The Strange Power of Fake Pills

The Strange Power of Fake Pills By Diana Gifford I have been sorting through unpublished Gifford-Jones columns. Among them, I found a dusty clipping from a Reader’s Digest article by Robert A. Siegel and a rough draft of this week’s column. In it, we find a glimpse into a lecture hall at Harvard Medical School 75 years ago, and the teachings of Dr. Henry Beecher, the Harvard anesthetist who challenged the medical establishment’s views about truth and healing. Beecher had stunned his class of medical students when he asked, “Is it ethical for doctors to prescribe a dummy pill – a pill that does no harm, never causes addiction, and yet often cures the patient?” He was speaking of a placebo. The lecture shocked his students who’d been taught that honesty was an unshakeable tenet of medical ethics. And yet Beecher showed that sometimes, deception can be powerful medicine. Siegel’s Reader’s Digest story echoed this point. He described meeting Dr. John Kelley, a psychology professor at Endicott College who studies the placebo effect at Harvard. Curious, Siegel asked whether a “phony pill” might help him overcome his chronic writer’s block, insomnia, and panic attacks. Kelley obliged with a prescription: 100 gold capsules – Siegel’s favourite colour – costing $405. Each one contained nothing but cellulose. And yet, Siegel found that the more expensive they seemed, the better they worked. The gold capsules helped him focus and stay calm. Even when drowsy, another capsule kept him writing. Beecher published his groundbreaking paper “The Powerful Placebo” in 1955. He argued that all new drugs should be tested in double-blind trials so neither doctor nor patient knows who receives the real drug. The results were unsettling. Hundreds of supposedly effective drugs were found to be little more than expensive illusions. Many were pulled from the market. Placebo therapy itself is ancient. And there’s proof that belief predates biochemistry. In the medical lore, we’re told doctors once prescribed crocodile dung or powdered donkey hoof, and sometimes they worked! Later, physicians injected sterile water to relieve pain, and to their surprise, many patients improved. One study in 1959 found that when surgeons tied off an artery to increase blood supply as a treatment for angina, some patients reported relief. But when surgeons merely made a skin incision and did nothing else, the results were just as good. Ethics boards today would never allow such sham surgeries, yet they taught medicine an unforgettable lesson. The mind can profoundly influence the body. Even more astonishing was later research at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. Placebo pills improved urinary flow in men with enlarged prostates. Some of these same men also developed side effects so real that they had to stop taking the dummy pills altogether. There is a popular account of a 26-year-old man who swallowed many capsules thinking they were antidepressants. But he was actually in the placebo arm of a trial. His blood pressure plummeted, his heart rate soared, but he stabilized when told the pills were placebos. How do placebos work? The colour of the capsule, the cost, the trust in the physician, all play a role. Our expectations can spark real physiological change, from heart rate to pain relief. Beecher’s lecture appalled some medical trainees. Others were intrigued. But all got the lesson. The placebo didn’t deceive patients; it revealed the self-deception of medicine itself. Of course, no placebo will mend a ruptured appendix or stop internal bleeding. But in an era when so many unnecessary prescriptions are written, perhaps it’s time to remember the wisdom of Voltaire, who wrote, “The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.” —————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

I can’t believe I’m writing this but here we go

I can’t believe I’m writing this but here we go By Councillor Lisa Robinson Next time you’re at the grocery store, ask yourself: is the meat and dairy you’re purchasing real… or is it cloned? Most Canadians have no idea that our federal government has quietly opened the door to cloned animals in our food supply. Health Canada has reclassified cloned beef and dairy so they are no longer considered “novel foods.” That single decision removed the requirement for pre-market safety reviews, public notification, and labeling — leaving the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the very agency responsible for enforcing food safety and labeling, with almost no authority to intervene. The CFIA is the same agency that didn’t hesitate to kill healthy ostriches — no tests, no proof, no concern for whether the animals were sick or healthy. And now? With cloned meat, they don’t even need to approve whether it’s safe for humans to eat. Think about that. The very agency that treated living creatures like disposable objects is now deciding what we put on our plates — and they don’t have to show us a single shred of evidence that it’s safe. If they couldn’t care about birds, why should we trust them with people? If Health Canada doesn’t require labels, then the CFIA can’t enforce them. Let me be very clear: cloned beef and dairy products from cloned cattle — and their offspring — can now legally enter our grocery stores. There are no labels, no warnings, and no way for Canadians to know what they’re buying or eating. And the most disturbing part? We don’t even know if it’s already on our shelves. Health Canada has not told the public when the change officially took effect — and since there’s no labeling or tracking, there’s no way to verify what’s already in circulation. They say it’s “safe.” But this isn’t about safety anymore — it’s about transparency, ethics, and trust. Cloning is not natural. It’s a laboratory process that copies an animal’s DNA to create a genetic duplicate. Many cloned animals suffer from deformities, reproductive issues, and shortened lifespans. Even the surrogates that carry them face complications. So instead of increasing oversight, our government quietly removed it. Instead of warning Canadians, they decided we didn’t need to know. WTF Canada — time to start paying attention. Do you think this is transparency? I bet the majority of Canadians — maybe 60 to 70% — have no idea this is even happening. And a good chunk would probably call it a “conspiracy theory” while reading this post. Year a little research will prove it’s truth. This is deception, plain and simple Canadians deserve to know what we’re putting on our tables and feeding our families. Health Canada made the decision. The bullies, I mean the CFIA will enforce it. And the Canadian people are left completely in the dark. Time to open your eyes and start paying attention my friends, Because no government should ever decide that the truth belongs to them — and not to the people. Kind regards, Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” City of Pickering“Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

Why Flying Is Safer Than Surgery?

Why Flying Is Safer Than Surgery By Diana Gifford Many of us have the experience of boarding a plane with a prayer that the pilot has had enough sleep. With your surgeon, it’s a similar problem. Few people get to choose who will do their surgery. Even if you’ve gone to the trouble of arranging a referral to the best, how can you know the doctor hasn’t hit a rough patch? Maybe a crumbling marriage? Or a punishing work and travel schedule that simply has your surgeon fatigued? What can you do? As individual patients, not much. In fact, wait lines are often so long there’s a disincentive to jeopardize that precious surgery date. But as for airline pilots, health care systems have safeguards to ensure surgeons are in good working order. But they are a looser and more opaque. Working hours for pilots are strictly regulated by law. Residents in training often work 24-hour shifts despite known fatigue risks. Fully trained surgeons often have no legally mandated work-hour limits. Schedules are set by hospitals and departments. Is there a culture of bravado among doctors, that they tolerate this? When there’s a near miss in an airplane, the pilot faces the same consequences as passengers. When a surgeon makes an error, there no co-surgeon to prevent or correct it, and reporting of incidents is rare for fear of lawsuits. Physicians are trained to diagnose and to treat. They are not trained to admit vulnerability. Yet, the profession is showing serious strain. More than half of Canadian doctors report feeling burned out, with many contemplating early retirement. In the United States, the numbers are similar. Across Europe, countries have begun to notice alarming levels of depression, addiction, and even suicide among doctors. Why then does the public know so little about existing programs that support doctors and their families. Even healers need help when the going gets rough. We should be broadcasting the programs that care for doctors. And they do exist. The Ontario Medical Association offers a confidential Physician Health Program for doctors, residents, and medical students dealing with mental health challenges, addictions, or professional stress. Other provinces in Canada have comparable services. The U.S. has the Federation of State Physician Health Programs. In Europe, the NHS Practitioner Health service in England, the Practitioner Health Matters Programme in Ireland, and programs in the Netherlands, Norway, and France provide support. Spain offers a particularly sobering example. In the 1990s, several high-profile physician suicides shocked the medical community there. The profession realized that denial and silence were killing their own, and that patients, too, were at risk. In response, the medical colleges created the Programa de Atención Integral al Médico Enfermo, or “Comprehensive Care Program for the Sick Doctor.” It has become a model across Europe, combining confidentiality with structured monitoring to ensure doctors get well and return to practice. The model is strikingly consistent across jurisdictions, offering confidential support, separate from licensing bodies, to encourage doctors to step forward. Where risk to patients is clear, reporting obligations to regulators remain. But the central aim is prevention: address problems before they spiral into impairment, mistakes, or withdrawal from practice. Should the public know more about these programs? My answer is yes. Not to fuel distrust, but to build confidence. A doctor who seeks help is not a doctor to be feared; quite the opposite. Still, it is easy to see why some bristle. Shouldn’t the system be stricter, not gentler, with impaired physicians? Isn’t there a danger these programs “protect their own”? Such suspicion misreads the design. These programs are protective, for doctors and patients. Alas, medicine clings to its culture of invincibility, and that’s why flying is safer than surgery. —————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

The True Rise of Evil

The True Rise of Evil By Dale Jodoin There is cancer spreading through the Western world. It doesn’t come with tanks or uniforms. It spreads quietly through words, through fear, and through the silence of people who should know better. At first it looks like anger. Then it grows into protest. But before long, it becomes hate. And hate, once it takes root, is almost impossible to remove. Right now, that cancer shows up as antisemitism. Jewish people in Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, and across Europe are being blamed, harassed, and attacked for a war they didn’t start. Students are bullied in schools. Jewish athletes and artists are targeted online. Shopkeepers and families are threatened in their own communities. These aren’t soldiers or politicians, just people trying to live their lives. We promised “Never Again” after World War II. Those words were meant to stand for something permanent, something sacred. But promises mean nothing if they aren’t defended. What we’re seeing today feels like the early stages of what our grandparents fought to stop. Silence, excuses, and political cowardice are letting that same darkness grow again. In some cities, people march in the streets chanting for the destruction of Israel and even the death of Jewish people. They call it free speech. But there’s nothing free about it. It’s not a debate, it's poison. And the most shocking part is how many governments stand back and do nothing, afraid of being called names by the loudest voices. That poison has started to seep into our schools and institutions, the very places meant to teach fairness and respect. The National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers’ union in the United States, recently made headlines after removing references to Jews from its Holocaust education materials and distancing itself from groups that train teachers to fight antisemitism. Jewish teachers and students spoke out, saying they felt erased and betrayed. When a national education union does something like that, it doesn’t just rewrite history, it opens the door for hate to return to classrooms under a new name. Once hate enters education, it spreads faster. It shapes how young people think. It tells them who is safe to hate next. And that’s what worries me. Today, the target is Jewish people. But you can already see who might be next. Christians are being mocked and excluded more often in the U.S., Britain, and parts of Europe. Italian Catholics are starting to see similar treatment. After them, it could be anyone, any group that refuses to go along with the mob or disagrees with the loudest crowd. That’s how hate works. It doesn’t stay contained. It grows and consumes everything in its path. We need to start calling things by their real names. The Muslim Brotherhood, banned in several Muslim countries for its violent activities, operates freely in Canada and the West. Antifa, a movement that claims to fight oppression, often spreads its own version of it. These groups don’t just protest; they intimidate, threaten, and sometimes call for destruction. When an ideology pushes violence or calls for death, it stops being political. It becomes terrorism. And terrorism should never be tolerated, no matter what mask it wears. Our governments need to wake up. If an arts group, festival, or publicly funded organization denies Jewish people participation because of their faith, it should lose every dollar of public money. Immediately. Public money is a public trust, and when that trust is broken, it must be cut off. Any teacher, professor, or administrator who bullies or excludes students based on religion should be fired and charged. Schools should be safe for learning, not breeding grounds for hate. And the public must do its part too. Every citizen has a responsibility to speak up. Hate doesn’t just happen “somewhere else.” It starts in small ways a joke, a post, a shrug and before long it’s something no one can control. If you think it won’t reach you, you’re wrong. History has shown again and again that once hate begins, everyone becomes a target eventually. We can’t pretend this is just about one conflict overseas. This is about the soul of our countries about whether we still believe in fairness, freedom, and equal protection under the law. When we turn away from one group being attacked, we give permission for others to be next. If our leaders lack the courage to act, then it’s up to regular people to remind them what this country stands for. Canada, and the Western world, were built on freedom and respect. Those values mean nothing if we only defend them for some. Either we protect all people equally, or we become the very thing we claim to fight against. Hate is lazy. It finds a reason to blame someone else instead of fixing what’s broken. It hides behind politics and faith to excuse cruelty. It grows slowly at first, then all at once. That’s why I keep calling it cancer because you can’t wait it out. You have to cut it out before it spreads. So let’s be clear: anyone calling for genocide, anyone denying others the right to live in peace, anyone using public money to divide people they are part of the problem. If we keep funding them, we are part of it too. This isn’t about left or right, Jewish or Muslim, believer or atheist. It’s about right and wrong. Humanity or hate. The choice is still ours, but not for long. If we don’t act now, if we don’t stand shoulder to shoulder against this rising darkness then one day soon, we’ll look back and wonder when it was that we stopped being the good guys. About the Author: Dale Jodoin is a Canadian journalist and columnist who writes about freedom, faith, and social change. His work focuses on the moral challenges facing modern society and the importance of protecting human rights in an age of growing division.

Lest We Forget — And Lest We Surrender What They Fought For

Lest We Forget — And Lest We Surrender What They Fought For By Councillor Lisa Robinson Every November, I make my way to Pickering’s cenotaph — my favourite place in this city. It’s quiet there. Sacred. A place where gratitude replaces politics and pride replaces excuses. We’ve built something special there — the Poppy Walkway, lined with vibrant red, and the Remembrance Sidewalk, guiding every step toward reflection. They’re more than beautification projects — they’re symbols of a Canada that once stood for courage, duty, and sacrifice. I have family who served. Their stories of honour and love of country shaped who I am. And maybe that’s why this day means so much to me — because I’ve spent my own life standing for the same freedom they fought to protect. But lately, I’ve watched those freedoms — of speech, conscience, and expression — being chipped away, piece by piece. Freedom doesn’t vanish overnight. It fades when good people stop defending it. And that’s what I fear most — that too many are afraid to stand anymore. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And right now, too many good men and women are doing nothing. We used to have Canadians who would run toward danger — even lie about their age — to defend their families and their freedom. Today, too many won’t even risk criticism. They’d rather fit in than stand up. Even here in Pickering, I’ve watched the change up close. Councillors proudly wearing lanyards and pins for special interest causes, but nothing of the Canadian flag — unless it’s Canada Day. Not on their jackets. Not in their offices. Not on their hearts. And some of these same councillors have even liked posts on social media that the Canadian flag is a “symbol of colonial violence.” Yet they still work part-time at our local Legion — the very place built to honour the men and women who fought under that flag. I can think of nothing more hypocritical, or more disgusting. And when I tried to bring back something as simple, as sacred, as our National Anthem before Council meetings, not one councillor would second my motion. Not one. For seven long months, I fought for something that should never have needed a fight — a simple act of respect for our country and for the veterans who died so that we could stand in that chamber and debate freely. And what did the Mayor do? Instead of allowing my motion to stand, he used his Strong Mayor powers to bury it inside a package of unrelated measures that stripped away even more of our local freedoms — measures I could never support in good conscience. He forced my hand — deliberately — so that I’d be made to look like I was voting against the very thing I had begged for for seven months. And make no mistake — the only reason that anthem finally returned wasn’t because of patriotism. It was because of political optics. The Mayor folded it into his “Elbows Up” movement — a show of defiance against President Trump, not a show of love for Canada. It had nothing to do with honouring our veterans, our flag, or our freedoms — and everything to do with opportunism. That’s the kind of leadership we’re dealing with. Even this week, when we raised the poppy flag at City Hall, I looked around the crowd and saw it plain as day: the Mayor and other members of Council stood in silence — I couldn’t hear a single voice singing. I couldn’t even see their lips moving. That silence broke my heart. Because silence is how freedom dies — not with violence, but with indifference. We have politicians who will bend our flag-raising policy to appease every special interest group under the sun — but won’t lift a finger to honour the men and women who died under the one flag that unites us all. We have veterans sleeping in tents while photo-op patriots boast about inclusivity. The same people who claim to “care” about justice can’t be bothered to care about those who gave everything for them to speak freely. This is not who we were meant to be. We used to be a proud, unapologetic, united country. Now, too many are afraid to even say the word Canadian. Well, I refuse to be one of them. I will not apologize for standing up for my country. I will not be silent to spare the feelings of those who’ve forgotten who they serve. Because remembrance isn’t a ceremony — it’s a duty. It’s not about wearing a poppy once a year. It’s about living the values that poppy represents: courage, integrity, and the will to stand when everyone else bows. This Remembrance Day, I’ll be at that cenotaph again, beneath the flag they fought for, surrounded by the spirits of heroes who never came home. And I’ll make the same promise I’ve always made: That I will stand for freedom. That I will speak the truth. And that I will never stop fighting for the Canada they believed in. Because I will never forget. And I will never surrender. Lest we forget — and lest we surrender. With gratitude, Councillor Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEED TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEED TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER LAST WEEK IN THIS SPACE I said Ontario’s individual school boards are basically out of control and that it’s long-past time to eliminate them altogether. If I needed any reassurance that I was right about that, it came by way of a few social media responses to my column. One person I’ll refer to as Jenn had this to say, “Just like the Ministry of Education and its Minister, you have no idea what goes on in a public school or in the realm of public education. I welcome you to spend a week in my school.” Aside from the unlikely prospect of gaining entry to her classroom, I responded by saying the issues I highlighted are in fact, mere ‘drops in the bucket’ as to what's been going on in the current system of school administration. When I suggested that she offer up at least some form of defense as to the examples I chose – those I still believe to be the most indicative of a radical agenda – she doubled down on rhetoric without specifics, suggesting “The system is broken, and it starts with the Ministry.” I see. So, instead of sharing with me the potential benefits of local school boards focusing more on race and gender politics than on basic education like reading, writing, and arithmetic, her finger points directly to the very Education Ministry that is attempting to make some sense of it all. I get the fact that an educator with over two decades of experience will likely feel caught in a trap. If they try to defend what many see as entirely indefensible, they’ll be seen as radicals. At the same time, should they publicly oppose the mandate set by what I’ll call Marxist educators, their likely chance of promotion within a ‘broken system’ will be almost non-existent. Getting back to the social media responses, a fellow I’ll call Jeffery told me, in his infinite wisdom, that my position on the issue was “moronic”. Well, with that kind of diction, surely Jeffery possesses a unique member ID which he now uses to access all the benefits and resources of the Toastmasters Club. Way to go, little man. One person, who preferred to remain cowardly – that is to say ‘anonymous’ on Facebook, actually had the comical fortitude to suggest I was somehow in a homosexual relationship after having read my column. I hope that wasn’t a subtle invitation, whoever you are. I’m seriously not interested. As to being serious, I can tell my readers with certainty that my references in last week’s column undoubtedly form the basis of a collective attack on our local student population. The reasons for that are the controversial policies established by the Durham District School Board that have focused on so-called human rights issues related to gender identity, race, and the content of school libraries. All of which has ignited a fierce public debate as well as protests from concerned parents, and rightly so. What is happening in the debate over whether the classroom is the proper place for discussions about race and gender identification is that school boards are now tossing around references to the Canadian Human Rights Code as a means to do two things – justify teaching children about very sensitive issues that have noting whatever to do with a well-rounded education, and to basically get away with literally forcing a radical social agenda onto students without parental consent. Here’s just one example. In 2023, then-chair of the Durham District School Board, Donna Edwards, stopped a meeting twice during a question period that had quickly grown heated over concerns about gender identity, the appropriateness of school reading materials, and so-called discrimination issues. Her comments to concerned parents wishing to express their views were less than inspiring. “We do welcome and value diverse community perspectives and questions, we appreciate that these can help support our learning and shape different ways of thinking, however; questions, interactions and discussions within our classrooms, schools, workplace and boardroom must be respectful and free of discrimination. Questions or comments that erase or demean identities protected under the Canadian Human Rights Code or that perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination or assumptions are not acceptable.” Remarks such as those appear manifestly arranged to cast the shadow of a legal noose over the heads of anyone who dares to exercise their own rights of free speech – something too many Boards appear to have little time for, unless it be to support their own social and political agenda. At the same meeting, things again became heated when trustees were questioned on the appropriateness of school reading materials, specifically the graphic novel “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, which includes a sexually explicit illustration. A question that was submitted for the purposes of discussion was ultimately censored by the Board to remove the term “pornographic illustrations.” In answer to the question, a senior administrator advised those concerned that the book had been reviewed by the board following a complaint from a parent during the previous school year – and that a review committee made up of educators, administration, superintendents and students found the novel aligned with the board’s “education policy”. There’s the rub. Is it acceptable School Board policy to potentially institutionalize a form of disrespect toward parental rights? How about the consequences of overstepping legal boundaries by acting in a manner more suited to a court of law when providing self-serving interpretations used to counter any opposition? It is widely observed and frequently reported in local media that there are low levels of public awareness and engagement regarding School Board elections and candidates. This is a recognized challenge, with several factors contributing to the issue. School Board elections are held concurrently with Municipal elections every four years, and historically, they tend to have significantly lower voter turnout compared to other levels of government. That shows a clear and dangerous lack of engagement. Voters often report difficulty finding information about individual candidates, their platforms, and the specific role and responsibilities of a school board trustee. One of the more intelligent social media comments I received came from someone named Jake, who had this to say: “…this proposal by the Ontario government is a bid to centralize power, so how would you feel if the (NDP) were removing trustees and appointing supervisors? Because the provincial Conservatives will not be in power forever, but this Bill will still be law whenever they're gone.” Good point, and my reply must focus on what I see as the need for consistency throughout the province. Regardless of which political party holds the reins of power, it would be a far better thing to have a single entity – not only responsible for setting policies, but to be accountable to the public. The days of individual domains controlled by radical School Boards must be brought to an end. Quickly.

STOP NEGOTIATING

STOP NEGOTIATING By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States This week the International headlines read: Trump announces 10 per cent tariff increase on Canadian goods U.S. President Donald Trump says he is raising tariffs on Canadian goods by 10 per cent, after accusing Canada of airing what he called a “fraudulent” advertisement that misrepresented former president Ronald Reagan’s stance on tariffs. In a post published on Truth Social at 4:30 p.m. Saturday, Trump wrote, “I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.” Trump’s post cited his frustration over an advertisement produced by the Ontario government that used clips of Reagan warning about the dangers of protectionism and praising free trade. “Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs,” he wrote. People, people, people. Am I the only one that sees this? Our so called leaders are playing right in to Trumps strategy. If I was Prime Minister. I would not negotiate a thing. Let Trump have his Tariff. Let’s regroup Canada and not worry about the American power trip. As it stand our markets look good to Americans due to the currency exchange. The more we seem desperate to negotiate the harder he presses. Ford has no business getting in the middle of an International economic threat. Trump is way smarter than any of our so called leaders. He knows he can do anything he wants.... so he sets people up. Let’s take this scenario. Trump will impost Tariffs on Canada. Do we really benefit from the fight back? Has it been working so far? NO. It’s a fight you can’t win and eventually will put you at a bigger disadvantage. People are quick to blame job loss to tariffs. Bull. The problem with job losses is poor management and greedy corporate bulls in board rooms. COVID.... The Chinese, Russia, Trump. There is always an excuse for corporations to look for ways to shift corporate interest in the name of making billions. Look at GM. I have been calling it for your the past 20 years. No one believed me. Remember not to long ago. The automakers cried wolf that they would be pulling out and the billions they took in aid? As a nation we need to stop being so gullable and so ignorant of the writings on the wall when it comes to our economy. Remember not to far away... when car companies turned to the Canadian government for assistance in the fear of bankruptcy? The Canadian government once again negotiated with the car automakers and the Canadian taxpayer lost big time... as the money that was to go to Canada to keep jobs ended up paying for new plants all over the world. I say to our Prime Minister... Stop being a fool to Trump. Let him do his thing and you do yours. Canadians are suffering... on our streets. Focus on that first.

When Democracy Becomes Propaganda

When Democracy Becomes Propaganda By Councillor Lisa Robinson When a sitting provincial premier in Canada produces a 60-second commercial using disembodied clips of Ronald Reagan speaking about tariffs — with the clear intent to influence U.S. political opinion — we cross a line. That’s not diplomacy or persuasion. It’s propaganda. Ontario’s government, led by Doug Ford, has spent millions on a U.S. TV ad blitz that features Reagan’s 1987 radio address, edited to criticize tariffs. The ad warns Americans that protectionism will cause retaliation, job losses, and economic collapse — extracting excerpts of Reagan’s voice to serve a modern political purpose. On the surface, using an iconic conservative figure to broadcast a message to Republicans sounds clever. But if you dig deeper, the ad is not an honest “Reagan speaks” piece — it is cherry-picked, decontextualized, and weaponized. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has already stated that the Ontario ad misrepresents Reagan’s full speech and that the province did not secure permission to edit or repurpose it. By stripping away context, selectively choosing sentences, and presenting Reagan’s voice as an argument tailored to this moment, the ad turns Reagan himself into a tool — not a historical figure. That is propaganda, not persuasion. And it’s fair to ask whether this kind of political theatre should be paid for by Ontario taxpayers at all. What Doug Ford’s government did with Ronald Reagan’s words isn’t an isolated stunt — it’s part of a larger pattern. We’ve seen the same tactics right here in Pickering. Our own mayor used taxpayer dollars to produce a propaganda video — not to inform residents, but to attack and discredit an elected colleague who dared to challenge the status quo. The intent was the same as Ford’s Reagan ad: distort the narrative, confuse the public, and weaponize perception. Both rely on emotional manipulation instead of honesty. Both use the public purse to protect political power. And both demonstrate a dangerous trend: government officials using the machinery of public communication to silence dissent and reward loyalty. It’s no coincidence that Doug Ford and the Mayor of Pickering have become close political allies — buddies with mutual friends in the development world, often benefiting from the same cozy network of insiders who profit most when the public stops asking questions. When propaganda replaces truth, those friends get richer, while the people get poorer — in trust, in transparency, and in representation. In an age of AI, deepfakes, and micro-targeted messaging, citizens can no longer assume all “endorsements” are authentic. When governments use history’s icons — or public platforms — as political props, democracy suffers. Whether it’s a province meddling in U.S. politics or a mayor weaponizing City Hall communications, both cross ethical lines. The public should never have to fund propaganda against itself. Ford’s ad campaign and Pickering’s political videos both show how far officials will go to control the narrative. When governments use public money to attack the truth, the people must push back. Because once manipulation becomes normalized, it spreads. Today it’s Reagan’s voice; tomorrow it’s your tax dollars funding hit pieces on local opponents. The same playbook — just a different stage. History and truth belong to all of us. When leaders manipulate one and erase the other, they’re not governing — they’re performing. Doug Ford’s Reagan ad and Pickering’s propaganda videos are not about communication. They’re about control. And when politicians form alliances built on deception, backed by money and developers, the people lose their voice. The antidote is simple but powerful: call it out. Every time. Everywhere. Because once the truth is gone, democracy doesn’t stand a chance. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

Canada’s Balancing Act: Slow Growth, Soft Inflation, and the Long Road to Confidence

Canada’s Balancing Act: Slow Growth, Soft Inflation, and the Long Road to Confidence by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As 2025 draws toward its close, Canada finds itself walking a fine economic line, not in crisis, but not quite in comfort either. Inflation, the ghost that haunted households through the pandemic years, is largely tamed even thought it has lately shown a tendency to rise again. Growth, however, remains tepid, leaving policymakers at the Bank of Canada facing a familiar dilemma: how to keep the economy moving without reigniting the price pressures they fought so hard to subdue. The latest figures from Statistics Canada show annual inflation rising to 2.4 percent in September 2025, up slightly from 1.9 percent in August. The jump resulted mainly from smaller declines in gasoline prices and persistent increases in rent and food costs. On the surface, the number still sits comfortably within the Bank of Canada’s 1-to-3 percent target band, but the upward movement hints at inflation’s stubborn core. Core measures of inflation, those that strip out volatile items like energy, hover closer to 3 percent, a level that keeps central bankers cautious. “We’re seeing encouraging signs, but underlying price momentum hasn’t fully cooled,” a senior Bank economist noted in a recent policy briefing. “It’s premature to declare victory.” For consumers, the relief is relative. Grocery prices are stabilizing but remain high compared to pre-pandemic norms, and rents continue to outpace wage gains in many metropolitan areas. The psychological fatigue from years of price turbulence is evident: Canadians are spending less freely and saving more defensively, even as inflation moderates. While inflation shows signs of normalization, the broader economy has yet to regain its stride. The Bank of Canada’s January 2025 Monetary Policy Report projected real GDP growth of around 1.8 percent this year, edging up modestly in 2026. Independent forecasters, including the OECD, are less optimistic, predicting growth closer to 1.0 percent. The reasons are structural as much as cyclical. Business investment remains soft, productivity growth is flat, and global demand for Canadian exports is lukewarm. Even the housing market, once the engine of national expansion, has cooled under the weight of past rate hikes and new immigration policies slowing population growth. “Canada’s productivity problem has reached emergency status,” warned a recent Wall Street Journal analysis citing senior central-bank officials. Despite record immigration levels earlier in the decade, per-capita output has stagnated, leaving Canadians poorer in relative terms. Households, still burdened by record levels of debt, have become far more cautious. Mortgage renewals at higher rates continue to strain disposable incomes. Many families are postponing major purchases, from vehicles to renovations. Consumer confidence surveys show a population anxious about the future wary of job security, skeptical of government spending, and uncertain about when relief might arrive. The Bank of Canada’s own business outlook surveys echo that mood. Firms report weaker sales and shrinking profit margins, with hiring intentions moderating across most sectors. Exporters, particularly in manufacturing and energy, face the double challenge of slower U.S. demand and global trade frictions. Yet there are pockets of resilience. The service sector hospitality, tourism, and professional services has recovered faster than expected, buoyed by pent-up demand and a rebound in travel. The labour market, while easing, remains relatively tight, with unemployment hovering just above 6 percent. Wage growth has softened but continues to run near 3 percent, roughly matching inflation and preventing a return to real-income declines. For the Bank of Canada, the task now is calibration rather than correction. After an aggressive tightening cycle between 2022 and 2024, which pushed the policy rate to 5 percent, the central bank has cautiously shifted toward a holding pattern and markets are speculating about when cuts will begin. The September uptick in inflation may have delayed that timeline. “They’ll be in no rush,” says Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC. “The Bank wants to see several months of consistent 2 percent-range inflation before pulling the trigger on rate reductions.” Still, pressure is building. Borrowers, from homeowners to small-business owners, are eager for relief. Federal and provincial governments face rising debt-service costs. A premature cut could risk reigniting inflation; a delay could push the economy closer to stagnation. It is, in Governor Tiff Macklem’s words, “a narrow path to soft landing.” Fiscal policy has little room to maneuver. Ottawa’s deficit remains high, and new spending commitments, from housing initiatives to climate-transition programs, are straining the federal balance sheet. The fall economic statement due in November 2025 is expected to emphasize restraint, though targeted tax incentives for investment and innovation may appear. Provincial governments face their own pressures. Ontario’s infrastructure ambitions and Alberta’s energy transition costs collide with the limits of provincial borrowing. Across the country, municipalities are pleading for more funding to expand affordable housing and transit networks, both crucial to restoring productivity and controlling inflationary housing costs. Meanwhile, the immigration recalibration announced earlier this year — tightening the inflow of temporary foreign workers and international students — is beginning to cool demand but also reduce the labour-supply growth that sustained GDP gains. Economists warn of a demographic “whiplash” if policy swings too sharply. Canada’s challenges are hardly unique. The U.S. economy, while still expanding, is also showing signs of fatigue. Global trade remains subdued, and geopolitical tensions from Europe, the Middle East to the South China Sea threaten to destabilize commodity markets. For a resource-exporting nation like Canada, volatility in oil and metals prices can quickly ripple through the national accounts. Yet Canada’s relative stability remains an asset. The banking system is sound, public institutions are trusted, and the inflation-targeting framework continues to anchor expectations. The Canadian dollar, while weaker against the U.S. greenback, has steadied after last year’s slide, helping exporters regain some competitiveness. Most forecasters expect 2026 to mark a modest turning point; a year of slow but steady recovery, provided global conditions hold. The Bank of Canada projects inflation converging toward 2 percent, with GDP growth inching higher as investment recovers and interest rates gradually decline. Still, the structural questions persist: How can Canada lift productivity? How can it make housing affordable again? And how can it ensure the next generation sees rising living standards, not just stable prices? The answers will not come from the central bank alone. They will require a mix of education reform, technology investment, infrastructure renewal, and immigration strategies that balance economic needs with social capacity. Without these, low inflation may be achieved, but prosperity will remain elusive. Canada has, in many respects, passed the inflation test. What lies ahead is the harder exam: restoring economic vitality. The numbers, 2.4 percent inflation, 1 percent growth, tell a story of stability on paper but stagnation in spirit. Whether policymakers can turn this “soft landing” into a genuine takeoff will define the next chapter of Canada’s economic story. Let’s see what the upcoming Liberal Government budget will produce. Hope for the best for the country.

A Candid Conversation

A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Without question, it is a very different world today than the one I grew up in. I remember being a child living in what was then called uptown, it was actually the Yonge and Eglinton area of Toronto. It was a very modest upbringing. My parents worked hard to give their three daughters what they could. We all helped around the house, took turns doing the dishes and things to help our mom. We were respectful and obeyed the rules set out by our parents. We had one bathroom, one television and therefore had to agree on what to watch. Our parents set out most of the viewing schedule and I remember the whole family sitting around the living room watching Carol Burnett, The Waltons and many other entertaining programs. We as children didn’t use the phone much,we waited for someone to come knocking on the door to see if we wanted to play or we went door knocking ourselves. It was simple, stay close, come home as soon as the streetlights came on. At the time, we could not have imagined it being any different than it was. Progress to us (and to our delight), was returning to school in September to find a new piece of equipment added to the playground. For the many that grew up as I did in the sixties and seventies it is very hard to fathom what is going on with our youth today. Years ago, we thought that older people were looking to recruit the younger ones for their crimes and misdemeanors by telling them that they could not get into any serious trouble due to the young offender’s act.It would often be the case that a couple or a few named young adults would be arrested and we would see on the news that there was a young offender involved who could not be named. It seems that that is not even the case anymore. We see on the news on a regular basis, children as young as eleven and twelveare involved in horrific crimes and there are no older adults involved. Which begs the question, what the hell is going on with our youth?Where are the parents is one of the biggest questions that I hear posed when these stories hit the news. What is going on in homes across our region that would make these children think that it is okay to go out and commit the crimes they do? The most recent that comes to mind is the smash and grab at the Oshawa Centre involving a group of boys aged from 13-19. Then there are the 8 kids involved in the armed robbery of another youth on William Lott Dr. in North Oshawa. Here we had12-, 13-, and 15-year-old girls and boys. Back in the summer there was the swarming of a Pizza worker in south Oshawa that involved an 11-year-old boy and 3 girls aged 13,14, and 15. Most heinous of recent youth criminal acts is the elderly woman killed in frontof her home in Pickering by a 14-year-old boy in an absolutely unprovoked attack. Something needs to change. Now. People need to speak up.

It’s Flu Season But It`s Not the Flu

It’s Flu Season But It’s Not the Flu By Diana Gifford “The superfluous,” said Voltaire, the French philosopher, “is a very necessary thing.” Alas, his thinking predated our understanding of the norovirus. The norovirus is one of the most common viruses on the planet – yet it seems to be doing nothing useful, let alone necessary. It’s just making hundreds of millions of people worldwide sick in any given year. A lot of people made sick by norovirus think they have the flu. The symptoms are similar. But norovirus isn’t the flu at all. It’s a tiny, highly contagious virus that infects the stomach and intestines. It spreads through contaminated food, water, surfaces, and most usually, dirty hands. The virus is found only in humans, not animals, and it doesn’t need much help to make trouble. A microscopic particle is enough to make you sick. Once ingested, it multiplies rapidly and exits just as quickly, shedding billions of copies that can infect others. It’s so efficient that it’s been called “the perfect pathogen.” Most outbreaks emerge in familiar places like restaurants, daycare facilities, cruise ships, or long-term care homes. The virus is so hardy that it survives freezing, mild heating, and many cleaning products. Even alcohol-based hand sanitizers, so effective against most bacteria, don’t reliably stop it. Soapy water is the best prevention. Symptoms of infection include sudden nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach cramps. It comes on fast but is usually over in two or three days. Most people recover without lasting harm, though the elderly, very young, or those with weakened immune systems can become dangerously dehydrated. Unlike other viruses, getting it once doesn’t make you stronger. You might think that exposure would at least give your immune system a workout and lead to lasting protection. Unfortunately, norovirus doesn’t play by those rules. Your body does mount a defense and produces antibodies, but they fade quickly – usually within six months to two years – and only protect you from the exact strain that made you sick. But norovirus keeps changing. It mutates its surface proteins just enough to fool your immune system the next time around. That’s why you can catch norovirus again and again. There is literally nothing good about norovirus unless you count that it makes victims better appreciate good plumbing. Scientists have been working for years to develop a vaccine. But so far, the virus’s habit of constant reinvention has stymied efforts. There are dozens of strains, and new ones emerge every few years. Norovirus often strikes just after a family dinner. Within 24 hours, one person starts feeling queasy, another rushes to the bathroom, and soon everyone is apologizing or looking for culprits in the cooking. But it’s not the food. It’s norovirus that came uninvited on unwashed hands. What can we do? The answer is old-fashioned but effective. Wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially before preparing food and after using the bathroom. Keep kitchen surfaces clean. Cook shellfish thoroughly, since oysters and clams can carry the virus if harvested from contaminated waters. And if someone in your home is sick, disinfect using a bleach-based cleaner and handle laundry and dishes with care. Norovirus may be hard to kill, but it doesn’t like hot water, chlorine, or good hygiene habits. The larger lesson in all this is about humility. For all our medical advances, a virus invisible to the naked eye can still level us for days. Immunity isn’t always cumulative, and strength doesn’t always come from exposure. Sometimes, health depends less on what we can endure and more on what we can avoid. —————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

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.

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

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On November 4, Prime Minister Mark Carney will table his government’s first budget since assuming office. Canadians should be aware that this will not be a routine fiscal update. This budget will be nothing less than a test of credibility; a balancing act between urgent promises and the cold arithmetic of national finances. For years, Ottawa has grown accustomed to deficit financing as a political safety valve. Every government since the pandemic has justified red ink with appeals to crisis. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has found that the federal budget deficit will grow beyond previous projections. The total of just over $132 billion between 2025 and 2028 projected in Budget 2024 has escalated to the nearly $255 billion now projected for those years. Moreover, the debt-to-GDP ratio — the Liberals’ so-called “fiscal anchor” — is no longer guaranteed to decline. Much of this is driven by a considerable decline in federal tax revenues due to the personal income tax cut and other measures, as well as even larger increases in federal program spending. Total operating spending alone (excluding many federal transfers) is projected to be more than $10 billion per year higher than previously anticipated. Adding unannounced measures back into the PBO estimates will make cumulative deficits over the next four years exceed $360 billion—almost three times the amount last year’s budget anticipated. Even more concerning is the fact that federal debt is set to grow at a faster rate than the economy. In recent testimony to a parliamentary committee, the PBO noted that this was the first time in 30 years he had seen a projection where this key measure of fiscal sustainability continued to rise over time. Simply put, federal finances are at a precipice. This should trouble Canadians. Debt is not abstract. It is a mortgage on future taxpayers; a quiet siphon on every program we prize. The more Ottawa borrows, the more billions they sink into debt servicing, leaving less for housing, health care, or pensions. To govern as if fiscal gravity does not exist is reckless, and Prime Minister Carney knows it. Nowhere are expectations higher than in housing. For years, governments of all stripes have promised affordability but delivered little relief. Prime Minister Carney has already unveiled the Build Canada Homes initiative, a sprawling plan to accelerate construction. In this budget, the Liberals are expected to sweeten the pot with tax credits, subsidies, and incentives to coax builders and pension funds into action. However, here lies the contradiction: pouring billions into subsidies without tackling municipal bottlenecks, zoning gridlock, or labour shortages risks throwing money into a void. Canadians want roofs, not rhetoric. Unless Ottawa coordinates with provinces and cities to streamline approvals and mobilize labour, the housing crisis will remain a slow-burn national scandal. Also, beyond our borders, allies are losing patience. NATO’s 2 % of GDP target is no longer aspirational; it is a demand. The liberal government is poised to announce significant defence spending increases — new equipment, recruitment campaigns, and modernization of our aging forces. Canadians seems to be split on this. Many resent the idea of billions for tanks and jets while mortgages crush families. Yet the reality of a turbulent world — Russia’s ambitions, China’s assertiveness, American unpredictability — leaves Ottawa with little choice. Defence spending is not charity; it is insurance. Ignoring it only postpones and increases the bill. Whispers of a GST hike hang over this budget like a storm cloud. No government relishes raising taxes, but arithmetic is unforgiving. With deficits swelling, revenue must come from somewhere. Closing corporate loopholes, trimming boutique tax credits, and modestly raising consumption taxes are all on the table. Opponents will howl, but consider this: Canadians already pay the price of deficits, not in taxes today but in higher borrowing costs. A transparent, modest tax increase coupled with serious spending reform would be more honest than endless borrowing masked as generosity. Pre-budget consultations have revealed widespread anxiety about affordability. Groceries, rents, and energy bills are draining households. The government will likely respond with targeted relief measures — perhaps expanded child benefits or new credits for low-income families. These are politically irresistible, but they raise uncomfortable questions: how many more patchwork programs can Canada afford? And do such measures solve the underlying problems — productivity stagnation, weak wages, and supply shortages — or merely mute the symptoms for another year? For decades, Canada has lagged in productivity growth. Our economy too often relies on debt-fuelled consumption rather than investment. Prime Minister Carney, a former central banker with global gravitas, knows this better than anyone does. Yet productivity is the unsexy word missing from political stump speeches. If this budget does not deliver bold measures — from R&D incentives to trade diversification beyond the United States — then Canada will continue its slide toward mediocrity. Housing relief may win headlines; productivity reform would win the future. All of this unfolds under the shadow of minority politics. The Liberals must craft a budget palatable not only to their base but also to opposition parties whose votes are essential for passage. That means sprinkling in enough social supports to appease the New Democrats, while avoiding measures so fiscally reckless that Conservatives can paint the government as irresponsible. Budgets in minority Parliaments are less about economics than about survival. Yet survivalism cannot be Canada’s economic plan. Ultimately, the Fall Budget 2025 is a referendum on credibility. Can the Liberals admit that fiscal resources are finite? Can they deliver tangible progress on housing without throwing money into bureaucratic black holes? Can they prepare Canada for geopolitical storms while safeguarding households at home? Prime Minister Mark Carney’s reputation as a disciplined, globally respected technocrat will be on the line. If he bends to the temptation of pleasing everyone, the result will be a document that satisfies no one and deepens the deficit hole. If he seizes the moment with a clear, tough-minded plan — pairing targeted investments with genuine spending reform and honest revenue measures — he could reset Canada’s trajectory. This upcoming budget is not simply about numbers. It is about the social contract between Canadians and their government. Do we believe Ottawa can make hard choices, or only easy promises? Do we measure success by the billions spent, or by results delivered? Come November 4, Canadians will hear more than a speech. They will hear whether their government has the courage to level with them, or whether it will continue the comfortable illusion that Ottawa can spend without consequence. The country deserves better than illusions.

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.

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