North Americans Should Replicate Japanese Lifestyle

North Americans Should Replicate Japanese Lifestyle By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford The Japanese have an expression, “Effort never betrays you.” A visit to Japan this past week has been a reminder that hard work and perseverance are enduring elements of the national identity. Both of us first visited Japan decades ago – in 1962 and 1988. This latest visit has provided the opportunity for perspective. What’s fascinating about Japan is, whether it’s bureaucrats or street youth setting the course, the whole of society moves together in getting on board with policies and trends. This cohesion is part of Japan’s remarkable improvement in key health indicators, such as life expectancy, now among the longest in the world. It’s been easy to see this change by looking at smoking customs. Japan used to be a great cloud of smoke – in offices, homes, restaurants, and on the street. Today, there are polite signs everywhere reminding people that smoking is not allowed. Smoking inside the home and in the office were the first prohibitions, and now even on the streets, in parks, train stations, and restaurants, smoking is not allowed. There are no butts to be found on the ground. Not one. Policy changes regarding smoking, and societal adherence, are a big win for Japanese society. Lung cancer and other smoking-related disease are declining as a result. The Japanese are also keeping an eye out for how to improve their diet. What’s noticeable today is a reduction in the consumption of salt. As a result of public health campaigns, the Japanese have reduced their daily salt intake from over 12 grams per person to much closer to the daily recommended amount of 6 grams. Are there people who are obese in Japan? They are not easy to find. Sumo wrestlers are the obvious exception. We respectfully suggest it is a sport so out of date that it should be retired or relegated to a historical society. It’s more ceremonial show than physical craft. And good grief, women, even doctors, are barred from stepping foot on the contest platform because they are considered impure! Pity the wrestlers too, who die prematurely, on average in their mid-60s. Thankfully, sumo is not trending up. Instead, most citizens observe the uniquely Japanese custom of “filling the stomach to 80%” – more than enough to make it to the next meal. The Japanese lifestyle involves regular walking, a lot of bicycle riding, sports club participation, and social health promotion activities. Don’t forget that nearly every person in Japan gets down on their knees, squats, sits on the floor, and gets up from these positions, multiple times a day – and through their seniormost years. With a religious-like dedication, they take leisurely baths at the end of each day. It’s a form of therapy that doesn’t get a lot of credit as an ingredient of long-term health promotion, but it probably should. One problem remains, that of antiquated customs that tie men relentless to the workplace, even in their leisure activities, and that discourage women from advancing their careers. In general, the Japanese population could be described as happy, but there are enough people suffering from over work and related mental ill health that the overall average is pulled down. Cancer, too, is an intractable challenge and has been the leading cause of death for several decades. But improvements in early detection are leading to better survival rates. Still 30% of deaths in Japan are due to cancer. What’s another big challenge? A population in decline. From a peak of about 128 million in 2008, Japanese will number less than 100 million by 2050. Neither government nor youth appear motivated to apply their efforts in addressing this challenge. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

Tariffs and War A look through the Looking Glass

Tariffs and War A look through the Looking Glass By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering For those who have watched Back to the Future, you might be starting to wonder if Donald Trump used a TESLA TIME MACHINE to travel forward from 1812 to 2025. Here we are in the first week of April 2025, and it is as if we are once again playing out the same War but this time using Tariffs as the weapon of choice. While I do not support what the Trump administration has imposed around the world and in particular here in Canada nor will I ever understand how anyone would chose a mission that has isolated the USA from the world and just like in 1812 has brought us together as a diverse group Canadians, strengthening our pride and love of Country while at the same time building relationships with our allies. It has forced us to not only celebrate Canada but to gain greater independence from our cousins the USA. Canada has earned the right to be respected, the Trump Administration obviously as their forefathers did in 1812 under estimated who we are and how united we are. To understand this one only has to revisit our history, the War of 1812, a conflict that shaped who we are. The war lasted from 1812 to 1814, the United States just like Trump had a desire to expand its territory viewing Canada as weak, launching several invasions. But like today the USA underestimated Canada. In 1812 the British along with First Nations Warriors defended our boundaries against the the US forces. Similarly, today, it has fostered a sense of Canadian identity and pride, bringing together Canadians of all diverse backgrounds, who chose Canada as their homeland. The War of1812 until the Trump era had an everlasting impact on our relationship with the USA and for Centuries and Decades to follow was based on a foundation of mutual respect, peace and co-operation. So what has changed? While Canada prospered and continued on its own journey, the USA became stagnant and rather than looking from with-in, as in 1812 blamed its allies targeting Canada to the North. Rather than guns and bullets, the USA today are using Tariffs, placing high taxes on goods failing to recognize how it will harm their own Country. Obviously they never learn. Had they used their TESLA TIME MACHINE and travelled back to 1773 to “The Boston Tea Party”, they could have avoided what the consequences of their actions will be today in 2025. They in the USA will face unrest and who knows maybe another Civil War from with-in (But that is a story for another day) But now lets travel forward to 2027, the Tariff/Trade War has ended, and once again Canada and our World allies remained strong and united, while unfortunately the good people of the USA will end up paying the price as a result of a needless War, the Trump Team launched on the World and lost. YES HISTORY REPEATS ITS SELF.

Is a renter always a tenant?

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

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

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

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

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

TrumpedChumpedand left for Stupid…

trumped chumped and left for stupid... By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Sometimes I feel like I am the only one awake. Does no one else see the business move Trump is pulling on the world and everyone is falling for it? Trump comes from the corporate world. A place where you have to win all the time. Open challenge normally is met with total annihilation. Or in what we all have got to know as ‘YOUR FIRED’. Challenging Trump on the Tariffs is economic suicide. Look at what is taking place in Canada. Before tariffs were even sanctioned. Companies laid off. Companies threaten economic downfall. Suppliers, threatened price increases.... What Trump has done is expose the vultures in our economy. The vultures that look for any opportunity to slim the work force and increase prices. Much like this crap about ‘BUY CANADIAN’. The question is why have we not been buying Canadian all along? Why because traditionally Canadian made products cost more. So people obviously went with China and the U.S. Look at the local municipalities for example. They are all quick for the photo opportunity, extending opinion and resolve on an issue they have no clue what they are saying other than parrot what the main media spews. FEAR MONGERING. This is ridiculous. Personally, I think what Trump has done should be a wake up call to all average hard working taxpayers. We are getting ripped off. Our tax dollars are being wasted. Back to Trump. What do we do. NOTHING. Let him put tariffs on us. Let him think he has won. Then, when he comes around wanting something. Here is where we negotiate for a Canada win. Us imposing tariffs on U.S. goods does nothing for our economy and puts us on a weak spot in future negotiations. As every attempt to negotiate will lead to the same resolve. We as Canadians have to be smarter. Trump worries about borders. Ok, we as a sovereign nation. Will open all our borders across Canada. No security. Let the Americans build another wall to the north. As for the pipeline. Sure let’s build it. But we would claim special building funds for the next 100 years for crossing our land. A lease of sort. As for U.S. goods coming to Canada. No Tariff. Let’s pull what China has for years. Use American goods and services to strength our country. Charge double on their needs without mentioning tariff. Remember it not personal it’s good sound business.

United States Tariffs and the Canadian Federal Election

United States Tariffs and the Canadian Federal Election by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world is in real turmoil and the “Liberation Day Tariffs” issued by the President of the United States Donald Trump created tsunami waves on trade relations we have been accustomed too. It is a new world in the making with an unforeseeable future. For the moment, it seems that we are living in a Trump-generated chaos. It is quite clear that United States President Donald Trump's move to levy tariffs on virtually every country will sink the global economy, torpedo economic growth and prompt devastating consequences for workers and businesses in Canada and around the world. Using national emergency powers, Trump announced 10% tariffs on all imports into the United States, and even higher tariffs on goods from about 60 countries or trading blocs that have a high trade deficit with the US. That includes China and the European Union, which will be levied new duties of 34% and 20%, respectively. Trump’s latest actions represent the most significant escalation in US tariffs in nearly a century, since the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs won’t match the ones foreign countries impose on the United States unless a country already had a 10% US tariff. “We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us, so the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal,” Trump said from the Rose Garden last week. “I could have done that, I guess, but it would have been tough for a lot of countries and we didn’t want to do that.” For example, instead of matching the European Union’s 39% tariff on US goods, the new duty on the EU will be 20%. China, which was already slapped with a 20% tariff for its role in the fentanyl trade, will be levied an additional 34% — half of the 67% tariff it imposes on the US — bringing its new rate to 54%. About 60 countries will see tariffs higher than 10%. The baseline 10% tariff goes into effect on April 4, one minute after midnight. The higher tariffs will go into effect on April 9. The new tariffs won’t add on to tariffs previously announced on steel, aluminum and cars. The 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada that don’t comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will remain in place until Trump determines that issues around fentanyl and illegal immigration have been resolved. Whenever that happens, Canada and Mexico will then default to the administration’s current trade approach for other countries. Fortunately, for the moment it seems that Canada is in the eye of the storm and was spared additional tariffs on this fatidic day of the world, April 2nd. In this doomsday of the world economy, Canada was excluded from the sweeping new round of reciprocal tariffs. It appears, at first glance, to be a welcome reprieve for Canadian industry, but the reality is more complicated. While we have dodged the latest bullet, the previously announced tariffs, particularly on autos, steel, and aluminum remain a considerable threat. As Canada is in the middle of a crucial election politically, the question becomes: does this development take pressure off the governing Liberals and their leader, Mark Carney, or does it open the door for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives to highlight other concerns? Carney said Trump's tariffs against Canadian goods are "unjustified, unwarranted and misguided," and the country must hit back with what he called "carefully calibrated and targeted countermeasures" to make it clear Canada will not stand for this sort of economic broadside. The Liberal leader said the government would levy a tariff on U.S.-made vehicles that are not compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), to match what the Americans did to the Canadian auto industry. Carney said the U.S. trade war is already having an impact, Stellantis will idle its massive Windsor, Ontario, auto assembly plant because of Trump's tariffs. Ottawa "will do everything in our power" to protect workers, including with financial assistance, he said. Carney said Trump is dismantling the world trading system and Canada must make a hard pivot to build up its own economy and pursue better relations with "reliable" trading partners, including Commonwealth countries like Australia and the U.K., but also Mexico, France and other countries in Europe. "We must do extraordinary things for ourselves, we must do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven't seen in generations," Carney said, promising to turbocharge economic development with an ambitious building program. "We are living in a new world now. It will be hard on Canadians but I have no doubt we will rise to the challenge," he said, adding that the country has rallied in the past in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and can do so again. Carney said Canada's "old relationship" with the U.S. is "over" and the decades-long push to become more integrated with the Americans will come to an end as Trump ramps up his attacks on the country. However, Carney said there is still an opportunity to come to some sort of an agreement with Trump on economic and security issues after the upcoming federal election. Carney said he agreed with Trump to sit down after the campaign — if he wins the election — to renegotiate CUSMA, which has been left in tatters as a result of the president's trade war. In these fast evolving events the Conservative Party seems to have been left adrift. The party concentrated its campaign on Trudeau lead liberals and seems to be unable to pivot in response to evolving events; to embrace a new approach in the face of a real threat of economic disaster. We are still in the early stages of the electoral campaign, and we will see if the Conservative Party is able to find a solution to reverse its fast and furious decline in popularity. It looks like the strong disapproval Trudeau suffered over the past two years masked the underlying weakness of the Conservative electoral coalition. As soon as he was gone, the dissatisfaction started to come undone, revealing a country that, for demographic reasons, has a natural tendency to elect progressives. There are some days left until Election Day, but unless some big things change soon, it looks like Poilievre is going to discover that the supporters who brought him close to the precipice of power were the wrong people to get him over the top. Voice your opinion. Get out and vote!

Turn Off the Panic: Why Pre-Planning a Death Matters

Turn Off the Panic: Why Pre-Planning a Death Matters By Dale Jodoin Inspired by a father’s real experience When someone dies, there is sadness, confusion, and sometimes even panic. Most people don’t realize that when a loved one dies, the family has to make more than 80 decisions within just a few days. These decisions are hard, and they cost money. For low-income families, this can be too much to handle. The person writing this article saw their father go through it. When a close family member passed, their father had to make dozens of decisions while grieving. It was painful, stressful, and expensive. That’s why this article was written — to help other families get ready before it happens. There’s good news. You can plan ahead. It’s called pre-planning, and it can help your family save time, money, and pain when the time comes. This article explains what pre-planning is, why it matters, and how to do it — even if you don’t have a lot of money. What Is Pre-Planning? Pre-planning means making choices about what you want after you die — before it happens. This can include things like: Do you want to be buried or cremated? Do you want a big funeral or something small? Who do you want to handle your belongings? What music or prayers do you want at your service? It may feel strange to think about death. But planning ahead is one of the kindest things you can do for your family. Why Pre-Planning Is Important When someone dies, loved ones are often shocked and upset. At the same time, they have to make lots of quick decisions. These choices can be hard, especially when people don’t know what the person wants. Families may argue or feel guilt. Some people end up spending too much money, thinking it shows more love. Pre-planning helps in three ways: It takes pressure off your family. It helps avoid arguments and confusion. It saves money. When you make these decisions in advance, your family can just follow your wishes. That way, they can spend more time supporting each other instead of stressing out. What If I Don’t Have a Lot of Money? Many people think pre-planning is only for the rich. That’s not true. Even if you’re low-income, you can still plan. In fact, it’s even more important for families with tight budgets. Here are some money-saving tips for pre-planning: Cremation is often cheaper than burial. Simple caskets can still be respectful and beautiful. You don’t need a fancy hall — services can be held at home, in a church, or at a community center. You don’t need flowers or catering — a potluck or snack table is fine. The most important thing is to be clear about what you want. That saves your family from guessing and spending money they don’t have. The 87 Decisions Families Must Make You might be surprised, but when someone dies, the family must quickly make up to 87 decisions. Here are just a few examples: Who do we call first? Which funeral home do we use? What kind of service do we have? What clothes will they wear? What day will the funeral be? What music will be played? Who will speak at the funeral? What do we do with their bank accounts? How many death certificates do we need? These are hard questions to answer quickly. That’s why pre-planning helps so much. Create a Death Checklist Making a simple checklist helps keep things organized. Here’s an easy one you can copy and fill in: Your Simple Pre-Planning Checklist Who do I want to handle when I die? Name: ________________________________ Do I want a burial or cremation? [ ] Burial [ ] Cremation Where should I be buried or have my ashes placed? Do I want a funeral service? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, where: ________________________ What music or reading would I like? Do I have a will? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, where is it kept? _____________ Tip: Find a lawyer who can help for free — many legal clinics and community centers offer this service. Do I want people to donate money to a cause instead of sending flowers? Cause: _______________________________ What should happen to my pets? Who should be told about my death right away? Any special instructions or wishes? Keep this checklist somewhere safe, like in a file marked “In Case of Death,” and tell a trusted friend or family member where to find it. Talk About It Now — Not Later It’s okay to talk about death. It doesn’t mean you’re giving up. It means you care about the people you’ll leave behind. Sit down with your family and say, “I want to make things easier for you when the time comes.” Some people also choose to talk to a local funeral home, church, or community group. Many offer free help with planning. Don’t Forget About Help In Canada, some provinces and cities offer death benefit programs for people with low income. These can help pay for a basic cremation or burial. You can also ask your local social services office or Indigenous support groups if you qualify for help. Some charities and churches also help families with final costs. It’s always okay to ask. Final Thoughts: Love Never Forgets Planning for death doesn’t take away from life. In fact, it protects the people you love. By making these decisions now, you give your family a gift: peace of mind. You don’t need a lot of money to plan. You just need a little time, a pen, and love in your heart. Remember — love never forgets. And that’s what pre-planning is all about.

The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up

The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up By Councillor Lisa Robinson We’ve all heard it before: “Don’t split the vote.” It's the line the political establishment uses to scare good people into supporting bad candidates. But let’s be honest—this is nothing more than a tactic to keep you locked into a broken system, one that no longer serves the people it was meant to represent. The truth is, there’s no such thing as splitting the vote when your vote never truly belonged to a party in the first place. Your vote is yours. It belongs to your conscience, your values, and your future—not to strategists in Ottawa or party insiders trying to control the outcome. The past few years under Liberal leadership have been nothing short of disastrous. Taxes are up. Food prices have skyrocketed. Gas is unaffordable. Our small businesses have suffered. Families are stretched thin, seniors are being left behind, and young people are losing hope. This government has bled us dry while smiling for the cameras—and they have the nerve to ask for four more years? And now, in Pickering–Brooklin, they’ve parachuted in a Liberal candidate who doesn’t even live here—she lives in Markham. Let that sink in. She doesn’t share your streets, your schools, or your struggles. But she wants to represent you? On the other side, we have the so-called Conservative candidate—also not from Pickering. Not even from Durham. Dropped in from elsewhere, with no skin in the game, no history with our people, and no understanding of what we’ve been through. And worst of all? This same individual pushed vaccine mandates on innocent people—including marginalized communities—forcing people to choose between feeding their families or complying with a political agenda. How could anyone support that over someone who has been in the trenches with you—fighting, sacrificing, and standing firm when it mattered most? That’s why I chose to run for the People’s Party of Canada. Because I know what it means to stand up—when it’s hard, when it’s costly, and when you’re standing alone. If I didn’t step forward now, I would never be able to look myself in the mirror. I’d be betraying everything I believe in—and everyone who put their trust in me. This isn’t about ego. It’s about principle. It’s about truth. It’s about doing everything in my power to give you a real voice in a system that has tried again and again to silence people like us. I’ve faced council censorship. I’ve gone without pay for nearly a year. I’ve been smeared and attacked because I dared to expose corruption, speak honestly, and refuse to be bought or bullied. And I’m still here—because I refuse to quit on you. They’ll say I’m splitting the vote. I say I’m offering the only real choice. Because when your options are a Liberal who doesn’t live here, has ruined our economy, made life unaffordable and a so called conservative who pushed mandates on your children, the question isn’t “Why vote for me?” The real question is: Why on earth would you vote for them? Your vote is your voice. And it’s time to use it not out of fear—but with boldness. With courage. With the conviction that we, the people, still hold the power in this country. They can try to divide us. They can parachute in strangers. But they can’t stop the truth. And they can’t stop a people who are finally ready to rise. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor, A True Conservative MP Candidate for the People’s Party of Canada

Do we need municipal government?

do we need municipal government?

By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States You always hear... Democracy is failing society... Democracy is under siege. When in reality Democracy is the vehicle that allows the people to elect someone to office. Traditionally, the electorate selected candidates based on credentials and stature in the community. People they could trust to work in their best interest. This worked well for hundreds of years as long as it was a communal mentality. In today's modern society it still works fine as a vehicle for selecting representatives. The problem is the quality of representative is what has become questionable as most of those elected do not have life experience, the academic qualification and or intellect to be able to make the decisions that they are faced once in office. So what do we have. Wasted tax payers money. Little or no representation. Think about this. When was the last time you ran into your local or regional council member? Do you even know who they are? Then how is it they are representing you? Do you know the issues? Do you know what is happening in your community? If you answered ‘NO’, to any of the above. Then you proven my point. Modern day municipal government is a waste of money. We have no representation. Unfortunately, those elected may not even have the answers. As they depend on staff recommendations and peer opinion. Not on hard sound decision making based on common sense and rational thinking. Look at Oshawa. They spend millions of taxpayers dollars to erect a park next to a park. The ED BROADBENT park next to Lakeview. Is that sound, rational planning? Or wise expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers. This is one example. Now you can’t blame those elected? As they have clearly proven they have no clue what they are doing. It has become so bad... that most of the municipalities across Durham have shut down public access to the municipal offices. The public is so fed up that out of desperation they see municipal government as the enemy. Oshawa, a municipal fortress with three levels of security. Civic, police and a 2 million dollar para-military security firm that primarily protects the mayor and council members from taxpayers. Is this what we pay our taxes for? Don’t think so. But let’s not blame the incompetent we elected in office as they do not have the life experience and or intellect to deal with the general public. Once elected they employ a hit and miss approach towards matters. What we need is to vote based on credentials. Life experience. Imagine how much we the taxpayers would save with just a regional government. We need to get government back to the people and out of the hands of incompetents.

The Spring Market

The Spring Market By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist With the melting of the snow and the emergence of the birds, like clockwork every year, comes the age-old question; how is the market looking? Well in a nutshell, we don’t quite know. This year, perhaps more than others, it is up in the air. This is due to a few different things. One of course is the American trade war. The uncertainty of what that will mean exactly and how it will play out, has experts and analysts on both sides of the boarder in a bit of a quandary as to what to predict in terms of markets and interest rates. In Durham Region, the housing market has been strong for a while now. First time buyers are making their presence known in a big way. With interest rates in decline in the last several months, home ownership has seen a renewed sense of hope as first-timers scramble to get into the market. The bank of Canada was apparently considering holding the rate in March, according to Tiff Macklem, but due to the impending trade war with the U.S. decide to lower it once again. Does that mean they will continue to lower it? Perhaps they intend to hold it now and take a wait and see approach. Regardless of what the bank of Canada does with the interest rate, people are nervous. The uncertainty of what will happen is casting worry across many sectors. People are preparing to batten down the hatches. Some real estate professionals are wondering how this could affect the cottage market. With more and more people opting for a staycation, keeping their dollars in Canada, perhaps the cottage rental market will see a boon. From coast to coast there are miles of waterfront, and lovely cottages of all sizes and shapes that dot those shorelines. While it is hard to say exactly what will happen, one thing is certain, it is times like these that force people to become more resourceful, more creative, and definitely more independent. I recall something that my uncle used to say all the time when I was a child; This too, shall pass. And so it has been all of my life.

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted By Nick Kossovan People—hiring managers, recruiters, receptionists, your network, human resources—are what carbonates the job search experience. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that how you're interpreted (read: perceived) is the deciding factor in whether your networking efforts bear fruit, whether you're referred, whether you move along in the hiring process, and whether you're ultimately hired. This truism echoes the cautionary words of American rapper and actor Jaden Smith: "Be careful with how you make the world perceive you because they'll perceive you like that for the rest of your life." Undeniably, image is everything. Yet, many job seekers fail to manage their image effectively and wonder why they're stuck in a lengthy job search. Basically, interpreting someone involves attributing meaning to information, which could be visual (how the person is dressed, physical mannerisms, the car they drive, what they're eating, how they keep their work area) or auditory (accent, use of slang, lexicons, profanity, pronunciation). We do this constantly while communicating, which is why communication is messy. For an employer to whittle down a stack of applications to the one they'll hire, they must interpret what they know and see, making judgments that sometimes lead to accusations of bias or "ism." According to philosopher Hannah Arendt, identity is formed through public actions; we become who we are based on how others see us. Thus, "people treat you as they see you." Be mindful of the impression you make on others, remember: · Image is everything! · How you make someone feel is everything! Since your image and how you make your interviewer(s) feel significantly influence your job search success, knowing what isn't a 'good look'—what turns off employers—is essential. Based on my observations, most job seekers either don't know what isn't a 'good look' or don't care about how they're perceived by employers. What isn't a 'good look' Publicly Bashing Employers: It's common knowledge that employers scrutinize a candidate's online activities to determine whether they're interview-worthy, which is why it amazes me how many job seekers bash employers. Do they believe employers will read their "frustrations" and say, "He's right! Let's change everything we've been doing"? Publicly bashing employers is like biting the hands you want to feed you. Why go on a platform like LinkedIn to malign those who could potentially help you? Publicly bashing employers shows poor judgment and a lack of emotional control. Sloppy Self-Presentation Apicius, a 1st-century Roman gourmet, famously said, "We eat with our eyes first." This principle applies when meeting someone for the first time. It's human nature to assume a person's outward appearance reflects their inner qualities. If there's ever a time to look your best, it's during a job search. Also, presenting yourself well extends beyond your appearance; your resume, LinkedIn profile, and social media activities contribute to the overall impression of who you are. Typos, vague results, poor grammar, and inappropriate social media posts turn employers off. Aggressive Communication Many job seekers often confuse assertiveness with aggression, possibly due to a prevalent sense of entitlement. Assertive communication expresses needs and opinions directly and respectfully, while aggressive communication prioritizes personal needs at the expense of others. I view assertiveness as a two-way dialogue, whereas aggression feels like a one-way proclamation. Aggressive communication leads to the aforementioned employer bashing and having a standoffish attitude with interviewers as if they're the enemy. In contrast, assertiveness means being clear about what you want while considering the employer's needs. The easiest way to expedite your job search is to focus on how you can solve an employer's problems and align your communication accordingly. Job seekers should aim to communicate from a "What can I do for you?" perspective rather than a "What's in it for me?" stance. Lack of Manners and Social Skills Although manners and social skills have declined, they are still crucial for career success. Lacking these skills makes you less likeable (read: affects how others feel about you). I've yet to meet a hiring manager who hires someone they don't like. Good manners facilitate relationships, which are vital to career success. Ignoring social cues or failing to read a room can lead to misunderstandings and hinder relationship-building. How people receive your message, what they remember about you, and how they feel afterward matters. At some point, everyone feels that how they're being interpreted is holding them back. When that happens, it's in your best interest to figure it out. If you feel unappreciated or misunderstood, look in the mirror instead of blaming "the world." You control your destiny through how you present yourself and how you communicate. Nobody is owed acceptance. While it’s contrary to the popular advice to "be yourself," that assumes 'yourself' is someone people actually like—a dangerous assumption—because your physical appearance and actions are what others use to interpret you, perception management is crucial to job search success; therefore, care as much, if not more, about how others perceive you than how you perceive yourself. The phrase "perception is reality," attributed to American political strategist Lee Atwater, echoes throughout an employer's hiring process; therefore, what employers see about you is your responsibility. ___________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS By Dean Hickey THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR CANADIAN STYLE OF GOVERNANCE from our federal parliament to our local and regional councils is based on democracy, not only in principle but in all its consequences. Canadians elect their representatives directly, and for the most part at regular intervals to ensure accountability. In this regard, you and I are the ultimate authority, and our collective interests remain a perpetual influence throughout our communities as we find ourselves surrounded by the incessant drumbeat of political propaganda. This decade has so far seen several attempts made to water down that democratic process among local municipal councils, and in particular, Toronto City Hall. Some among that august body of decision makers have recently formed the opinion that the affairs of their community may be better served by adding an unelected member of city council. At a recent meeting of their Executive Committee - which is chaired by Mayor Olivia Chow - a motion was brought forward by the Mayor that would see Toronto’s City Manager look into opportunities to ‘deepen meaningful representation of the Indigenous community in City decision-making… including through advisory bodies and other mechanisms.’ Those ‘other mechanisms’ are seen by many Toronto councillors as an attempt to add one or more members of council who would be appointed based on their ancestry, without having been given a mandate by the electors. It will be convenient at this stage to consider a little more clearly the nature of this proposal and how it might ultimately affect other councils within the province, including that of the city of Oshawa. Let us suppose such a change is eventually approved by the provincial government, under whose authority this issue rests. Our attention must first be directed to the degree to which land use and planning may be affected. The Reconciliation Action Plan created and approved by Toronto City Council strives to establish what they see as ‘collaborative decision making within many divisions whose work impacts Indigenous Peoples, land and water.’ There’s the first challenge, and one that will undoubtedly give rise to conflicts over what constitutes Indigenous lands, whether subject to Treaty disputes or not. Consider; every Oshawa council or committee meeting begins with a rather lengthy Land Acknowledgement statement, which among other things, seeks to recognize ‘our role in addressing the negative impacts that colonization continues to have.’ Those are strong words, and it is not unreasonable to suggest major decisions on residential and commercial developments could be challenged by appointed members whose mandate, some would say understandably, may include a focus on leveraging their ability to halt certain projects. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario makes reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a foundation for building relationship agreements. There’s the second challenge, being the potential for appointed councillors to bring the specter of international law to bear on local decisions. Municipalities do not have full access to information on Crown-Indigenous relations, nor do they have the financial resources or the capacity to assume any responsibility in that regard. Enhancing Indigenous civic engagement is certainly a positive step, however the prospect of bringing the debate directly into a city council chamber is unwise and unfair to all concerned. Consider this; Oshawa’s Safety & Facilities Services committee recently recommended to Council that the Open Air Burning Bylaw be amended to allow for ‘Sacred Fires’ which is a reference to a typical ceremonial fire of deep spiritual and cultural significance to many Indigenous Peoples. The staff report includes a reference to, among other things, the United Nations when recommending that such open air burning be exempt from the City’s Fire Permit process. Further consultations were made with the City’s Diversity, Equity and Reconciliation Division, specifically the Indigenous Relations Advisor. The City of Toronto already recognizes Sacred Fires, however they still require appropriate documentation to be submitted to their Fire Services to initiate a site safety review, as these fires are known to sometimes burn for days on end. Residents have a right to be concerned as to what appears to be the complete absence of due diligence on the part of the City of Oshawa to include the necessary safety provision requirements over Sacred Fires. The proposed exclusion from the Fire Permit process may reasonably be seen as over-zealousness on the part of the Diversity gang whose staffing level was in fact increased by Mayor Dan Carter in his latest budget. It is that kind of pressure that results in bad policy decisions, and the prospect of appointing one or more unelected members to any city council to potentially further advance such ideas is wrong. Circling back to the City of Toronto, a spokesman for the Ford government had this to say when asked about the ongoing efforts by Mayor Chow and her closest colleagues to appoint unelected members to council: “People have the right to elect their representatives. We will always support that right.” Daniel Tate, from the watchdog group IntegrityTO had this to say: “It’s really concerning that a taxpayer-funded committee thinks it’s appropriate to invent unelected council positions based on identity.” As to the final results of this debate, time alone will tell, however now that the issue is being studied, debated, and reported on by the media, you can rest assured this affront to democracy will someday be approved, and as with so many changes at the municipal level, city councils across Ontario will rush to step in line to enact similar policy changes in their own municipalities. Last year, Hamilton councillors voted down a similar proposal that would have seen their city become the first to have unelected members of council. At the time, councillor Tom Jackson offered up these words, which one can only hope will resonate with others, including Oshawa councillors, “I will not support the exploration of adding a non-elected seat. Imagine the supreme, ultimate honour of an Indigenous person… running for elected office… and winning” That is exactly how it works in a democracy.

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember

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

Who Really Controls What We See and Hear?

Who Really Controls What We See and Hear? By Dale Jodoin Have you ever wondered who decides what news we hear every day? Who chooses what stories show up on TV, in newspapers, and on the internet? Many people think the news is always honest and tells the truth. But that’s not always the case. In Canada today, the truth is often hidden, and the people who control the news are not doing it to help regular Canadians—they’re doing it to keep their power. In Canada, a lot of newspapers and news websites get money from the government. That means the people we vote for—like the Prime Minister and his team—are giving money to the same people who write the news. This is a big problem. When someone gives you money, they expect something in return. It’s just like if someone paid you to say something nice about them. Would you still tell the truth if that truth made them look bad? Many news reporters today don’t want to upset the government because they might lose their funding. So instead of reporting the real news, they write stories that make the Liberal government look good—even when it’s not. You may have seen polls on TV or online that say the Liberal Party is ahead in the election. But if you ask your neighbors, your parents, or your teachers, they might say something different. So who’s right? The truth is, polls can be used to trick people. They might only ask certain groups of people or only show numbers that make one side look better. Right now, even though many Canadians are unhappy with the government, the news still says the Liberals are winning. Why? Because the people running the news are being paid by the government and their friends. The people who are paying to keep the Liberals in power are not strangers. Many of them are Liberal insiders, union bosses, and people connected to the NDP. These are people who already have power, and they want more. They don’t care if regular Canadians are struggling. They want to control the money, the rules, and the choices Canadians are allowed to make. Unions used to be about helping workers. A long time ago, they fought for fair pay and better working conditions. But today, many big unions care more about their own leaders than the workers they are supposed to protect. They spend millions of dollars supporting the government, even when the government isn’t doing what’s best for the country. Why? Because it helps them keep their power. It doesn’t stop at the news. The government also controls what kids learn in school. They decide what books you read, what topics are taught, and what is said in the classroom. Some kids are not even learning how to think for themselves anymore. They are being told what to think. When you only hear one side of the story over and over, you start to believe it—even if it’s not true. That’s how the government uses teachers and schools to make sure young people grow up believing whatever they are told. If you try to ask questions or think differently, some people might call you names like “far-right” or “dangerous,” just because you want the truth. When people start thinking for themselves, it scares those in power. That’s why the media and government often try to divide us. They tell us to be angry at certain groups. They say if someone disagrees with the government, they must be a bad person. They use words like "racist" or "extremist" to try and shut people up. This makes people afraid to speak their minds. They worry they’ll lose friends or get in trouble for asking honest questions. In a free country, this should never happen. Young people today live on the internet. They use phones, computers, and social media every day. The government knows this. That’s why they try to control what we can see online, too. They say it’s to “protect” people, but really it’s to control what stories are told and what voices are heard. If someone posts a video or article that goes against the government’s message, it might be taken down or hidden. That’s not freedom. That’s control. And the more we let it happen, the worse it will get. If we want to be free, we have to be brave. That means standing up for the truth, even when it’s hard. It means asking questions, thinking for ourselves, and not believing everything we hear on the news or read online. It means supporting real people who care about Canada—not just the ones who want power or money. It also means knowing that we might lose friends or even upset family members. But freedom is more important than being liked by everyone. If we don’t speak up now, the next generation may grow up in a country where no one can think for themselves. This isn’t a wild story or a made-up idea. This is the world we are living in right now. If the government can pay the news to lie, if unions and insiders can buy power, and if kids are being taught not to ask questions—then we are not as free as we think. We need to be careful. We need to be strong. And most of all, we need to stay free.

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

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

THE GOLDEN SODA

THE GOLDEN SODA By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Articles Published Columns in Canada and The United States Ah, who has not been victim of a good Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola soda on a cold summer day. The two soda cartels that control the flow of soda across the world. A monopoly made from a 100 year long brand battle. Today, Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola control most of the canned soda. Most brands and most flavors. The two entities have become corporate giants employing millions of people. My question at large. How is it that a 2 litre bottle of Coke or Pepsi retails for more than 2 litres of gasoline? Are we to assume that producing soda from tap water is more expensive then refining crude? Are we to assume that there is that much demand for soda over oil that the cost for a soda is in some cases double. Gas prices today. $1.40/litre. Soda prices $1.50/litre. Why are we paying such premium prices for soda. This is an example of corporate greed. The root of why food prices are what they are. Being a life long business person. I see what they are doing. In business we always look for opportunity. In the case of soda. No one regulates the cost. The final price. These corporations can charge what they want as they are not affected by economies as other corporation may be. But, don’t let that fool you. You will soon see that these corporations come out public. Belly aching on how ‘tariffs’ are affecting the cost of cans they use and they will pass yet another increase to a litre of soda. We live in a run away economy. Regulations are set only to benefit corporation and in part give them opportunity to increases prices. Look at the relation between transportation, manufacturing or producing any particular item and the fluctuation of it’s final price. Gas goes up. Our products go up. Gas goes down. The prices for that same product stay the same. I like to call it the sling shot affect. There always has to be a justification for increasing rates... but no real reason for lowering them. Look at gas. One day it is $1.70. In the morning it is $1.40. Next day $1.80. The following morning $1.45. Companies slowly increase rates without the consumer really realizing it. I just came back from the United States. Within the same City. One gas station had $2.49/gallon. Another down the street $3.59. There is no justification. Same gas station. Soda gouging is out of control. We can’t boycott as for some soda is like gasoline for a car. We are nothing but blinded modern day slaves. Subjected to the will and punishment of corporations.

Canadian Politics on the Ropes

Canadian Politics on the Ropes by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East A turmoil is washing across North America. The Trump administration has embarked on a tariff war that is causing grave concern in Canada. The resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in early January ignited a Liberal leadership contest won by Mark Carney in early March. Mr. Carney is a former Governor of the Bank of Canada and of the Bank of England. With no political experience, he is now the Prime Minister of Canada in a very sensitive political and economic situation, especially with regard to relations with the United States. In the meantime, his becoming leader of the Federal Liberal Party and consequently the Prime Minister of Canada seems to have produced a real tsunami in the polls; reversing the fortunes of the Liberal Party. In December 2024 the Conservative party led by Pierre Poilievre had a commanding advantage of 20 points over the Liberal Party and what looked like an almost certain chance to form the next government. However, this advantage in the polls has suddenly evaporated, as there is a new game in play to determine who will form the next government of Canada. A new National Post-Leger poll shows that 42 per cent of Canadians now say they plan to cast a ballot for Mark Carney’s Liberals, while 39 per cent say they intend to vote for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. It is a stunning recovery in the polls for Carney’s Liberals. Support for the party, which has governed since 2015, had plummeted over the last year. The Conservatives held a significant lead, suggesting an election would lead to Liberal decimation in the House of Commons and a Poilievre-led supermajority. The Conservative Party now faces a Liberal Party Leader with substantial credentials and work experience both in public service and private business. A Prime Minister who has not held an elected position previously, is also unprecedented in Canadian history. Not since 1984 has a Prime Minister been elected who wasn’t an MP. While John Turner was not a sitting MP when he became prime minister, he had previously served as an MP. He became Liberal Party leader and prime minister in June 1984 but did not win a seat in Parliament until the September 1984 election. There do not appear to be any recent precedents for such a situation in Australia, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom. The Canadian public seems to have reacted to these dynamic and rapid succession of events, and the results are astonishing. With an election call expected within days, before the prorogation of the Parliament expires on the 24th of March, a new national poll shows the Liberals leading the Conservatives by three points. Certainly, the Conservative party will have a difficult time in the weeks leading up to the next federal election. To win, they need to change gears and adapt to this new reality. However, considering the advisers and the inner circle of the leader, they are unlikely to have either the imagination or the tools to make the necessary dynamic and useful changes. I base this opinion on the fact that Mr. Pollievre is surrounded by the same people who lost the 2015 election for Stephen Harper, and subsequently for Andrew Sheer and Erin O’Toole as well. After years of promising to axe the carbon tax, Conservatives watched in obvious horror as Prime Minister Mark Carney did it for them on his first day in office. They could have chosen to take a victory lap here. They could have celebrated the elimination of a policy they had attacked with enormous amounts of political time and resources, and moved on to the far more pressing matters at hand. Instead, they threw a collective temper tantrum. Maybe Mark Carney is not as inexperienced on the political scene as some people have assumed. Mr. Carney’s decision to zero-out the consumer carbon tax with the stroke of his prime ministerial pen is starting to look like a well-laid trap his opponents jumped into, headlong. Melissa Lantsman, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, a former staffer, has suggested that “he’s pausing it for the election so he can trick you into believing it’s gone.” Former CPC leader Andrew Scheer, also lacking in all but political experience, described this move as “a con,” apparently all part of his “Carbon Tax Scam.” Finally, Pierre Poilievre got into the act, putting the cherry on top, with the accusation that, “After 9 years of battling for a carbon tax, do you really trust the Liberals not to bring it back? Dream on.” The trauma of watching their signature campaign pledge enacted by their new opponent reverberated throughout the Conservative universe. Really, the Conservative Party needs to change its approach, like yesterday. Changing their approach is the only way they can possibly secure victory. We will soon see if they are capable of the changes needed to focus on the real issues generated by the adversarial relations developing with Canada’s Southern neighbour. Pierre Poilievre needs to realize that the biggest political danger for him might be on the Canada-U.S. file, which has taken on an understandably existential dimension over the last few months. In an election that will be fought over who can best protect Canada’s economy from President Trump, Pierre Poilievre needs to find reliable ideas to put to Canadians, in order to win. Here is the question: will he be able to do so in the short period of time available? Otherwise, he will go down in history as a Don Quixote,”tilting at windmills” Let us hope for the best.

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

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