents an opportunity to leave the city substantially stronger than it would otherwise have been. Ten or fifteen years from now, residents should be able to look around Pickering and clearly see what this extraordinary period of revenue accomplished: infrastructure renewed, debt reduced, reserves strengthened, facilities properly maintained and future tax increases avoided. We should also continue pursuing other responsible non-property-tax revenues — grants, sponsorships, naming rights, film revenues, tourism opportunities and better use of municipal assets. The goal should always be the same. Alternative revenue should reduce taxpayer vulnerability, not simply give government permission to spend more. Pickering Casino Resort has given our city a tremendous financial advantage. Let’s make sure we use that advantage to build resilience for the future. Casino revenue is an opportunity. We should never allow it to become an entitlement.

Dignity Must Be Built In: Why Micro Homes Need Running Water and Washrooms

Dignity Must Be Built In: Why Micro Homes Need Running Water and Washrooms By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support At Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support (DARS), we strongly support innovative housing solutions that help people move out of homelessness and into safe, stable accommodation. Micro homes can be part of that solution but only when they provide more than a place to sleep. Recently, some communities have endorsed a sleep-cabin model in which each unit has electricity, heating and air conditioning, while residents must leave their cabins and walk to a separate communal washroom. Although this model may be less expensive to construct, DARS believes that permanent or transitional micro homes should include running water and a private washroom whenever reasonably possible. Housing should restore dignity, privacy and independence. It should not simply move people from sleeping outside into a structure that still requires them to leave their living space to meet their most basic needs. A Washroom Is a Basic Necessity Most people would not consider a house complete without a toilet, sink and access to running water. People transitioning out of homelessness should not be expected to accept a lower standard simply because they have fewer housing options. Imagine having to put on a coat and boots in the middle of a winter night to use the washroom. Imagine making that walk while sick, elderly, pregnant, living with a disability or managing medication that causes frequent urination. In Ontario, rain, snow, ice and extreme cold would the trip uncomfortable, undignified and possibly dangerous. A private washroom also allows residents to attend to personal hygiene, menstruation, medical needs and continence issues without having to explain themselves or enter a shared space. Privacy Supports Stability People experiencing homelessness often spend months or years without meaningful privacy. Shelters, encampments and public spaces rarely allow individuals to control who enters their environment or who witnesses their most personal moments. When people are finally housed, privacy becomes an important part of rebuilding safety and stability. Having a private washroom provides more than convenience. It gives residents control over their daily routines and creates a sense that their home truly belongs to them. A person should not have to carry toiletries across a property, wait in line or encounter other residents every time they need to use the washroom. These arrangements may also be particularly difficult for survivors of violence or trauma, people experiencing anxiety and those who feel unsafe in shared facilities. Accessibility Must Be Considered From the Beginning A central washroom may appear practical on a site plan, but it can create significant barriers for people with mobility challenges. Snow, ice, uneven ground, poor lighting and distance can make the route unsafe or inaccessible. Even residents who arrive without mobility limitations may experience illness, injury or changes in their health. Housing should be designed to support people through those changes and not become unusable when circumstances change. Accessible design is most effective when it is built into a project from the beginning. Retrofitting plumbing and washrooms later is often more difficult and expensive. Public Health and Cleanliness Matter Running water allows residents to wash their hands, clean their living space, prepare food safely and maintain personal hygiene. These everyday activities help prevent illness and support healthier living environments. Communal washrooms can be maintained safely, but they require frequent cleaning, monitoring, repairs and a reliable supply of hygiene products. When several people depend on one facility, a plumbing failure, frozen pipe or maintenance issue can affect the entire community. Individual washrooms reduce crowding and limit the number of people relying on a single facility. They also give residents greater responsibility for and control over the cleanliness of their own space. Communal Facilities Can Create Avoidable Conflict Shared washrooms may lead to lineups, disagreements about cleanliness, concerns about personal belongings and conflict over how long someone uses the facility. Staff may then be required to manage issues that could have been prevented through better design. Residents should be supported in developing independence and not placed in an environment where they must rely on staff to unlock, monitor or maintain access to basic sanitation. If a communal washroom closes temporarily, residents still need somewhere to go. A housing community should not be left without essential facilities because one shared building is unavailable. Lower Construction Costs Can Create Higher Operating Costs It is understandable that communities want to create housing quickly and stretch limited funding as far as possible. However, removing plumbing from individual units does not eliminate the cost of sanitation. It shifts that cost into a shared building and may add expenses related to cleaning, staffing, security, maintenance, snow removal and accessibility. Decisions should be based on the full cost of operating the community not just the initial price of constructing each cabin. Building units properly at the beginning may cost more, but it can produce safer, more durable housing and reduce the need for expensive renovations later. Emergency Shelter Should Not Become the Permanent Standard DARS recognizes that heated and air-conditioned sleep cabins can provide immediate protection from extreme weather. In a genuine emergency, a basic cabin may be safer than a tent or an encampment. However, an emergency response should not quietly become a permanent housing standard. If sleep cabins are introduced as a temporary measure, there should be a clear plan, timeline and funding pathway to upgrade them or help residents move into complete housing. Temporary solutions must remain temporary. People Deserve Homes, Not Just Beds Micro homes can be small without sacrificing dignity. Thoughtful design can include a compact washroom, a sink, running water, proper ventilation and safe wastewater connections while still keeping the overall footprint modest. The goal should not be to construct the smallest or least expensive structure a person can survive in. The goal should be to create a home that supports health, dignity, independence and a successful transition out of homelessness. At DARS, we believe people experiencing homelessness deserve the same basic considerations that the rest of us expect in our own homes. Electricity, heating and air conditioning are important but so are running water, sanitation and privacy. A door that locks provides safety. A bed provides rest. But a private washroom and running water help turn a cabin into a home. If we are serious about ending homelessness, dignity cannot be treated as an optional upgrade. It must be built in from the beginning.

Turn your home equity into flexibility in retirement

’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Is a reverse mortgage something to consider? For many Canadians 55 and better, much of their wealth is tied up in their home. A reverse mortgage by is a flexible financial solution designed to help you access your home equity, without having to sell your home or change long-term plans. What is a reverse mortgage A reverse mortgage such as the CHIP Reverse Mortgage, is designed exclusively for Canadian homeowners aged 55 and better, giving you access to the savings and capital in your home. You continue to live in your home and retain full ownership. It’s your money and your house, with no required monthly mortgage payments. How it works Access up to 55% of your home equity as tax-free cash Receive funds as a lump sum or over time No required monthly mortgage payments The loan is repaid when the home is sold What people commonly use it for Supplementing retirement income Travel or lifestyle goals Supporting family financially Funding home improvements Paying off existing debt Covering healthcare or unexpected expenses Retirement is yours to define Whether it’s pursuing new interests, supporting loved ones, or simply having more flexibility day-to-day, a reverse mortgage can help you access your home equity to support what matters most.

The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before

The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca If you grew up anywhere around Oshawa, the conversation about machines taking people's jobs has a familiar sound to it. Long before anybody was asking ChatGPT to write an email, people here were working beside machines that could weld, paint, move parts and do jobs once done by hand. By the mid-1980s, GM's Oshawa operations were becoming increasingly automated, and people worried about what that meant for the workers. They had good reason to. A machine could make the same weld over and over without getting tired. It could handle repetitive jobs and work around heat, fumes and conditions people were happy to avoid. But if the machine was doing the work, there was still the obvious question about the person who had been doing it before. That argument never really went away. What's changed is where the machines are showing up. Factory automation was easy to picture. You could see the robot on the plant floor moving steel or welding part of a car together. AI doesn't look like that. It may be sitting inside the same computer you've used for years. Someone in sales can use it to prepare for a meeting. A manager can hand it a spreadsheet and start asking questions that might once have taken an afternoon to answer. Nobody hears machinery running in the background. The work just gets done faster. That makes this round of automation different, especially for people who spent years believing machines were mainly a threat to factory jobs. Statistics Canada has estimated that roughly 60 per cent of Canadian employees could be highly exposed to AI-related changes in their work. That doesn't mean 60 per cent of jobs disappear. In many cases the technology may change the job rather than eliminate it. Oshawa has seen that before. Robots didn't bring an end to auto workers. They changed a lot of what those workers did. Somebody still had to operate the equipment, maintain it, solve problems and make decisions the machine couldn't make. When GM prepared the Oshawa plant for its 2021 restart, more than 1,200 new robots were installed. People and machines are still working in the same building. The office version of that relationship is only beginning. I've already seen it in my own work. A large part of compliance involves finding the right rule, checking the right document and making sure something hasn't been missed. There are days when the job feels less like solving a difficult problem and more like finding one sentence buried on page 47. AI can be very good at getting me to page 47. That doesn't mean I hand it a regulation and accept whatever comes back. I've spent enough time working in compliance to know that the difference between what sounds right and what's actually been checked is more or less the whole job. If something matters, I want to know where the answer came from. But if AI can get me to the right section in thirty seconds instead of twenty minutes, I'm going to use it. I suspect a lot of people will make the same calculation. The debate is often framed as humans versus machines, but workplaces are usually messier than that. Someone gets a new tool, figures out what it does well, and pretty quickly stops wanting to do the old job the old way. Some jobs will change dramatically and some will disappear. Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone. But that isn't the same as saying everyone whose work can be touched by AI is about to be replaced by it. People in Oshawa have heard versions of that prediction before. They heard it as more robots arrived on the assembly line, and they watched the work change around them. This time the machine may not be behind a safety fence on a factory floor. It may be sitting beside us at the desk

Up In The Air

Up In The Air By Wayne and Tamara I am a 21-year-old college senior looking forward to graduation in four months, pursuing a career and possibly my first love. So here’s the question… I’ve been in love with my first boyfriend, with whom I shared my first time, since I was 15. I knew I cared about him then, but I thought it was puppy love. Although the relationship didn’t last long, we dated again sophomore year of college and began “hooking up” again five months ago. We both dated other people in the interim. I’m beginning to realize I am really in love and thinking about a future with him. The problem is we go to school four hours away from each other. I’m 21, he’s 23. We also feel we deserve to “have fun” our last semester at college. The big problem is neither of us knows where we’ll end up after graduation. Plus, I’m not sure he knows how very much in love with him I am. I’m scared he’ll find somebody else if I don’t tell him. But I’m also not sure how he’ll take it if I do. He doesn’t show his emotions much. Am I insane in thinking everything will work out if I tell him? We’ve talked about it, and he’s never felt so “comfortable” with anyone before, but I’m not sure how he feels about a future with me. I think he feels the same or we wouldn’t keep going back to each other. Either way, I don’t want to scare him away by confessing my love and my hopes for a future, but I need to tell him how I feel! Kira Kira, when we read your letter, we wondered what it was really about. Is it about nothing ventured, nothing gained? Is it about the power of first love? Or is it about something else? Though we often tell people to be brave (ask the girl for a date, go for that job you want) we don’t think that’s your main issue. Though the “first time” can leave an indelible mark, we don’t think that’s the issue either. Look, you two are hooking up and “having fun” with multiple partners. By definition, that’s not love. You say he’s comfortable with you, but we’d bet he’s comfortable with every woman he hooks up with. Comfortable enough to be having casual sex with them. Near the end of the movie Up in the Air, a young woman is shown interviewing for a job in San Francisco. This will be her second job after college. When the interviewer asks why she took her first job, a dead-end job in Omaha, she answers candidly. “I followed a boy.” That’s what your letter is about. “I graduate in four months; I don’t know what job I’ll have; I don’t know where I’ll be. Everything is unsettled and I’m scared.” You are moving on to a completely different stage of life, and of course you are scared. But this man doesn’t love you enough to say, “I’m not comfortable with you hooking up with other men.” You don’t love him enough to say, “I’m not comfortable with you hooking up with other women.” Sex with no strings attached is the opposite of a genuine relationship. But at 21 with a college degree, all the possibilities of life are open to you. Don’t think about marriage and forever with a hookup. Go on! Get your new life. Hightail it to your college placement office and schedule job interviews. Explore all the possibilities. Embrace this challenge. Above all, don’t become that young woman who has to explain a blunder in her life by saying, “I followed a boy.” Wayne & Tamara

Stay Grounded with a Blueberry Bush

Stay Grounded with a Blueberry Bush Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones When the weight of the world feels too heavy, I find solace in going back to the basics. I look for something wholesome and dwell on it, or better, nurture it. In this instance, it was a roadside stand and a basket of blueberries that caught my attention. How wonderful to uncover the stories and possibilities of this little fruit, each one borne of an ovary of a single flower. Wholesome indeed. Most people still know, one hopes, that blueberries were only wild food not so long ago. Indigenous peoples across North America gathered and preserved them. One traditional name, “star berry,” refers to the tiny five-pointed star at the blossom end of the fruit. Just over a century ago, a New Jersey woman set blueberries on the course of a commodity food. Elizabeth Coleman White was the daughter of a cranberry farmer at Whitesbog in New Jersey's Pine Barrens. In 1910, she read a paper by Frederick Coville, a botanist investigating blueberry cultivation. Coville had discovered that blueberries required acidic soil, explaining why they flourished naturally in the Pine Barrens. White hired local woodsmen to search the surrounding countryside for bushes producing high volumes of large and sweet berries. The finders were paid for promising plants, and some varieties eventually carried the names of the people who discovered them. The Rubel variety was named for Rube Leek, who found the original wild bush. By 1916, a collaboration between White and Coville resulted in the first commercial crop of cultivated highbush blueberries. Today, there are sophisticated blueberry-breeding programs around the world. Researchers are developing varieties that can tolerate heat, resist disease, survive shipping and, perhaps most importantly, withstand mechanical harvesting. Blueberries have traditionally required hand-picking because ripe fruit is easily damaged. Now breeders are trying to produce berries firm enough to be harvested by machines, while remaining attractive and delicious to the consumer. Scientists are now using DNA markers to identify desirable traits. The best blueberries that Elizabeth White's workers selected by walking through the woods are now being selected with genetic information. Blueberries provide fibre, vitamin C, vitamin K and manganese, along with anthocyanins – the plant compounds responsible for their deep blue-purple colour. These nutrients are what make the blueberry stand out as a good choice to support cardiovascular and metabolic health. If you have a sunny patch of garden, it’s possible to grow your own bush. And breeders are making it easier to select the variety that suits your local conditions. Blueberries need acidic soil, along with good drainage and plenty of sunlight. An inexpensive soil-pH test from a garden centre can tell you whether your soil is suitable. If it isn't, a raised bed with properly prepared soil may be the easier route. With the right conditions, a blueberry bush can produce for decades. Not everyone has a garden, of course. Frozen blueberries are an excellent alternative, with most of the nutritional value staying intact. And there’s an additional benefit of having blueberries at hand. It’s a simple test for how well you are looking after your teeth. Eat some blueberries, then brush and floss your teeth. After swishing water in your mouth, if you spit out little bits of blueberry, it means there’s more work needed to clean between your teeth and around gums after meals. If you take the blueberry test regularly, you’ll keep your own teeth for a lifetime. Plus, you’ll get the benefit of general good health that comes when oral health is maintained. This is the time of year for pre-ordering plants from nurseries for pick-up or shipping next Spring. I have put in my order.

14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your Next Interviewer That Show You Mean

14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your Next Interviewer That Show You Mean Business By Nick Kossovan When asking your interviewer questions, the first rule is: don't ask pointless "what's in it for me” questions; focus on role-defining questions that show your primary goal is to contribute to the employer's success and to assess whether you align with the company and your prospective boss. While compensation, benefits, and perks matter, your priority should be establishing a mutual fit, not chasing money or paid time off. Most job seekers act like they're a suspect in an interrogation room defending their resume. This passive behaviour stems from misunderstanding the core nature of an interview. An interview isn't a test; it's a business meeting between two parties evaluating whether reaching a deal makes sense. When your interviewer asks if you have questions, they're shifting the power dynamic to you. 95% of candidates squander this opportunity by following advice from self-proclaimed career coaches and HR-approved platitudes. They ask what a typical day looks like, why the interviewer enjoys working there, or about promotion timelines. Safe questions signal you're looking for a comfortable place to park yourself, offering no evidence that you're serious about driving business results. As a job seeker, aim to stand out. Eliciting candid, unscripted responses is an effective way to do so. Sharp hiring managers—I count myself among them—want pragmatists who understand that business runs on results, not feelings. Asking questions that demonstrate your grasp of operational realities sets you apart from candidates who lack the backbone to ask tough questions. Here are 14 bare-knuckle questions to ask your next interviewer to show you're committed to contributing to the company. Interrogating the Operational Reality 1. "Every department has a fire. What's the burning issue in this role that the job description glossed over?" Job descriptions often serve as sanitized PR handouts. Identifying what's truly broken before committing to a fix saves everyone time. 2. “Let’s skip the honeymoon phase; if I’m hired, what’s the single biggest headache I’ll face?” Asking this signals you're not expecting a cakewalk and want a clear view of the operational realities. 3. "What did the last person in this role do or fail to do that reshaped your expectations for this position?" This question cuts through ambiguous job descriptions and pinpoints the specific mistakes you're expected to avoid. 4. "Let's assume we're sitting here a year from now and I've knocked it out of the park. What tangible business problem did I solve?" Pressing your interviewer to define measurable success helps you assess whether it's achievable given your skills and experience. 5. "What's the biggest political roadblock in this department that frequently delays projects?" Denying that every office has politics is amateurish. Asking this question shows you can and, more importantly, are willing to navigate organizational landmines. Evaluating the Internal Culture 6. "Every company touts its great culture, yet no culture is perfect. What's the most frustrating cultural norm a new hire must adapt to?" Sidestepping standard recruiting rhetoric reveals the unwritten rules and internal friction you'll encounter. 7. "If I asked your main competitor [better yet, name the employer's main competitor] about your company's biggest operational weakness, what would they say?" Asking this signals that you care about market share and competitive threats, setting you apart from candidates who focus solely on daily task management. 8. "When projects fail here, as they do everywhere, how does leadership manage the fallout?" Observing your interviewer's reaction to this question reveals whether the executive team prioritizes accountability or self-preservation. 9. "When people leave this department, what's the most common reason they leave?" Probing turnover patterns brings underlying retention problems to light, so you don't unknowingly walk into a toxic department. 10. "When was the last time this company took a hit to the bottom line to uphold its stated values?" Anyone can print a mission statement. This question prompts your interviewer to demonstrate that the company stands by its principles under financial pressure. Reading Your Interviewer's Mind & Closing 11. "You've been here for a while. What was the biggest disillusionment you encountered during your first six months, and why did you stay?" Lowering your interviewer's guard encourages them to share an honest, personal assessment of the firm. 12. "What do I need to do in this role to make your job easier?" Asking this shows you understand that your primary role as a hire is to relieve your manager of pressure. 13. "How long do you realistically expect it to take for a new hire in this position to generate more value than they cost?" Asking tough business questions like this positions you not as an expense but as a revenue generator or protector. 14. "If I accept this role, what's the one mistake I could make in my first 90 days that would be hardest to recover from?" Showing you anticipate make-or-break pitfalls proves you possess foresight and respect probation for the trial by fire that it is. These 14 questions are high-risk, high-reward. An insecure would-be boss will find them intimidating; thus, you dodge a bad-boss bullet, which is a good thing. However, a true leader, someone worth working for, will sit back, smile, and recognize (read: respect) that the person in front of them is operating from a position of strength

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                                               We Built the Housing. Where Do We Put the Cars? More housing is needed. But when we put more people into smaller spaces, the cars, school traffic, and charging problems do not simply disappear. Come home tonight and look down your street. Not at the houses. Look at the cars. Maybe there are two in a driveway, another at the curb, and one squeezed in front of a neighbour's house. Perhaps visitor parking is full. Now think about that street five or ten years ago. Something has changed. Cities across Canada and the United States need housing. Apartments are going higher. Townhouses are being built closer together. More people are living on the same amount of land. We need those homes. But families have changed too. Housing costs mean adult children may stay home longer. Several generations can live together. Working adults may share a rental because living alone costs too much. Four adults can easily mean three or four cars. Give that household one parking space, and the other cars do not vanish. They go somewhere. Usually, that means the street. Now picture 3:15 outside a school. Parents arrive for pickup. Cars line the curb. Someone stops near a roundabout. Another driver tries to turn around on a dead end street. A homeowner is trying to reach the driveway. Then add a delivery truck, garbage truck, snowplow, or emergency vehicle. Suddenly a street that worked perfectly well for years feels completely different. People get frustrated. Neighbours blame neighbours. Bylaw gets called. But maybe we are blaming the wrong people. Planners face a real problem. Governments want more housing, land is expensive, and parking takes space and money. Ontario has removed minimum parking requirements near major transit stations as part of its effort to lower housing costs. The province has said an underground parking space in a new development can cost as much as $100,000. That deserves to be part of this conversation. Some rental developments also encourage transit use, including programs that can make taking the bus or train more attractive. Good idea, when it works. But not everybody works nine to five. Some people work nights, carry tools, or travel between communities. A transit option only replaces a car if it can take someone where they need to go, when they need to get there. Then comes another question. Electric vehicles. Natural Resources Canada recognizes that people living in apartments and other multi unit buildings can face problems getting access to home charging. The federal government has supported work aimed at improving charging for buildings without individual driveways or garages. So why are we not planning for that before construction? Without proper charging, residents are left searching for practical places to plug in. That can lead to cords, questions about electricity, and arguments over who can charge where. Some high density developments work very well. Put housing near good transit, stores, schools, and jobs, and fewer cars may be needed. The problem is not density. The problem is pretending every neighbourhood works the same way. A downtown apartment beside frequent transit is different from a townhouse development where most residents drive to work. Some places need more parking. Others need better transit, visitor spaces, or EV chargers. There is no magic number. But there had better be a plan. A parking ticket cannot fix a planning decision made five years earlier. Neither can two neighbours arguing beside a blocked driveway. So tonight, look down your street. Count the cars. Look at the school corner. Look at the roundabout. Look at the driveways. If you're already thinking, “I know exactly what he's talking about,” then this problem has already reached your neighbourhood. Build the apartments. Build the townhouses. Build the homes people need. Just remember something basic. When we build housing for more people, we also have to build a community that can handle them. Housing does not end at the front door. Neither does good planning.

How do you rob a thief?

How do you rob a thief? By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Question: How do you rob a thief? wouldn’t that be nice if we could turn the tables, give those greedy, good for nothing, self entitled, thieving buggers a taste of the pain that is being inflicted on thousands of victims every year. I bet they would be furious, “how dare someone take my precious possessions that I have gained through all of my thieving ways” yah I’m talking to you, Sly and all your despicable brothers in arms. It all comes down to time, 5 seconds is all it takes to kick in a door, break or, crawl through a window that is unlatched or even worse left wide open, “the window of opportunity” in our last episode we provided some simple and extremely effective means to “FORTIFY” the most popular point of entry, the front entrance, I’m confident that we have eliminated the threat and Sly has used up at least a couple of minutes, he knows that he created some noise and attention! But still determined, So, what’s next? Well, let’s at least get out of the field of vision, the side of the house has in most cases another door, this is where the builder has provided a laundry room and quite often tucked in behind the garage. If this is not fortified it may fall victim to a heavy kick or two so let’s get out that toolbox and use the same defence mode for this door, a couple of “Guardian Flip Latches” extra long screws for the hinges and an extra long strike plate and screws on the lock side! Now, that window beside the door, great for providing natural light in a dark corner of the house and also easy to crawl through, after making more noise on the second door with no success, Sly is still motivated and pumped up on adrenaline, two more minutes consumed but still determined to get what he wants, he grabs the chair or garbage can that’s conveniently left at his disposal and he’s in, well at least we have taken 4 of the average 8 to 10 minutes that a burglary takes according to “Stats Can” Its interesting to me when I think of home security I think of engineering standards, you need to test any product by breaking it first, putting it through extensive pressure, bending it until it breaks simply to find out the “breaking point” building it up to the point of resistance, then, providing a strength multiplier and that is your “fail safe” limit. Exactly the same principle applies to home security! If you could continue to provide sufficient resistance to all points of entry you will come to a point that Sly will buzz off! in this case we took away 4 minutes of the precious 8 needed and you still suffered a loss, 4 minutes of hell! you have been violated! Now in some cases it may not be your front door that is the first point of entry, if you back on to a school yard or a wooded area then, Patio doors, family room windows and the basement may be the preferred point of entry. On my next episode to the world of resisting Sly and his cohorts, we will go back to that laundry room window, look at “Target Hardening” that point of entry and then move on the forest and school yard dwellers. The answer to the question, how do you rob a thief? Simple, you take away their time! Not on my watch, Sly. stay tuned!

Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right - They're About Getting It Right

Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right - They're About Getting It Right By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE As we move deeper into a municipal election, I think we need to remind ourselves of something that is becoming increasingly lost in today's political environment: Municipal government should be about the good of the community - not party politics. I have met candidates in this election who would probably describe themselves as being on the right. I have met candidates from the left. I have met centrists. And I have met others who simply don't fit comfortably into any political box. In my view, some of the strongest candidates are the ones who don't start the conversation by asking whether an idea is conservative, liberal, left-wing or right-wing. They ask a much simpler question: Is it good for our community? That is the kind of thinking municipal government desperately needs. Fiscal Responsibility Is Not a Political Ideology There are people across the political spectrum who possess an excellent sense of fiscal responsibility. You don't need a Conservative membership card to understand a balance sheet. You don't need a Liberal membership card to understand infrastructure. And you don't need an NDP membership card to care about social programs. In fact, perhaps municipal government works best when councillors leave their party cards at the door. Every person elected to council has a responsibility to treat taxpayers' money prudently. That isn't right-wing. It isn't left-wing. It's responsible government. But fiscal responsibility also doesn't mean cutting everything in sight. Quite the opposite. The purpose of controlling spending is to ensure that we have the financial capacity to properly fund the things municipal government is actually responsible for delivering. Fiscal Responsibility and Social Responsibility Can Coexist This is where I think our political conversation has gone badly off course. Some people have been conditioned to believe that fiscal responsibility and social responsibility are competing philosophies. They aren't. A municipality can be fiscally disciplined while also caring deeply about its residents. We need good roads. We need bridges and sidewalks. We need safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. We need fire protection and emergency services. We need parks, recreation and community infrastructure. And municipalities have important responsibilities connected to housing, transit and social services, particularly at the regional level. These things cost money. A lot of money. And if municipal governments continually expand into discretionary programs and activities while their core infrastructure deteriorates, eventually something has to give. Usually, it is the taxpayer. Review What Government Is Actually Doing That is why I continue to advocate for a comprehensive services and mandate review. Put everything municipal government does on the table. Ask what is legislatively required. Ask what is essential to the operation and safety of the community. Ask what delivers measurable value to residents. And then have the courage to ask another question: What are we spending money on that municipal government does not need to be doing? That doesn't automatically mean eliminating every discretionary service. Some discretionary programs provide tremendous community value. But every dollar should have to compete for priority. If a program is consuming taxpayer dollars while roads, bridges, fire services, housing responsibilities or other essential infrastructure are underfunded, council should be prepared to reconsider that spending. And here is the part people sometimes miss: Saving money in one area can allow us to spend more where people genuinely need it. A services review isn't necessarily about spending less. It is about spending better. If we eliminate programs that no longer make sense and redirect those dollars into infrastructure, housing, emergency services, recreation or social programs where municipalities have genuine responsibilities, we can simultaneously become more fiscally responsible and more socially responsible. The Best Candidates Challenge Their Own Side Media and social media have increasingly conditioned people to line up on one side or the other. Left versus right. Conservative versus progressive. Us versus them. Municipal government cannot afford that mentality. The candidates who have impressed me most during this election are those prepared to challenge the conventional thinking of whichever political camp they may personally come from. A fiscally conservative candidate should still be able to say: "This social program is necessary, it is working, and we should properly fund it." A socially progressive candidate should be equally capable of saying: "This program isn't working, it isn't a municipal priority, and taxpayers shouldn't continue paying for it." That isn't abandoning your principles. That is leadership. Fix the Roads and Strengthen the Social Fabric There should be nothing contradictory about wanting excellent infrastructure and strong social infrastructure. There should be nothing contradictory about demanding value for taxpayers while protecting vulnerable residents. And there should be nothing contradictory about reducing unnecessary spending while increasing investment in services that actually matter. That is what mature municipal government looks like. The next generation of municipal leaders should not be elected because they perfectly represent the political left or political right. They should be elected because they understand budgets, infrastructure, community needs and the responsibility that comes with spending someone else's money. They should understand that every dollar wasted on yesterday's political pet project is a dollar that cannot repair tomorrow's bridge, support a housing initiative, improve a park, replace aging infrastructure or strengthen an essential service. Leave the Party Cards at the Door Municipal councils don't need ideological warriors. They need problem solvers. They need people willing to examine every program, every service and every expenditure without first asking which political tribe will applaud the decision. Fiscal responsibility without social responsibility can lose sight of the people government exists to serve. Social responsibility without fiscal responsibility eventually becomes financially unsustainable. Good municipal government requires both. So as voters evaluate candidates in this election, perhaps the question shouldn't be: Is this candidate left-wing or right-wing? Perhaps the better questions are: Can they manage our money? Do they understand what municipal government is responsible for? Will they protect our infrastructure? Will they care for the people who genuinely need municipal services? And will they have the courage to stop spending money on things that no longer make sense? Those are not left-wing principles. They are not right-wing principles. They are community principles. And municipal elections should ultimately be about one thing: Not left. Not right. Moving our community forward.

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.