SHALL WE DANCE?

SHALL WE DANCE? By Wayne and Tamara I just happened to bump into you guys virtually, and must say it was a pleasure! While reading through questions posted online, I realized I had one myself! So here I go. I hail from India, and as you may know, Indians have a concept of arranged marriages, which I don’t really feel comfortable with. But I am 25 now, and though I’ve been in relationships in the past, I am single at present. So, my parents are on the lookout for a suitable guy for me. I don’t have much choice because falling into a relationship is kind of slow here in India. People here are very different with regard to relationships as compared to the West. But I would like to find someone for myself rather than going into an arranged thing. A few days back I met a friend’s friend via a social networking site. I had heard a lot about him from my friends, so I initiated things by sending him a message. He was sweet and prompt and asked me how I knew our mutual friend. We’ve been communicating via short messages ever since. My question: how can I initiate a deeper relationship with him, though not necessarily too fast? I need to get to know him more as I think he is a great guy. I am by nature a little conservative, so I can’t really take bolder steps like asking for his number. Also, I would prefer not to involve our friend in this. I don’t want to come around too strong. Should I continue messaging for a few more days? In his last message he said on business he quite often passes by the area where I live. Daya Daya, shall we dance? That’s the question posed by a song in the musical “The King And I.” Shall we dance…knowing there are usually many entries on a woman’s dance card before she finds the perfect partner? Shall we dance…knowing that many dances end with the thank you which means goodbye? Shall we dance…knowing that the dance always brings uncertainty? Yes, let us dance. Let us dance, because the dance may end with us in the arms of the one we can dance through life with. Let us dance, says the song, “on the clear understanding that this kind of thing can happen.” This man, with a little prompting, noticed you across a crowded dance floor. Your eyes met, and now you wonder, what next? You are a little reserved. He may be, too, because no male seeks to be rejected by a woman. That’s why a woman waiting to be asked might gently sway her shoulders to the music, indicating she would love to dance. A small signal, perhaps, but enough to make a man start forward. He may still pass by, she knows, but most likely he hopes to take her hand and lead her to the floor. An inner thing moves two people who can dance happily and comfortably together for the rest of their lives. That’s what dating seeks to learn. A man has said, “I often pass by where you are.” Can you come forward a little, too? Can you mention the café where you take coffee or that you like Chinese food? Can you make an opening so he can ask? You need not say much or be bolder than your nature, but gently let him know what you may welcome as the next step. Just as you know you look good in certain colors, throw a soft focus on your approachability quotient. Make a small inroad. Give yourself a chance. That’s not pursuing or chasing. It’s being available and open. It’s being able to acknowledge you are willing to dance. It’s coming forward so another can come forward, if he is drawn to you. Shall we dance? Yes. Wayne & Tamara

Tax Efficient RRSP Withdrawal Strategies

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

SGT PEPPER HAS IT RIGHT!!!

SGT PEPPER HAS IT RIGHT!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Before I begin this column. I like to fully disclose that I do not endorse or support violence in any way. As a professional martial artist, the root of our training is the avoidance of violence at all cost. Our discipline is to be used to defend when attacked and always use self restraint. With this said. I give the police forces across the world great praise as they have a real tough job. In many cases it is the use of brute force and not tactical body dynamics in the taking down of hostile perpetrators. I say this with such confidence as I enjoy on my spare 30 seconds a day to watch YOUTUBE videos on how police around the world deals with police take downs. In most cases you can tell that the officer in attendance has had limited or no training as in most take down it takes two, three, four officers to take down one person. When in reality it should take one officer. The other day Sgt. Pepper caught my eye. I think he was not a police officer but either a national guard or a marine on the front line of a demonstration. The demonstrator your typical ‘woke’, one hundred and twenty pound over opinionated unemployed basement dweller. There was this nose drip shouting in front of a 350lb officer. He kept screaming to the officer. “WHAT IS YOUR NAME SOLDIER” time and time again. The soldier was very calm and very patient. The perpetrator kept screaming in his face demanding his name. Then with a swift swipe the officer quickly pulls out pepper spray can and gives the perpetrator a mouth/face full of this orange spray. The perpetrator goes down in tears screaming like a baby as the officer stands there with a very deserving grin... and states. “Dr. Pepper son”. Super classic response. I think what is taking place in the U.S. needs to be employed in Canada. Zero tolerance to police interference while dispensing law. Anyone in breach should be dealt with extreme force. The problem with today’s police attitudes is that they do not want to be legally liable or worst criminally found to be guilty of law in the dispensing of law. Something that is very hard. As civilians we must also make sure that police do not abuse powers entrusted in them. So how do we balance. Well, open the door for police to do their job. If an abuse complaint is brought forth. Investigate with the understanding that the job is extremely stressful and difficult. I think filming of any police activity should be illegal. I think journalist should be kept out of hot spots like riots and protests. I strongly believe that the police need to be respected and protected against criminal prosecution for minor things. Much, like Sgt. Pepper’s actions. They could be seen as against the law. Then again under the circumstance. It can be deemed reasonable. Protestors have become more militant and more aggressive due to the fact that they have lost the fear factor. I think we need to instill that emotion in order to preserve society.

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

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

The Weight of Passion and Purpose - Fighting the Pressure to Sacrifice Hobbies in High School

The Weight of Passion and Purpose - Fighting the Pressure to Sacrifice Hobbies in High School By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Throughout high school, students begin to discover, strengthen and advance a variety of passions. These passions are fostered through mandated courses, extracurricular activities, and relationships built. They are incorporated into the high school system to guarantee students try new things and develop new talents. Together, these experiences create a diverse range of interests and experiences that can be applied beyond school, whether in higher education, future careers, or simply in developing a unique sense of identity. Throughout my own high school journey, I have pursued countless opportunities, each providing their own life lessons. My time with the dramatic arts built a sense of confidence, community, and critical thinking, in addition bringing me joy. Time spent studying math and science enhanced my problem-solving and analytical skills, regardless of my disinterest in pursuing STEM. Extracurriculars such as student council and debate helped me grow in leadership, communication, time management, and integrity. I never turn down an opportunity presented to me; each one I accept with enthusiasm and commitment. To me, this variety is the only way to maximize my high school experience, to make the most out of these four years before University. I do not want to graduate and regret rejecting an opportunity, staying home, or not trying out; instead, I want to take advantage of everything offered to me, before I enter a new chapter of my life. While this diversity has been rewarding, it has also left me with an overwhelming schedule, including countless passions, which feels impossible to balance. As I begin my junior year, I feel increasing pressure to abandon the talents I’ve spent so long building. I have dedicated myself to many passions, and I feel each one is pulling me in a different direction. School encouraged me to learn new things and celebrate diversity, yet it opposes when I commit to each. Every class gives homework to fill each waking hour, every council expects availability available Monday to Friday, like a full time job. I am an individual who wants to learn as much as possible, yet within the constraints of the school system, this feels unattainable. I constantly feel pressured to find one talent, one ambition, and fully commit to it. At times, I feel like a jack of all trades; I am good with math, science, english, arts, and communication, yet spectacular at nothing. It leaves me questioning my past, present, and future uses of time. Regardless of the commitments, I feel I do not have anything to feel truly proud of. I am left wondering about the connecting factors, and which of these will attach me to future happiness. My days of eagerly accepting every opportunity are now past, replaced with anxiety and an overwhelming schedule. What is the point of studying chemistry if I won’t be a chemist? Why spend time on drama if I have no interest in acting professionally? Each activity not directly correlated to my goals can seem like a waste of time, which forces me into a never-ending cycle of doubt, as I am still unsure of what those goals are. Choosing one specialty talent is not the only expectation students face as they grow older. Beyond choosing one skill to perfect, teens are also forced to ensure that this skill is both practical and efficient. At sixteen, individuals are expected to have a life plan, including steps to reach those goals. Many students commit their limited spare time to studying sciences, practicing math, learning languages, or volunteering. Although these hobbies are important, they often cause the love of creative passions, such as painting, acting, or writing, to be dismissed. This creates a pressure not just to find a passion, but to justify it in terms of future practicality. It feels as though the value of a skill lies only in its ability to assist a stable career. In our society, passions have lost their purpose of joy or learning experiences, and are instead focused on proving they are “worth it” to the eyes of others. High school is a challenging balancing act, as students are tasked with managing inspiring opportunities and their saddening limits. I have lived with the mindset to never close a door, to never turn away from an opportunity, but I have recently learned that doing everything is impossible. The system often demands that we measure the value of our time by how useful it is for our future, as if every class, talent, or passion must lead directly to a stable career. Under this logic, the value of creativity through painting, drama, or music is diminished the moment it is made; yet these are the very talents that bring joy, perspective, and balance to life. Despite my anxieties regarding my use of time, I’ve come to understand that impractical does not mean worthless. A passion that doesn’t have a finish line can still change my perspective, teach new lessons, and create everlasting connections. Yes, individuals must accept their limits and make rational choices, but those decisions should not be decided on practicality alone. I refuse to believe that the time I’ve spent exploring my passions is wasted. Instead, these opportunities are what have shaped me into the person I am today. My secondary education has shown me balance isn’t about choosing a single path to commit to; it’s about carrying forward the important experiences, even if they aren’t practical. While I can’t keep every door open, I trust that the ones I do step through will add to my life through lessons, opportunities, and enjoyment. I may choose how to spend my time with purpose, however that does not mean I must sacrifice everything which brings me joy. Only through this balance of practicality and experiences can the four years of high school be properly fulfilled

WHY CAN’T WE CHANGE!!!

WHY CAN’T WE CHANGE!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I have served as your City Editor for the past 30 years. I have seen all kinds of change. Unfortunately, It has not been for the better. The quality of life has diminished to the point that walking down our city streets have become a health risk and or a personal secuirty issue. I get asked all the time. What do I think is the magic formula. Well I ran in the last election on this principle. But it appears that people were happy with the status quo and we are enduring another four years of the same chaos. In my opinion we must address the white elephant in the room. I do not put the blame on the thousands of homeless. As, I am sure that they are not homeless by choice. People tend to generalize that those homeless are a bunch of drug addicts and or suffering from some sort of mental health issue. What we need to do is undestand the psychology. Being homeless is very stressful. It brings about all kinds of emotions that in all cases are difficult to control. Many have no one to turn to. Many have lost hope in society and use alchohol and drugs to offset the daily pain. A pain that runs far beyond any physical disability. If I had been Mayor. I would have shut down the ‘safe’ injection sites. I would have made sure that everyone dependant on drugs.... that Oshawa was closed for business. I would have worked with police to enforce law. Create special detention centers that no one would be able to leave until such time that they were sober and properly At the facility I would have mental health experts running evaluation on people. Those with addiction would be admitted to hospital for treatment. Those with mental health issues would be given appointment to attend a trained mental health worker to deal with the neurosis. For those homeless, I would offer them temporary shelter at a pre-set wharehouse facility. I would create special work programs. Programs that would give these homeless folk the opportunity to earn money.  Programs like ongoing grass cutting for senior. Garbage pick up throughout the city. Snow removal along all our city streets. The City of Oshawa spent 70 million dollars to the Generals hockey team. 50 million for an outdoor pool in Canada. 30 million on the Ed Broadbent Park. You mean to tell me we can’t invest in helping those in need. Those three projects alone are $150 million. 150 million of your tax dollars... that you the taxpayer will never see a dime and or benefit directly. Imagine having 5,000 homeless in Oshawa. Divide that by 150 million. That would give us $300,00/homeless person in assistance. But wait, 2026 is around the corner. Instead of voting in people with substance, vision and solutions. Guess what... Most likely the status quo will reign supreme again. Sad.

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

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

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH IT

God, Family, Country And the Courage to Speak: A Tribute to Charlie Kirk By Councillor Lisa Robinson On Monday, September 29th, at one o’clock in the afternoon, while most people were at work, Pickering Council held a Special Meeting where they voted to approve the Seaton Recreation Complex and Library — the most expensive project in our city’s history. In just a little over three and a half hours, Council committed taxpayers to a $266 million build that will potentially drive your property taxes up nearly twelve percent and blow our debt wide open. To put it into perspective, for every single minute during that meeting, Council was committing 1.4 million dollars of your money. Right now, Pickering carries about 5 million dollars in debt. By this January, that number will already rise to 57 million dollars in debt with other projects now in the pipeline. And by 2027, with the Seaton project added in, our debt will skyrocket to 331 million dollars. That’s an increase of over 570 per cent coming to you the taxpayer in less than 458 days. Think about that. That’s like a family jumping from a five-thousand-dollar credit card balance to over three hundred and thirty thousand — and being locked into paying it off for the next twenty years. Even our own Treasurer called this one of the most difficult financial decisions the city has ever faced. He recommended caution. He recommended deferral. And what did Council do? They ignored him. I tried to move a motion to defer this decision until at least 40 percent of Pickering’s population had the chance to comment. I suggested a mail-out survey to every home that would clearly state the eleven-point-seven-one percent tax increase if the project was approved. Not one councillor would second my motion. The Mayor shut it down immediately, saying, “I don’t think that’s the way to do fiscal responsibility. That would be a huge undertaking.” But since when is mailing residents the truth a huge undertaking, while spending two hundred and sixty-six million dollars without their informed consent is considered fiscal responsibility? Make it make sense. Meanwhile, staff and the Mayor insisted that just over 3,000 adults responding was an “exceptionally high” number. They even went so far as to boast about community engagement, claiming they had logged 82 hours in the field holding twenty pop-up events, three in-person sessions, and circulated surveys through schools where even children were counted as respondents. Yet not once in any of this engagement did they mention that approving this project would mean a 12 percent property tax increase. That’s not consultation. That’s manipulation. And the irony? Just months ago, I was punished with three months’ pay taken away for saying surveys can be skewed. This one proves my point exactly. If a survey doesn’t disclose the real cost or consequences of what people are “agreeing” to, then it’s not an honest survey. When I pressed on the financial realities, the Mayor didn’t respond with facts. Instead, he tried to smear me personally — falsely claiming once again that I wanted a 10 percent tax hike for snow removal. Let’s clear that up right now, once and for all: that was their inflated consultant’s estimate, not mine. My proposal never involved a tax hike at all. And while the Mayor told residents in his Council Meeting recap that taxes were going up because of a $2.3-million-dollar fire truck, he left out the $266-million-dollar decision made that very same afternoon just hours before. Ask yourself: why? Here’s the reality: the Treasurer confirmed this project alone adds approximately $255 dollars a year to the average homeowner’s bill. Every year. For the next twenty years. And to make room for it, other critical needs — like the Seaton Fire Station and the Northern Operations Centre — were shoved onto the “parked projects list,” indefinitely delayed. And not to mention this nearly 12 per cent tax hike is only for this single project aloan. It doesn’t include the other tax increases the city will need for roads, sewers, infrastructure, and everything else we do. It doesn’t include the school board increases. It doesn’t include the Region’s increases. And if I’m not mistaken, it doesn’t even include the additional 2.7 percent Council already approved under the so-called climate adaptation plan if I'm not mistaken. Add it all together, and you’re looking at tax bills that will climb far higher than what I’m even admitting to you today. Look around the region. Whitby’s new complex came in at 160 million. Clarington’s is projected at 180 million. Pickering’s? 266 million — and staff already admitted it could climb to over 300 million by the time it’s tendered in 2027. And this was all decided in one Monday afternoon, in a little over three hours, with a six-to-one vote. I was the only councillor who voted no. Not because I oppose recreation, libraries, or community spaces, which I am sure will be the rumour spread by the Mayor or Council, but because you deserved the truth. You deserved real consultation. You deserved to know that your taxes will rise 12 per cent, that your debt will explode from 5 million today to 57 million in January and to 331 million dollars in less than 458 days, that other essential projects will now be shelved, and that only 3 percent of adults were consulted — without ever being told the real cost. This isn’t about building community. It’s about building a political legacy — on your back. Rob Ford reminded us all that respecting taxpayers isn't just words — it's action. Yet, when decisions are made without transparency, that respect is lost. As your servants, we must do better. Councillor Lisa Robinson "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

Another Attack on Free Speech: The Government’s Push to Punish Words Before They’re Spoken

Another Attack on Free Speech: The Government’s Push to Punish Words Before They’re Spoken By Dale Jodoin Canada’s government is once again toying with the idea of giving itself the power to silence citizens before they’ve even spoken. The latest versions of their so-called “hate speech” bills—first Bill C-36 in 2021 and now Bill C-63 in 2024—have one thing in common: they try to criminalize suspicion, not actions. Let’s be clear. Under these proposals, you don’t have to commit a crime. You don’t even have to post something online. All it takes is someone convincing a judge that you might spread hate in the future. Suddenly, you’re slapped with restrictions. You can lose your right to speak freely, to use the internet without conditions, and if you slip up, you can even end up in jail. That’s not free speech. That’s not democracy. That's the government deciding who is safe to speak and who isn’t, long before a single word is uttered. The Return of Section 13 by Another Name We’ve seen this movie before. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was scrapped in 2013 for being too broad, too easily abused. It lets people drag others through expensive hearings for online comments. The Conservatives ended it, rightly calling it a tool for censorship. But the Liberals brought it back in disguise. Bill C-36 tried to re-introduce hate speech complaints and the “fear of hate crime” peace bond. It died when the election was called, but the same spirit came roaring back in Bill C-63—the so-called Online Harms Act. This bill doesn’t just target child exploitation or violent threats. It lumps in “hate” without ever drawing a clear line on what that means. That’s the danger. When politicians get to decide what “hate” is, anything they don’t like can fall under that label. Punished Without a Crime Think about it. In Canada, you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These bills flip that upside down. They say: we don’t need to prove you guilty—we just need to suspect you. It’s the kind of law you’d expect in authoritarian countries, where leaders crush dissent by accusing opponents of “dangerous speech.” In those places, people disappear into jails not for what they did, but for what they might say. And here we are, in Canada, pretending that kind of law belongs in a free society. The Slippery Slope Nobody Wants to Admit Governments always start with promises. “This is just to stop hate.” “This is to protect children.” Nobody disagrees with protecting kids or preventing real violence. But once the machinery is in place, it’s a short step to using it against political critics, journalists, or ordinary citizens who dare to speak too loudly. It’s not hard to imagine. A protest against higher taxes, immigration policies, or government spending could easily be painted as “hateful” if it offends the ruling party’s sensibilities. A strong opinion online could be flagged as dangerous, and suddenly you’re on the wrong side of the law—without ever committing a crime.Canadians Should Be Furious Every Canadian, left or right, should be furious about this. Free speech isn’t about protecting easy opinions. It’s about protecting the hard ones, the unpopular ones, the ones governments don’t want to hear. When a government claims the right to pre-emptively gag people, it’s admitting it fears its own citizens. And when citizens can be silenced before they speak, democracy itself is on life support. This is not a left-versus-right issue. It’s a freedom issue. It’s about whether Canada remains a place where people can criticize the government without looking over their shoulder for a knock on the door. The truth is simple: you can’t fight hate by outlawing speech. You can only fight it with more speech, better arguments, and open debate. Bills like C-36 and C-63 don’t protect Canadians. They protect politicians from criticism. And if we let this pass, we’ll wake up one day to find our voices already gone.

PULLING TEETH…

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

Fights Over Drugs Have Enduring Meaning

Fights Over Drugs Have Enduring Meaning By Diana Gifford Every so often, history taps you on the shoulder. That happened to me recently when I discovered a book on the science, culture, and regulation of drugs by Professor Lucas Richert, a historian of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The book devotes its entire first chapter to none other than my father, Dr. Ken Walker — better known to readers by his penname, W. Gifford-Jones, MD. Richert’s book, Strange Trips, presents the history of recreational, palliative and pharmaceutical drugs and the tension in debates between evidence and opinion, compassion and politics. Readers may not know that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, my father became Canada’s most vocal advocate for the legalization of medical heroin. He had lost close friends to cancer and seen his own patients suffering in pain. At the time, heroin was widely used in Britain for pain control, yet Canadian patients were denied access. Why? Not because of science, he argued, but because of “political, not medical, decisions.” Richert captures this clash well. As one expert observed, “heroin is particularly good at inducing opinions which conflict with all the evidence and ‘evidence’ that is then moulded to fit the opinions.” My father’s campaign forced Canadians to ask: should terminally ill patients be denied effective relief because heroin carried a stigma? He didn’t stop with advocating for change in his column. He collected more than 30,000 signatures on a petition, received another 20,000 letters of support, and presented them in Ottawa to Health Minister Monique Bégin. He flew to the UK on a fact-finding mission, speaking with doctors, nurses, and patients. Scotland Yard officials, he noted, brushed off the claims of critics that medical heroin stored in hospital pharmacies would increase crime. They had far bigger problems to worry about. When political action stalled, he doubled down, placing full-page awareness ads in newspapers. In one, he accused opponents with the blunt headline: “Will the real hypocrites please stand up.” That kind of language didn’t make him friends in the medical establishment or in policy circles, but it drew public attention to the cause. Support began to build. Editorials in The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail endorsed his position, pointing out that British cancer patients had long had access to heroin without social upheaval. The Canadian Medical Association ultimately supported legalization, after uncovering how Canada had been pressured decades earlier by the United States into banning the drug. Dr. William Ghent, a leading CMA figure, didn’t mince words: “We followed the US like sheep, and now, like sheep, we’ve got their manure to deal with.” By the mid-1980s, the government relented. New trials were approved, and eventually heroin was legalized for cases of severe chronic pain and terminal illness. The fight didn’t end debates in palliative care, and experts then and now would argue the focus should be broader than drugs alone. But it was a turning point. Canada acknowledged that compassion had a place in drug policy. The debate continues today in a new form. Researchers now point to psychedelics such as psilocybin as tools to ease end-of-life distress, yet patients face the same barriers of politics, stigma, and delay. Humans often fail to learn from history, and as Richert’s book shows, the fight over heroin was just one of many stories. For me, it is a point of pride to see my father’s efforts remembered, not only as a medical crusade but as part of the larger story of how societies negotiate the meaning of medicine. Readers who want more detail can find a synopsis of Richert’s chapter, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, available through our website. ================================================================== This column offers health and wellness, not medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

When Disaster Strikes, You Need to Be Ready

When Disaster Strikes, You Need to Be Ready By Diana Gifford Are you in the group of people who treat insurance the way you do exercise? You know it’s good for you, but you put it off until it’s too late. Human behaviour can be so irrational! But insurance really should be a priority for your attention among the list of things that keep you well. A thoughtful look at what determines your wellbeing includes preparations for disasters of all kinds – not just the risk factors for disease. A burst pipe, a fire, a car accident, or a sudden illness abroad can be as bad or worse than a slow march to a chronic health program. Disasters, many of them entirely out of your own control, can undo a lifetime of careful living in a single day. I recently attended the Canadian Health Food Association show in Toronto where I met Leigh McFarlane, owner of a growing soap business, who knows this from experience. A fire tore through her home and shop, and she discovered too late that her insurance policy was woefully inadequate. She lost everything. Today, with grit and resilience, she is rebuilding The Soap Company of Nova Scotia. But the hard truth is that much of her suffering could have been prevented. McFarlane’s is a story not just about fire. It’s about health. Yes, financial health for sure. But also physical health. Nothing raises blood pressure, shatters sleep or wears down the immune system like the anxiety of financial ruin. Insurance, dull as it can be, is a prescription for peace of mind. Think broadly about what insurance means. House and home: a burst pipe in winter can flood a basement and rack up bills that rival the cost of a heart bypass surgery. Income security: a sudden disability or the closure of a small business can wipe out years of hard work. Health coverage: travel insurance may seem optional, until you’re on vacation and a heart attack strikes. Canadians abroad have found themselves facing bills of $50,000 or more for emergency care and medical evacuation. In the United States, where health insurance is tied to employment or costly private plans, uninsured patients often delay treatment, sometimes with deadly consequences from a heart attack that could have been prevented with treatment. People fall victim for different reasons. The optimist says, “It won’t happen to me.” The penny pincher buys the cheapest plan, only to discover exclusions result in inadequate coverage. The inattentive forgets to update coverage after a health change or assumes the details don’t matter. And the overconfident believes government or credit card policies will cover everything. Any of these errors can leave a family shattered. Insurance is not a solitary matter. Families need to talk about it. When an elderly parent lets a policy lapse, or a young adult travels without medical coverage, the burden rarely falls on them alone. It falls on spouses, children, and siblings. A parent falling sick abroad without travel insurance may need tens of thousands of dollars wired in an emergency. A flood in an underinsured home may force relatives to step in. An accident can derail employment and wipe out a family’s security. Talking about insurance may never make the list of life’s great pleasures. But getting the right insurance coverage is a relatively inexpensive and easy-to-accomplish determinant of your health. But remember, most insurance agents earn commissions on the policies they sell. You need to shop around, read the policies including the fine print, and ask lots of questions. Then purchase the right coverage. You will sleep better knowing that, whatever comes, you are ready. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

A Never Ending Expectation The Millennia Old Consequences of Beauty Standards

A Never Ending Expectation The Millennia Old Consequences of Beauty Standards By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Growing up we are often taught, “what matters is on the inside.” Every individual is made of inspiring strengths through their personalities, hobbies, and achievements; attractiveness and aesthetics are the least interesting aspects of a person. This reminds us to judge others by their character, not appearances, as there is much more to know than what’s on the outside. This is a lesson still important today. However, it is difficult to prioritize when constantly surrounded by contradicting messages. Our society places overwhelming attention on beauty and aesthetics, making it impossible to overlook the appearances of both yourself and others. Beauty standards have existed for thousands of years, playing a large role in the history of our society. Thousands of years ago, expensive accessories and symbols of wealth were what defined beauty. A few centuries ago, both women and men were expected to be full-figured, as a sign of prosperity. In recent years, standards have shifted, glorifying small bodies and clear skin. Time period is not the only factor which changes expectations; even now, standards vary based on the region and culture you are immersed in. In North America, women are expected to be thin, with an hourglass figure. Men are desirable if tall and muscular, with masculine features. Slim and pale body types are seen as attractive in East Asia, which contradicts the tanned and curved ideal of Europe. Although these standards change based on time period and location, there is one thing they always have in common; their effects on mental and physical health. From unhealthy skin products to body dysmorphia, beauty standards have been negatively influencing individuals for millennia, as they fight themselves for the “perfect body.” As a teenager, I am no stranger to beauty standards. I constantly find myself comparing my appearance to that of others. I overanalyze every outfit, constantly reapply makeup, and have an overcomplicated skincare routine. I panic at any sign of imperfection, whether that be a pimple, weight gain, or a bad hair day. Despite understanding the insignificant nature of beauty, I cannot help but critique every aspect of my own appearance. Following beauty standards is about more than a quick hairstyle or makeup tutorial. They control body image and insecurities in an extremely damaging way. In North America, the idea of the perfect, thin body is forced onto every young girl, leaving millions of teenagers and young adults dissatisfied with their bodies. Individuals force themselves into a mold much too small through diet, binges, or purging, all for nothing. The reality is, no body is the same. It does not matter how little you eat or how many workouts you do, you will not be able to perfect yourself in the way you hope. As people continue to pursue their dream bodies, their mental health may continue to decline. Regardless of how hard you work to achieve perfection, you may never surrender the dream of being a little skinnier, a little stronger, a little prettier. Satisfaction with your appearance seems impossible, which is where so many mental health problems originate. Body dysmorphia, anxiety, and countless eating disorders can be inspired by the need to match beauty standards. It is a system which strives off insecurities and struggles, and in 2025, it’s stronger than ever. Millions of people worldwide struggle with body image, each in their own way. They chase their dream bodies, in hopes they will one day achieve perfection. The issue is, the finish line keeps moving, as the idea of beauty continues to shift. A perfect body is unattainable, as it is impossible to please anyone. Yet, individuals continue to obsessively diet, workout, or purge in attempts to reach the unattainable. These actions may seem insignificant, but if taken to the extreme, can be fatal. Symptoms may begin small, however, rejecting a snack can soon lead to skipping three meals a day or purging every calorie. This lifestyle will only lead to dissatisfaction and anxiety, and in time, these habits may make it impossible to survive. Beauty standards and body image are not insignificant issues regarding hairstyles and fashion sense. Instead, they are dangerous expectations which have been ruining lives for thousands of years. Our society places an immense emphasis on physical beauty, which can destroy the confidence of any individual. This is not an issue focused on one gender, age group, or culture; it is a global tragedy which society needs to stop normalizing. The irony of body image is that you will never please everyone. Each culture has their own expectations concerning skin, weight, and style. What one culture sees as skinny, pale, and fashionable may be seen as overweight, tanned, and unattractive to another. It is impossible to reach every beauty standard, to be seen as perfect by all. Instead of chasing an unattainable standard, chase what makes you happy, confident, and satisfied. As individuals, we are made of more than our looks, we are made of our personalities and character. As a society, we need to leave behind our lives of insecurities and unrealistic standards, and embrace a new age of individuality and acceptance.

Education planning for your grand children?

Education planning for your grand children? By Bruno M. Scanga Deposit Broker, Insurance & Investment Advisor First you were putting on their diapers. Then you walked them to their kindergarten classroom. You helped them with their math homework. You listened to their loud music through the walls. Are you ready for what comes next? Post-secondary education tuition can cost over $ 20,000 per year. If you have multiple children or grand children you are looking at a lot of money if you are planning on helping them out. How can you make this process easier? A Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) is one option. Contributions to these accounts receive a 20% match from the Canadian Education Savings Grant up to $2,500 per year, which is $500 of free money. If your income is low, you can receive a 30-40% match on the first $500. Setting up a trust account is another choice to help pay for college. Saving for Post-secondary education can appear daunting, but it doesn’t have to be. Your Financial Advisor can help create a road map so you can make progress in steps. Before you know it, your child will be out of Post-secondary education, and you’ll be putting on diapers again – on your grandchildren. Spoil your Grandchildren with Education Grandparents, in their children’s eyes, can be a source of frustration. Not because they do not love their grandchildren but because of the way they express it in a material sense. Grandparents tend to buy too many things that are not age proper, too expensive or items that do not reflect the parent’s sense of value; even though the parent likely established their values based on the influence of ‘their’ parents. It is also true that a great number of grandparents give money for birthdays, or other holidays. So how can a grandparent stay in the good graces of both their kids and grandkids? In a word; ‘education’. Giving the Gift of Knowledge Most of the last few generations focused on keeping a roof over their family’s head and providing food and clothing. There was little left for ‘luxuries’ and if there was, those luxuries came in the form of hockey registration and equipment (upgraded year after year), dance lessons or musical instruments. Now that baby-boomers have reached retirement age, there is much more time on their hands and more disposable income from life-long savings and pensions. Many grandparents are turning their focus to providing their grandchildren with whatever advantages were not necessarily available for their own kids. One prominent choice of giving a gift that helps the grandchild and keeps their own children happy is an RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan). RESP Start-up is Easy The best time to start a RESP is the moment your grandchild is issued a Social Insurance Number (SIN).

God, Family, Country And the Courage to Speak: A Tribute to Charlie Kirk

God, Family, Country And the Courage to Speak: A Tribute to Charlie Kirk By Councillor Lisa Robinson Sometimes, a single voice can shake a nation. Charlie Kirk has been that voice. Whether you agree with him on every issue or not, he has been unapologetic about speaking the truth — even when it made him a target. He has taken hits from the media, political elites, and powerful institutions. And yet, he has never backed down. That matters — not just in America, but here in Canada too. Because we are in a moment where censorship is no longer theoretical. It is not just about being “cancelled” online — it is about being silenced in real life, stripped of your reputation, your livelihood, and your ability to serve the people who elected you. I know this firsthand. When you tell the truth in a time of moral confusion, you will be called every name in the book — hateful, bigoted, extremist, even “alt-right” or “Nazi.” And when you refuse to go along with lies, you will be treated like you are the criminal. But here’s the truth: freedom of speech is not just about protecting polite, agreeable speech. It is about protecting the speech that makes the powerful uncomfortable — the speech that challenges official narratives, that refuses to bow to mob pressure, that defends what is right even when it is unpopular. And no one — no one — deserves to be threatened, harassed, or assassinated for their views. Yet that is the direction we are heading when governments, media, and political elites normalize silencing people whose words don’t fit their narrative. When you tell people that someone’s speech is “dangerous,” you justify any punishment against them — and that is a very dangerous road. I have seen this in Pickering. Integrity Commissioners, Councils, and Codes of Conduct are being used not as tools of accountability, but as weapons — to muzzle elected officials, punish dissent, and make examples out of anyone who dares to speak out. It is easier for those in power to silence one voice than to debate them in the open. Charlie Kirk has reminded millions that our loyalty must be first to God, family, and country — in that order. God gives us truth. Family gives us purpose. Country gives us freedom. When any of those are attacked, our duty is to stand up — loudly, clearly, and without apology. I am standing up here in Canada because the stakes are too high to sit down. If we allow censorship to grow unchecked, if we allow speech to be policed by those in power, then democracy itself is in danger. This is not just about politics. It is about whether truth will be allowed in the public square — or whether we will all be forced to live by government-approved lies. Charlie Kirk has shown what it looks like to take the arrows and keep going. He has inspired countless young people to love their country, to embrace faith, and to stand strong in a culture that mocks both. I am honoured to join that fight here at home. Because God, family, and country are worth fighting for. Because truth is worth fighting for. And because freedom — once lost — is almost impossible to win back. The time for fear is over. The time for courage is now. You’re not alone

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

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

So Hidden in Healthcare? Why Is Information So Hidden in Healthcare?

Why Is Information So Hidden in Healthcare? By Diana Gifford Several weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of factual debates. This week let’s talk about transparency. It’s one of those words that gets thrown around in health discussions. Politicians promise it. Hospital administrators profess it. Insurance companies advertise it. But when ordinary people go looking for reliable information about their own health, we hit a wall, there’s silence, or confusion prevails. Take something as basic and important as our own medical records. In Canada, we’ve been talking about universal digital access for years. Yet in many provinces, it is still astonishingly hard to get a picture of your health history. In Ontario, there are perplexing tools, portals and disjointed systems, and even after years of public outrage, we still don’t have good access to our records. Most people still end up calling around, waiting for responses, or even paying fees to see their own information. And it’s not that sharing personal or sensitive information isn’t possible. We can check our bank balance in an instant, but not the results of a blood test taken last week. There are brighter spots. In British Columbia, the Health Gateway app lets residents pull up lab results, imaging reports, immunizations, and medications going back decades. Updates appear within days. This is proof that transparency is possible when the will exists. It also highlights the inequity of a patchwork system where some Canadians enjoy open access to their records and others remain in the dark. In the U.S., the issue shows up in different ways. In 2021, for example, a U.S. law came into effect requiring hospitals to post the prices of common procedures online so patients could shop around. It sounds like common sense, especially in a system where patients are paying costs out of pocket. Yet when investigators first looked, they found most hospitals ignored the rule or buried the information in ways that were incomprehensible to patients. Some reports put compliance as low as 14 percent. Even today, after penalties were increased, many hospitals remain noncompliant. Progress is being made, but patients are still left asking: if restaurants can post menus online, why can’t hospitals share something as fundamental as their prices? What unites these examples is that transparency is never just a technical problem. The systems exist. The technology exists. What’s missing is the decision to put users of healthcare ahead of providers. What’s worse is deliberate obfuscation. A lack of openness doesn’t happen by accident. It reflects vested interests – whether governments that want to downplay wait times, hospitals reluctant to expose their performance, or corporations that profit from complexity. It doesn’t have to be this way. When patients have access to their records, they become partners in their care rather than passive recipients. When people can compare prices or outcomes, they can hold institutions accountable. Transparency builds trust, reduces misinformation, and forces systems to improve. Opacity, on the contrary, breeds frustration, suspicion, and inequity. I also want to be transparent with you. My father, Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, was a physician. I am not. I know some readers have assumed otherwise, and I don’t want there to be any confusion. What I can offer is continuity of his work, which was never about hype or fads. For fifty years, his column translated medical research into plain language and encouraged readers to weigh evidence for themselves. That remains my goal: to report honestly, to point readers to credible sources, and to highlight where the system is letting people down. It is time for health care in Canada, the United States, and everywhere else, to be a lot more transparent. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

The Gift of Rejection - How Failure Grows Into Success

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

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

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