Health Is the Good Fortune You Make

Health Is the Good Fortune You Make By Diana Gifford When it comes to health, my father always told me that good luck is as important, if not more so, than good genes. Like genes, luck is allocated at life’s outset. Watching nightly news on wars, famine, and other disasters has always made me grateful to have been born in Canada. Yet, there’s something to be said for manufacturing your luck too. Sometimes the greatest good fortune comes not from happenstance, but from the choices you make. And among the most consequential of choices is the selection of a life partner. People commonly equate getting married with happiness. But it is every bit as important to health. Research shows that being teamed up doesn’t only add years to life, which on average it does. It also means quicker recognition of symptoms of a health problem, a supportive push to see the doctor and assistance in getting there, and caring advocacy for best interests. Former President Jimmy Carter, who lived to 100, credited his 77-year union with Rosalynn as “the best thing I ever did”. Comedian Rita Rudner said: “I love being married. It’s so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life.” Herein, two commonly unrecognized elements of how marriage generates health: love and laughter. If you are lucky, you get both. In addition to the benefit of living longer, people in committed partnerships recover more quickly from illness, and face lower risks of depression, dementia, heart disease, and even cancer. But the quality of the union matters. Stress-filled, resentful partnerships are like slow-acting poisons, raising blood pressure and weakening the immune system. The healthiest marriages, in fact, are not fairy tales. They are long experiments in teamwork, patience, forgiveness, and stamina. Healthy unions generate happiness. But they also test the ability to recover after inevitable ruptures – little ones or big ones. In finding good health, resilience is more important than avoiding every risk. The healthiest people are not those who never fall ill, but those who rebound well. The same is true in relationships. A marriage that can heal after conflict, adapt through change, and find laughter in the middle of the mess is often the strongest of all. Think of it like inflammation. In the body, chronic inflammation erodes health, quietly damaging arteries, joints, even the brain. In a marriage, unresolved resentment does the same. Forgiveness, like an anti-inflammatory, doesn’t erase the injury, but it allows healing to begin. How do shared struggles strengthen your bond and lead to better health? Couples who weather illness, financial strain, or any kind of trouble with children often emerge closer than before. A new kind of bond develops from hardships. Much like bones that sometimes heal stronger at the fracture site, marriages can become most resilient at their breaking points. Unfortunately, too few people know this. It’s not taught. People give up, and therein lose a great deal. It seems wrong to be overly calculating about marriage. Falling in love is so much more romantic than arranged marriages. But there does come a time in any partnership when it’s useful to develop skills of appreciation. Both individuals in a couple need to know that arguing about the thermostat can be an opportunity for expressing care for each other. Whatever the issue, when tempers flare, you’ll be wise to remember how much stronger the team is than the sole player. Years on, you won’t recall who ‘won’ the thermostat battle, only that you fought it together. Don’t aim for a perfect partnership. Aim for a resilient one. Done well together, this is its own form of health. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I.

POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I. NO GREAT DISTINCTION must be made between events here at home and those from faraway places that have the capacity to touch our lives. Some issues are so large as to create contradictory opinions on matters of morality, separating us into different factions within our communities, our families, and among those we trust the most. We live in an age where one must decide – willingly or not – where one stands in a society increasingly divided in all things. While it is reasonable to entertain different opinions upon subjects that affect entire countries alike, such as, for instance, the recent assassination of a social and political activist south of the border, it isn’t long before a feeling of moral oppression takes hold. There are unsupportable evils that become the foundation for cross debate, where individuals can exercise a degree of callousness that is all too often hard to reconcile. Locally, we can expect elected members of local councils to ultimately share their thoughts on the killing of Charlie Kirk, the activist to whom I refer, and what that means for the future of public debate within City Hall or on social media. Not unrelated to this is the recent drive towards the “Elect Respect” campaign, which sees our democracy as being under great pressure due to rising public distrust with seemingly unrelenting personal attacks in political spaces. Clarington Council voted recently in favour of a motion to hold their members to the tenets of the Elect Respect mandate, which includes rejecting and calling out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks while focusing their debates on policies rather than personalities. At issue is the need to build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold elected office. Expect all municipalities to eventually jump on board in a similar fashion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Another potentially divisive issue has taken root within the corridors of power over at Regional Council, as seen in their recently released report entitled “Diversity Equity and Inclusion Strategy 2025 – 2029”. Before any of my readers come to an immediate conclusion on this topic, consider the following aspects of the report. The introductory statement tells us the Region’s DEI strategy offers “…a stronger, more unified path forward: one that not only connects the important work now underway, but also sets goals, a shared vision and a long-term commitment to meaningful change.” It goes on to say, “This document is more than a plan; it is a framework for transformative action…” There’s a great deal one could unpack from that text, however; my focus for now is directed towards the report’s “Glossary of Key Terms”. ALLYSHIP, which is basically the active support for the rights of a minority or marginalized group without being a member of it. Sounds reasonable – but a look at the description reveals the following: “An active and consistent practice in which a person in a position of privilege…seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group”. EQUITY, a principle based on advocating ‘fairness’ for all individuals. The Glossary offers this interpretation: “Achieving equality does not necessarily mean treating individuals or groups in the same way, but may require the use of specific measures…” EQUITY DESERVING GROUPS, being those who are seen as having faced barriers to receiving equal opportunities. The Glossary offers a very aggressive interpretation of the term, “Communities that…actively seek social justice and reparations.” HATE ACTIVITY, which includes an assessment of the comments and actions by one individual towards another. Among the interpretations offered on this aspect, the report states, “Examples are: hate crime, hate propaganda, advocating genocide…” There are far too many aspects of the DEI report to analyze within this column, however, it is clear the Region’s views on the equitable treatment of individuals within the community go much further than employment policies and the delivery of social services. The report is nothing less than a political manifesto designed to cast aspersions on Canada and a particular demographic that has lived here for generations – as though they themselves had just disembarked from a sailing ship onto North American soil. This columnist has never been in a position of privilege, and my country is not a so-called colony, but rather a proud nation – Canada. The assertion by the report’s authors that it is somehow wrong to treat all citizens of this country in an equal manner is quite frankly, monstrous, and it demonstrates a repugnance towards what should be seen as true equity – based on universal freedoms, opportunities and merit. In addition, the word “genocide” has become a modern-day political weapon based on one of those unsupportable evils that are now used as the foundation for debate among the more radical in our society. Finally, it is not and never has been the mandate of staff or councillors at the Region of Durham to include references to social justice and most of all, reparations among groups or individuals. The massive bureaucracy that is Regional government bears the responsibility to provide efficient and equitable services to its residents, and only that. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To close out this week’s column, I’d like to comment on the issue of automated speed cameras, which have been in the news lately. During an event in Toronto, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked about speed cameras in Toronto that have been repeatedly vandalized or cut down, and he responded by saying there are other ways to slow drivers down. "If you want to slow down traffic at a school, you put the big signs, big flashing lights at a crossing area, and people will slow down," he said. "I've driven by speed traps that aren't even close to school areas. It's nothing but a tax grab." The Premier is absolutely correct in his assertion, which comes at a time when many municipalities have become reliant on the cash windfall that has resulted in what many see as automated ATM installations on roads designed for a certain traffic flow. I wrote a previous column on the issue of speed cameras and the fact there is no data whatsoever to support their proliferation – and yet, there are those among us who still line up like sheep to advocate for more and increasingly invasive monitoring by Big Government. Among this week’s topics, that last aspect is probably the saddest.

Multiculturalism at a Crossroads: How Much Is Too Much?

Multiculturalism at a Crossroads: How Much Is Too Much? By Dale Jodoin Immigration has always been a difficult subject. In recent weeks, news stories from Great Britain, France, and other countries have been filled with arguments over one simple but heavy question: how many immigrants is too many? At what point does a country reach a tipping point where new arrivals no longer blend into the culture but start to reshape it in ways people didn’t ask for? Canada is often held up as the shining example of multiculturalism. For decades, we’ve called ourselves a multicultural country. The meaning of that has usually been clear: Canada has its own culture, but we welcome newcomers to share parts of theirs with us. It’s why you can eat Indian curry one night, Jamaican jerk chicken the next, and pierogis the night after. It’s why Toronto is famous for being one of the most diverse cities on earth. But lately, the question has become sharper: what happens when multiculturalism starts to mean not “sharing” but “replacing”? Accepting Some, Not All When we talk about multiculturalism, most Canadians think of food, music, art, and language. Those are parts of culture we gladly accept. They enrich us. But culture is more than food and music. Culture also includes traditions, laws, and beliefs about family and honour. And here lies the problem. Some cultural practices don’t fit with Canadian values. Take the tragic issue of so-called “honour killings.” These happen when a daughter refuses to follow family orders, such as marrying a man chosen for her in the old country. There have been cases where young women in Canada have been murdered by their own families for disobeying. The excuse given is that it’s part of “their culture.” But Canadians look at this with horror. Murder is murder. India offers another example. For centuries, some groups were labelled “untouchables,” a caste so low that others wouldn’t go near them. That practice was based on tradition, but it created a society divided by hate. Should a country like Canada, which believes in equality, ever accept that? Multiculturalism should never mean importing systems of hate, class division, or violence. It should mean sharing the best parts of cultures, while leaving the worst behind. When Old Conflicts Travel One of the biggest worries people have is that immigrants don’t just bring food, festivals, or hard work. Sometimes, they bring old hatreds from their homelands. Civil wars, religious feuds, and tribal rivalries don’t always stay in the past. When large groups of people from the same background arrive, they can recreate the same divisions here. Instead of adopting Canada, they demand Canada adopt them. We see this in Europe right now. In France, large protests have broken out because of tension between immigrant groups and the native population. In Britain, debates over grooming gangs groups of men targeting young girls have shaken communities. The problem is not with all immigrants, but with certain networks that bring cultural practices which clash directly with Western laws and values. This raises a hard question for Canadians: are we prepared for the same thing? Why Canada, Not Their Neighbours? There’s another twist. Many of the people who come to Canada are not welcome in other countries near their homeland. Across much of the Middle East, for example, certain religious minorities are persecuted. In some cases, they are even killed. They flee to the West because it is safe. Canada gives them a new start. But then, instead of fully embracing Canadian life, some demand Canada reshape itself around their old ways. This frustrates Canadians who feel they are being forced to change the very culture that gave these newcomers safety in the first place. Drawing the Line So where should Canada draw the line? That’s the heart of the debate. It’s not about rejecting all immigration. Most Canadians support newcomers who come to work hard, follow the law, and contribute to society. Our economy needs immigration. But Canadians are also saying clearly that some parts of other cultures don’t belong here. No country should allow practices like forced marriage, grooming gangs, caste divisions, or honour killings. Those are not “cultural differences.” They are crimes. If a person insists that their “culture” gives them the right to do these things, Canada has every right to deport them. Multiculturalism doesn’t mean tolerating the intolerable. Becoming Tribal The risk, if we ignore this, is that Canada becomes tribal. Instead of one country with many backgrounds, we end up with many countries inside one border. Each group follows its own rules. Each group defends its own grievances. That isn’t unity, it's division. And division can turn violent. Already, words are heating up. Groups accuse each other of hate. Immigrant activists sometimes claim to be victims, even when they are the ones importing practices Canadians find hateful. Native Canadians, meanwhile, feel silenced, afraid of being called racist for pointing out real problems. The truth is that multiculturalism has limits. It works when people bring their best, not their worst. The Canadian Way Canada’s strength has always been its ability to blend. Italians brought pizza, and it became Canadian. Jamaicans brought reggae, and it’s played on Canadian radios. Indians brought samosas, and they’re sold in corner stores everywhere. But none of these groups demanded that Canada abandon its own laws or values. They added, they didn’t replace. That’s the Canadian way. So the debate isn’t about whether immigration is good or bad. It’s about what kind of immigration strengthens Canada and what kind weakens it. It’s about recognizing that some parts of “culture” are actually cult-like practices of control, violence, and hate. Those must never be excused in the name of diversity. Canada is at a crossroads. If we accept multiculturalism as “everything goes,” then we risk importing the very divisions and hatreds people fled from in the first place. But if we say multiculturalism means sharing the best of each culture while keeping Canada’s own identity strong, then we can continue to thrive. No one wants to see honour killings, forced marriages, caste systems, or grooming gangs on Canadian soil. No one wants tribal conflict to replace Canadian unity. Most Canadians are ready to welcome newcomers. But they also want to know those newcomers are ready to be Canadian too. That’s the tipping point. And it’s a debate Canada cannot afford to avoid.

Canada–China Relations: Current Challenges

Canada–China Relations: Current Challenges by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In a rapidly changing geopolitical world, Canada’s international relations need drastic improvement. The former Trudeau government’s actions contrived to sink Canada to the lowest ebb in international relations, particularly with emerging economic powers such as India and China. In light of the current, challenging United States-Canada trade relations, Canada needs to diversify its international trade relations intelligently with emerging economic powers such as China. Canada–China relations, at the lowest points in decades, have entered one of their most difficult and unsettled phases in recent memory. . What was once framed as a pragmatic partnership anchored in commerce and cautious diplomacy has shifted toward suspicion, retaliation, and hardened positions on both sides. Human rights, trade wars, political interference, and security disputes dominate the agenda, leaving little room for constructive engagement. For Canada, the challenge lies in balancing its economic interests with the defense of democratic values and sovereignty. For China, relations with Ottawa are often viewed through the broader prism of its rivalry with the United States and Western allies. The result is a bilateral relationship characterized less by partnership than by friction; an uneasy dynamic with global implications. Few issues have inflamed Canadian public opinion more than human rights disputes with Beijing. In early 2025, China executed four individuals who held Canadian citizenship, all convicted of drug offenses. Although they were dual nationals, Beijing does not recognize dual nationality and dismissed Canada’s repeated appeals for clemency. Ottawa condemned the executions as a violation of basic human dignity, while Beijing defended the move as consistent with domestic law. This event revived memories of one of the darkest chapters in bilateral ties: the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Arrested in 2018 shortly after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on a U.S. extradition request, the two Canadians spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons. Their ordeal was seen internationally as retaliation—so-called “hostage diplomacy.” Though they were released in 2021 when Meng returned to China, the episode permanently scarred Canadian perceptions of Beijing. Canada has also taken firm positions on China’s treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Falun Gong practitioners. Since 2021, Ottawa has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials and entities tied to human rights abuses, most recently expanding its sanctions framework in late 2024 and early 2025. Beijing consistently rejects these accusations, calling them interference in its internal affairs, but the measures reflect a growing willingness in Canada to adopt values-based foreign policy tools against China. Trade once served as the ballast stabilizing Canada–China relations. For years, Canadian agricultural products, energy exports, and natural resources flowed to Chinese markets, while manufactured goods and electronics arrived in Canada. In the last five years, however, trade has become a battleground. In 2024, Ottawa imposed steep tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles, citing unfair subsidies and risks to domestic industries. China retaliated swiftly, targeting Canadian agricultural exports. Canola, a C$5 billion industry, has been hit hardest: in August 2025, Beijing levied a punitive anti-dumping duty of 75.8% on Canadian canola imports. Farmers across the Prairies, already battered by fluctuating markets, warned of devastating losses. The clash has expanded into other sectors. China has restricted imports of peas, oilcakes, pork, and aquatic products, while Canada has pursued cases at the World Trade Organization. Beijing, in turn, has filed its own WTO complaint against Ottawa’s steel import restrictions, calling them protectionist. What began as a series of tit-for-tat measures has escalated into a broader trade war, with no resolution in sight. At the same time, Canada is working with allies to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains for critical minerals—lithium, cobalt, and rare earths essential for clean technology and defense industries. Ottawa has pledged funding for domestic mining projects and secured agreements with partners in the G7 and NATO. For Beijing, these moves signal an attempt to exclude China from future supply chains; for Canada, they are seen as insurance against strategic vulnerability. Security disputes add another layer of complexity. In June 2025, Canada ordered the closure of Hikvision’s operations, citing evidence that the Chinese surveillance giant was linked to rights abuses and posed risks to national security. The decision followed earlier restrictions on Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G networks, part of a coordinated stance with the United States, the UK, and Australia. Chinese officials condemned these moves, accusing Canada of undermining fair competition and politicizing technology. Yet Canadian policymakers point to rising concerns over espionage, cyberattacks, and the use of surveillance technology for repression abroad. The closure of Hikvision reflects not only human rights concerns but also a broader shift: Canada is aligning its technology policies with Western security alliances, even at the cost of losing Chinese investment and market access. Perhaps the most sensitive issue domestically has been allegations of Chinese interference in Canada’s democratic processes. Investigations by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and testimony before the Parliamentary Foreign Interference Commission revealed evidence of Chinese activities during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The tactics included undisclosed financial support for certain candidates, disinformation campaigns on social media, and efforts to influence diaspora communities. While inquiries concluded that the overall outcomes of the elections were not altered, they noted that interference likely affected specific ridings. For Canadians, the findings struck at the heart of democratic integrity. Public pressure has forced successive governments to act more decisively. Ottawa has introduced new transparency requirements for foreign funding, strengthened CSIS oversight, and pledged closer cooperation with allies to counter disinformation. Beijing denies all allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated, but the revelations have fueled mistrust at both the political and public levels. The political context in Canada adds further uncertainty. When Mark Carney became prime minister in March 2025, analysts speculated about a possible recalibration. Carney, with his global economic expertise and reputation as a pragmatist, signaled openness to selective engagement with China, particularly in clean energy and climate policy. Yet domestic politics constrain his options. Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre is pushing for an even tougher line against Beijing, echoing public sentiment hardened by years of disputes. In this environment, any government will find it politically difficult to pursue rapprochement. In conclusion, Canada–China relations are now defined by confrontation rather than cooperation. Human rights disputes, escalating trade wars, security restrictions, and allegations of political interference have left little common ground. Economic ties, once the glue binding the relationship, are fraying under the weight of tariffs and retaliation. For Canada, China represents both an economic opportunity and a strategic risk. For China, Canada is a middle power closely aligned with the United States, making it both a convenient target for retaliation and a test case for how Western allies respond to Beijing’s policies. The future remains uncertain. China’s global ambitions and Canada’s alliance commitments mean that structural tensions will persist. Cooperation may still be possible in limited areas but the Canada–China relationship has entered a new era; one where suspicion overshadows trust, retaliation replaces compromise, and the path forward is defined by challenge rather than opportunity.

No Mr. Darcy

No Mr. Darcy By Wayne and Tamara I will try to make this brief as I can. My husband and I separated over a lot of issues, the main one being I thought he was cheating. Well, I think he may have been, because we were not even apart a month when I found out he is seeing his mother’s chore worker. I was devastated. I loved him and wanted this marriage to work. I called near divorce time to tell him where to send the papers. We had nothing but angry words to one another before that call. He was sweet. I told him I was so sorry our marriage ended, but thought of him often and still loved him. I just wanted to cleanse old wounds. One hour later he called back asking to come to my home to clear the air. We both cried and talked about where we went wrong in the marriage. He asked me to give him time. He said this other woman did not want him; he barely ever saw her. But then he revealed her daughter and her daughter’s husband are living with him. Just give him time to clean up this mess, he said. When he told the other woman I called, she came running back into his life. He still leads me on and tells me he wants to try. I am getting played the fool, but I am having the worst time letting him go. I try but I can’t. He is the love of my life. He sees me wanting out, then he spews out words to hook me again. I feel like a fish getting thrown in and tossed back time and again. I know she is not living with him, but she sees him two or three times a week. Then he gets cool and distant toward me. But if she stays away, he leads me down this cruel path. I have prayed, remained faithful to him, and now I am at my wits’ end. How could anyone do this to another for a second time? Help me let him go, please. I have always been a strong woman, but this time I find no strength to be that woman. Beatrice Beatrice, how could he do this to you for the second time? The same way he could do it to you for the first time. This mess is a mess made by him. It was his mess to make, and it was his mess to clean up. But he has made another choice. He is not willing to do without a body in his bed. If she’s not there warming his bed, he wants you to be there warming his bed, with not a care about how either of you is affected by this. There is enough of the charmer, or the serpent, about this man that he can receive the benefit of having two of what he should only have one of, at a time. Someone you can spend your life with, share your bed with, share your deepest thoughts with—someone like that is someone not like this man. In Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice” there is a clergyman named Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins is a bootlicker and dense as a board. But in the novel he says one wise thing. After Lizzy Bennet rejects his offer of marriage, Mr. Collins says, “I have often observed that resignation is never so perfect as when the blessing denied begins to lose somewhat of its value in our estimation.” This man is not the love of your life, though you want him to be. You wanted one wedding and one lifetime marriage. You cannot have that with him. You can never rest with an easy head or an easy heart. He won’t stand by you. To free yourself, he has to lose some of his value in your estimation. Wayne & Tamara

When Classrooms Turn Dark

When Classrooms Turn Dark By Dale Jodoin A federal report reveals one in six antisemitic incidents in Ontario schools involve teachers. What happens when blame becomes part of the lesson plan? Most people want to believe schools are safe spaces. Teachers are trusted to guide young people toward knowledge and fairness. And for the majority, that trust is well-earned. But a new government study has exposed a dangerous minority. In February 2025, Canadian Heritage released The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools. It tracked more than 780 reports of antisemitic incidents across the province between October 2023 and January 2025. The number that stood out: nearly one in six of those cases 17 percent involved teachers or school-sanctioned activities. That’s not playground gossip. It’s government data. And it forces us to ask: what happens when the people meant to protect kids are the ones planting harm? “Nearly one in six antisemitic incidents in Ontario schools were linked to teachers themselves.” The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools, Canadian Heritage, 2025 The report tells of Jewish students mocked or shamed in class, made to feel responsible for wars half a world away. One girl recalled that whenever the Middle East came up, classmates turned to stare at her while the teacher stayed silent. Others described slurs that went unchallenged, or comments that made their very identity feel like a crime. And it’s not just Jewish children. Caucasian boys white boys in general are often singled out, not for behavior, but for skin and gender. The message they hear sometimes openly, sometimes between the lines is that their identity makes them guilty. By high school, many have learned silence is safer than speaking. The danger is obvious: once schools normalize blaming one group, that same habit can swing toward others. Words from peers sting. Words from a teacher's scar. Authority has weight. When an adult suggests a child “is the problem,” the message lodges deep. Psychologists call this internalized blame. It starts in middle school, turns to silence in high school, and hardens into conformity by university. By then, questioning the script is treated not as curiosity but as harm. Students are rewarded for slogans, not reasoning. We’ve seen this before. Every society that forgets, every system that lets anger turn into targeting, begins with the young. Children are the first to carry the burden of collective blame. Ontario’s numbers are a warning. One in six isn’t small. It’s a signal. The Numbers 781 antisemitic incidents reported in Ontario schools (2023–2025) 1 in 6 involved teachers or school-sanctioned events Nearly 17% of cases were authority-driven, not peer-driven Report commissioned by Canadian Heritage, published February 2025 Most teachers are not part of this. The majority guide with fairness, challenge respectfully, and protect their students. But a dangerous minority, exposed in the government’s own data, cannot be ignored. Seventeen percent means this isn’t rare enough to dismiss. It means real children Jewish kids, Caucasian boys, and others are being shaped by shame instead of learning. If classrooms want to heal, the rules must be simple: Criticize actions, not identities. Teach history with multiple perspectives, not slogans. Protect debate, but punish harassment even when it comes from a teacher. The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools isn’t just a tally of incidents. It’s a warning flare. When blame enters the classroom, children pay the price first. Today it’s Jewish students. Yesterday it was Caucasian boys. Tomorrow, it could be someone else entirely. The saddest part is that we don’t seem to learn. We tell ourselves schools are safer, kinder, more aware and yet kids still sit at their desks feeling ashamed for who they are. Authority, the very thing that should lift them up, is sometimes what pushes them down. Most teachers are good. They care deeply, and they carry a heavy load. But when even a minority trade education for blame, the echo doesn’t end with one lesson. It stretches for years, shaping how young people see themselves and each other. We can’t allow that echo to become the new normal.

Creating or Consuming Why Creating Art is Necessary in Everyday Life

Creating or Consuming Why Creating Art is Necessary in Everyday Life By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Creating art is a key component of humanity, something which our species has done for thousands of years. From parietal art to historical sculptures, we naturally gravitate toward creating throughout our lives. From a young age, we engage in arts and crafts, dancing, drawing, and storytelling. These activities are not just for entertainment purposes, but also to improve problem solving, communication, confidence, memory, and intelligence. Despite these benefits, we often disregard creativity in pursuit of simplicity and conventionality as we grow older. We instead spend our days consuming the content which has already been made, forgetting our individual crafts. This artistic oversight can be extremely harmful, as we begin to miss out on the countless benefits of creativity. When we think of art, we often consider professional, timeless pieces, such as Van Gogh's paintings or Shakespeare's plays. We envision perfection which has been passed down for generations, analyzed for deeper meanings and significance. Studying these impactful pieces can give us great insight into societies past and present, however it can also be the root of our issue. Our society has placed an unrealistic standard of perfection on art, which has caused most people to abandon the true point of creating; it’s not about fame or audience, but expression and connection. Not every piece needs to be worthy of greatness, they just need to be authentically yours. Until recently, I never considered myself a creative person. I have always disliked drawing, painting, and dancing. I am clueless regarding musical instruments, and I often give up on writing projects. I felt uninspired and talentless until last year, when I committed to theatre. Through my school's regional arts program, I have learnt to express myself through words, movement, and execution. I have directed, designed costumes, analyzed characters, managed backstage, interpreted soundtracks, and acted in multiple productions, with each task teaching me something different about both the arts and myself. Through these experiences, I have built a strong community of friends, developed critical thinking skills, and further evolved my sense of self. Since I discovered my passion for theatre, I have begun to understand creativity's role in everyday life through common tasks and hobbies. In my daily life, I am creative through baking, crafting, journaling, sewing, and taking photos. Day by day, we have the opportunity to learn, experiment and create, in whichever way works for us. You do not need to paint or act to be creative; you just need to experiment and express yourself. Art acts as an expressive outlet for our emotions and thoughts, which develops a thorough sense of self not otherwise possible. Emotions are rarely straightforward, making it difficult to understand what you’re feeling and why. Through paintings, film, theatre, dance, poetry, and music, many individuals are able to express and understand their emotions with a unique depth. Additionally, creativity has been tied to stress reduction, confidence in accomplishments, and brain stimulation. Engaging in the arts can serve as both a strategy to understand emotions and to redirect your energy, proving useful to every individual's mental health. In 2025, it is easy to get overwhelmed by the content which floods our lives, making it difficult to understand who you are and what you want. The art of creating can keep you grounded, connected, and understanding of yourself, rather than living through the eyes of others. It does not matter what you make and your purpose for making it, all that matters is that you continue despite the difficulties. It’s time to stop consuming the opinions and pressures of others; instead, it’s time to pick up a pen, a guitar, or a script. Instead, it’s time to create.

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids By Councillor Lisa Robinson This year, it’s time to raise strong, confident children who know their value comes from being human — not from a label. As the 2025 - 2026 school year begins, parents, teachers, and students must ask: are we truly preparing children for life — or are we exposing them to confusing messages and adult agendas that could harm them? Schools should teach reading, writing, math, and character. Yet many classrooms have become social experiments, filled with identity labels, sexual themes, and divisive categories that pit students against each other. No child should ever be bullied or feel unsafe because of who they are. That is obvious. But the current approach is not protection — it’s confusion. It sends a message: some children deserve the spotlight, while others are invisible. Consider straight students who receive no recognition while other sexualities are celebrated. Every child wants to feel special, to be seen and recognized. When straight children are overlooked, some may go along with what is being presented — even if it doesn’t reflect who they are — just to feel acknowledged. That is not equality — that is favoritism. Glamorizing sexuality in front of children is not protection. It is adult content thrust on minds that are not ready. And then we wonder why anxiety, confusion, and even suicide rates among youth continue to rise. Parents need to be informed. Children should never be placed in situations where they are told to hide things or lie about what is happening in school. No safe, no good adult would ever instruct a child to deceive their parents — ever. Teachers, staff, and administrators must remember that respecting family boundaries is part of protecting children. If we truly care about children’s mental health, we must: Teach respect, kindness, courage, and resilience. Stop dividing students by labels and identities. Protect children from bullying without pushing ideology. Remind every child — straight, gay, religious, or non-religious — that their value comes from being human, not from a label. Remind children that it’s okay to be young. Childhood is not a rehearsal for adulthood — they do not need to rush into adult decisions or activities. Their childhood is valuable and deserves protection. Fantasy is not reality Every child deserves to be seen — not for a label, but for who they are. That is real equality. That is fairness. That is how we will actually reduce youth suicide — not by injecting identity politics into every classroom. Children need stability, not confusion. They need role models, not agendas. They need schools that build them up, not break them down. This school year can be different. It can be better. Let’s stop glamorizing sexuality. Let’s stop giving attention and praise based on who a child says they are attracted to. Let’s raise strong, grounded, confident young people who know they matter — not because of a label, but because they are human beings of infinite worth. Parents, teachers, and children: let’s put our children first this school year. Let’s make this a year of clarity, respect, and real support for every child. Let children be children “No label defines a child. No agenda owns their childhood.” - Lisa Robinson 2025 Then my name,”…… 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

2025 - Canada Under Fire

2025 - Canada Under Fire by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As the summer plods along with challenging domestic and international problems, Canadians also face an unprecedented rash of forest fires with many communities affected from coast to coast to coast. It has really been a season and a year of extremes. Currently, Canada is in the grip of its second-worst wildfire season on record, with flames now stretching beyond the West into the Prairie and Atlantic provinces including Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre says 7.5 million hectares have already burned in 2025, surpassing the 10-year average and reinforcing warnings that wildfire seasons are growing longer, more destructive and less predictable. Regions such as Alberta have been hit hard, with significant damages reported in popular areas like Jasper. Over the past weeks, raging, out-of-control wildfires have forced tens of thousands from their homes nationwide. In Manitoba alone, the Canadian Red Cross reports that it has helped more than 32,000 people evacuated from about 12,000 households. Recent years have been particularly challenging, with 2023 marking the worst wildfire season on record, where approximately 16 million hectares were scorched. The previous year also saw over five million hectares burned, highlighting a troubling trend in wildfire intensity and frequency across the country. In summary, the wildfire situation in Canada is critical with extensive areas affected, requiring ongoing efforts to manage and contain the fires. Drought is one example of root causes of wildfires. Canada is a big place and it is always dry somewhere, but not like this year. Agriculture Canada's map shows most of the country was abnormally dry. Large stretches of the Prairies were under at least moderate drought conditions, reaching extreme proportions in southern Alberta. In British Columbia, once the "wet coast," 28 of 34 river basins were at the province's top two drought levels. Ranchers were selling cattle that they could not grow enough hay to feed, and low stream flows threatened salmon runs. However, the effect of the prolonged heat was not restricted to the land. Waters off all three Canadian coasts have never been warmer. Hudson Bay is up to 30 C warmer. The Pacific coast is between 20 C and 40 C warmer. Both the Atlantic and Arctic coasts are 50 C above average. Then there were the fires that spread smoke across the continent and into Europe, where "Canadian wildfires" made headlines from the New York Times to Europe's nightly news. All 13 provinces and territories have been affected, often at the same time. Tens of thousands of people have been forced from their homes, hundreds of houses were destroyed and firefighters have been killed. If we look at the history of forest and vegetation fires in Canada in general, since the 1970s and 1980s, the total annual number of wildfires in Canada has decreased while the total area burned has increased, though there is variability from year to year. The number and size of large fires has increased since 1959, and the average fire season has become longer by about two weeks. In Canada, wildfire season usually starts in May. The 2023 fires have been compared to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire and the 2021 Lytton wildfire, but the fires this year were second worse. When people revert to blaming the now well-known slogan of “climate change” perpetuated by humans, we might do well to consider that the so-called ‘climate change’ is a natural and cyclic phenomenon depending on many variables, including the path of the earth in space. At the same time we must not ignore the basic issue of forest management. It seems that the political elite and elite scientists do not see the forest for the trees. Lightning causes roughly half of all wildfires in Canada; lightning strikes and lightning-caused fires are happening more frequently. Lightning-caused fires account for about 85% of land burned, often occurring in clusters in remote locations. The other half of wildfires in Canada are human-caused, often unintentionally sparked by discarded cigarette butts, abandoned smouldering campfires, sparks from braking trains and the like. However, let us face it: forest management is also a big factor in the cause/management of wildfires. So here we are; because Canada's forest management has focused on fire suppression, dry vegetation has accumulated on the forest floor. Canada has generally stopped performing controlled burns, which help reduce the risk of larger and more dangerous fires. It is difficult to get permission for controlled burns, especially for Indigenous groups who have historically performed them and are such disproportionately affected by wildfires. Canada lacks a national firefighting service, and local resources are stretched thin due to budget cuts. Pollution due to a global increase in wildfires has created widespread, long-term impacts on human health. Due to wildfire emissions, Canada has broken its record for annual carbon emissions several times. Have any of the so-called climate scientists calculated the contribution of forest fires to the total carbon emissions in Canada? Well ???? Furthermore, is there anyone in government or the public service working on or even considering establishing better forest management practices; a service long neglected by all levels of government in Canada? The answer seems to be a resounding NO. They introduce carbon taxes in various hidden forms, they subsidize fashionable electric vehicle batteries and spend on other politically correct projects, when the recent rash of forest fires in Canada has broken the record on carbon emissions and has made us the laughingstock of the world. It is time to seriously consider and invest in better forest management, rather than continue to spend huge amounts of money overseas and on politically correct pet projects. The forests are burning and people are suffering from coast to coast to coast, while politicians and their advisers in the Canadian public service are fiddling. Enough is enough! Canadians can do without more Neros! What do you think?

Nexus, Gender, and the Return to Reality

Nexus, Gender, and the Return to Reality By Councillor Lisa Robinson On August 6, 2025, Canada quietly announced that non-binary gender markers will no longer be accepted on Nexus card applications. If you don’t choose “male” or “female,” you won’t get a card. And if you already have a Nexus card showing something other than those two options, it will remain valid only until it expires. Why the sudden change? Because the United States — under a Trump executive order — now requires all federal identification to reflect one of only two sexes: Male or Female. Not feelings. Not identities. Biological reality. And since Nexus is a joint U.S.–Canada program, Ottawa had no choice but to align with Washington’s policy. For years, we’ve been told that gender is a spectrum, that biological sex doesn’t matter, and that acknowledging two sexes is somehow hateful. But now, at the border, ideology collides with law — and reality wins. This is not about hate. It’s not about erasing anyone’s lived experience. It’s about the limits of fiction in the face of law, security, and international agreements. Trusted traveler programs, passports, and visas must be grounded in something verifiable, consistent, and legally recognized. That means: Male or Female. Some will call this exclusionary. But we can care about people while still telling the truth. We can show dignity and compassion without rewriting the foundations of biology. And this isn’t a new conversation for me. When I was elected in Pickering, I stood up for the rights of boys and girls to access changerooms based on biological sex — not self-declared identity. For that, I was sanctioned and lost two months’ pay, and am still facing an ongoing battle. The message from the establishment is very clear: stand up for common sense, and you will be punished. When reality is bent too far, it eventually snaps back. First Nexus. Then passports. Soon, perhaps sports, prisons, shelters, and hospitals will have to face the same reckoning. This isn’t hatred. It’s clarity. Canada tried to erase sex. The nited States just said: “No more.” Whether we like it or not, the world runs on truth — not trends. And maybe this isn’t the end of inclusion, but the beginning of a return to common sense. Because there are only two sexes. And deep down… we all know it. XX “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023On And Rise Above It: Lisa Robinson 2023

Going Natural for Male Vitality

Going Natural for Male Vitality By Diana Gifford Mark Twain said, "Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." But for many aging men, it matters a lot when their prized male organ starts to lose the vitality of youth. One of the most common yet often unspoken challenges is the decline in testosterone levels, a natural part of aging that can significantly impact physical and emotional well-being. Starting as early as the mid-30s, testosterone levels in men begin to decrease by approximately 1 percent per year. This gradual decline can lead to symptoms like fatigue, reduced muscle mass, irritability, and perhaps most distressing for many, a diminished libido. Not everyone aspires to be Don Juan. But for many, having sufficient upbeat libido is what drives life’s most intimate joys. Plus, having positive and healthy intimate connections can be an indication of broader good health. How many readers know that erectile dysfunction (ED), for instance, is often a precursor to cardiovascular problems? The healthy performance of the male organ can be an indication of the healthy performance of the heart. And when the former declines in prowess, one may surmise the heart is also losing vitality. But here’s the rub. Many men have trouble discussing their sexual health – with their partners and their doctors, both. The personal relationship with their partners suffers needlessly as a result. Those who do act make two common mistakes. The first is to leap immediately to pharmaceutical solutions that come with potential side effects. The second is to scour the Internet for promising products, nearly all of which are dubious. Searching the Internet causes another problem – the invitation for algorithms to send more and more trashy content that will certainly embarrass when popping up on the screen as someone else is watching! There’s a Gifford-Jones law that says, “Try natural remedies first.” Fortunately, there are some products available at natural health food and supplements stores that are tested and proven solutions to reignite men’s testosterone production and renew sexual interest. One example is Testo Charge, produced by Certified Naturals, a firm that specializes in clinically studied ingredients, uses no artificial additives, and packages capsules in the dosage scientists have tested in trials. Testo Charge is made using patented LJ100 tongkat ali, an extract derived from a Southeast Asian plant having a long tradition as a natural aphrodisiac and vitality booster. Studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in boosting testosterone levels, improving sexual performance, and enhancing mood and energy. There’s something to be said for another natural approach to macho manhood. Don’t forget that a little romance can a powerful aphrodisiac. Build a menu of loving options, each one of which is priceless – a kiss, a caress, a lasting cuddle. There need not always be a main course when the appetizers are filling enough. It’s perfectly natural for intimate relationships to evolve as the years go by. What’s often underestimated is the importance of talking about how personal abilities change. Yet being the one to open up such discussions is often very, very hard. Years ago, we told readers that bananas go well with hanky-panky. That’s because bananas are loaded with potassium, a nutrient that lowers blood pressure. Bananas also contain magnesium and calcium, nutrients that can help to ease strained muscles. We recommended putting a banana on the bedside table as a fun way to signal romantic intentions to a partner. Since laughter is such good medicine too, why not write to us with your stories of the amorous effects of your own bedside banana? We’ll print the best ones in a future column. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

WARRING NATURES

WARRING NATURES By Wayne and Tamara I recently moved in with a man I love deeply. We’ve been together almost two years, and the only problem we haven’t worked out is the amount of affection I want. I have a higher sex drive than him, and I think that may be part of it. Whenever he is around, I want to throw my arms around him and give him kisses. While he has never outright denied the affection I want to give him, I can tell sometimes it may be too much for him. I find myself lying awake nights wishing he would put his arms around me without me having to initiate it, or hoping he would want to spend more time alone with me cuddling. Sophie Sophie, Timothy Treadwell, the subject of the movie “Grizzly Man,” lived among brown bears for 13 summers. Treadwell believed he loved brown bears and sometimes even crooned “I love you” as he approached a grizzly. In the end, the bears loved him back; they loved him to death. He and his girlfriend were eaten by bears. Timothy Treadwell’s life illustrates the nth degree of wanting what we cannot have. Treadwell thought because he loved bears, bears should love him. You think because you want cuddling, your boyfriend should want to cuddle. You and Treadwell act as if there is no will on the other side. What about the bears? What about your boyfriend? What if it is not their nature? The amount of physical affection a person desires depends on many things, including the nurturing they received or failed to receive in the opening years of life. It is a pattern etched into the brain. You can berate, torture, or soothe your boyfriend into sometimes giving you what you want, but that is not his natural state. You seek a way to get what you desire because you won’t acknowledge what he is like. Acknowledging what he is like implies change on your part, and perhaps, ending the relationship. If you stay with your boyfriend, either you will be sick of pushing him, or he will be sick of your demands. When a fox and a hare try to share the same den, they are in for a lifelong battle. Wayne & Tamara Bound To Fail My fiancée and I have a difficult relationship. I entered the relationship with lingering feelings for my previous girlfriend. It came down to ultimatum time, and I told the woman who is now my fiancée to move on. We carried on as before except for physical intimacy. She started dating another but told me, “He’s just a friend.” I believed her. As the prospect of losing her for good became real, I panicked. I opened up to her in ways I never had. I proposed and she said yes. We began planning the wedding, but under pressure from me she started dropping bombs about being sexually intimate with him. Can I trust her? Gregg Gregg, tit for tat, measure for measure, a taste of one’s own medicine. Is that what this is about? You pushed her away after being intimate with her. You wanted another woman who didn’t want you, and you let her know it. She dated someone else and lied. Why? Because she hoped you would come around. She didn’t want to be left with no one, if you continued to shove her away. When you decided she was better than nothing, you proposed. Part of wanting her was someone else wanting her. Now you’ve interrogated the truth out of her—so you can shove her away again. You don’t want to be with her, and you don’t want the insecurity of trying to find another. If this engagement goes to marriage, one day you will be standing at the altar, while your friends in the pews take bets on how long the marriage will last. Wayne & Tamara

Nature, Nurture, and Neuroplasticity -The Key to Understanding What Influences the Person You Are Today

Nature, Nurture, and Neuroplasticity -The Key to Understanding What Influences the Person You Are Today By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every morning, you wake up, brush your teeth, and get ready for the day. Then, you head out the door, and live your daily life as you choose. But the question is, what made you choose that life? Why did students choose the courses they did, and what impacts an adult's career choice? Why did an individual choose to eat that for lunch today, and what inspired their outfit? Every detail of your life is related to the unique per son that you are, but what influenced that personality? Many people frame these philosophical questions as nature versus nurture. The big question has always been, are we born who we are, or do we become ourselves due to the world around us? Science has proved both to influence our identity; genes and physical traits play a large role in human behavior, but so does childhood, education, and socioeconomic status. When it comes to these two components, I have always found myself more interested in nurture, how our everyday choices affect our identities. I believe that although our DNA and inherited traits influence us, our complex nurture ultimately decides who we are and what we do. I am a teenager who loves to write, read, bake, debate, and act. I have strong morals, I spend most of my time studying, and I tend to overthink everything. When I analyze my identity, I realize I may not be the same person I am now if just one small thing about my past was different. If my mom didn’t encourage me to read when I was younger, I may not be the bookworm I am today. If I didn’t transfer schools in the seventh grade, I may not be interested in theatre, as I wouldn’t have known about the arts school I now attend. If I didn’t force myself to attend debate tryouts, I wouldn’t have developed the research and critical thinking skills which I gained from hours of tournament preparation. I am the person I’ve become due to my experiences, and I know my identity will continue to develop as I experience more of what the world has to offer. Our nurture is not just one isolated influence, it is made of many components which each affect us in different ways. These factors include, but are not limited to, our friends, pastimes, socioeconomic status, and cultural expectations. Childhood and early family life both have a large impact on your characteristics and personality. If an individual is exposed to violence as a child, they may develop a tendency to physically lash out at others when angry, they may become passive in an attempt to cover their negative emotions, or they may turn to friends and romantic partners with similar abusive habits. If parents are too controlling of their child, then they may not develop independence, however if they are too permissive, children may not understand boundaries or follow rules. Small, seemingly insignificant details from our childhood or adolescence may seem inconsequential, however, they may influence us for the rest of our life in ways we do not realize. Childhood and adolescence are not the only times when our identities are influenced; our everyday actions have a large impact on our character, regardless of our age. The human brain has neural pathways it is accustomed to using, which are formed by our daily routines. When we begin to practice new routines and habits, the brain creates new pathways. This is known as neuroplasticity, which is formally defined as, “the ability of the brain to form and reorganize synaptic connections, especially in response to learning or experience.” Scientists have proven that with time, we are always able to grow, learn, and adapt, regardless of past conventions. Every time we think, feel, or do something, the communication between our nerve cells are stimulated; the more we do that thing, the stronger the nerve connections, and the easier the activity becomes. As individuals, we are always changing, even if we don’t realize it. If we act consciously, we are able to do anything we put our minds to, regardless of how challenging it may seem at first. Neuroplasticity can be seen in our everyday lives, especially in relation to the media. We are constantly consuming information from news companies, social media books, movies, and even musical artists. The average person spends over two hours a day consuming media; therefore, the perspectives of the media we consume are ones we are constantly practicing, which causes the brain to adopt that thinking style. For example, if we are constantly exposed to media discussing the disasters of our society, we are constantly going to feel anxious and upset. However, if we watch media which is uplifting, inspirational, and enjoyable, we will more often feel confident and hopeful. Being mindful of our media consumption is a necessary step in understanding what influences our attitude and behavior, and it may be the solution to changing habits from ineffective to productive. As individuals, our identities are constantly being influenced by many components, such as our daily experiences and the media you consume. Your past and present affect you in ways you may not realize, from intelligence to your favorite color. For hundreds of years, philosophers have been debating whether we are made of our nature or nurture, but they’ve been asking the wrong questions. We now understand we are products of both, but we’ve also realized each component is far more complex than we thought. Nurture isn’t just our early childhood, it’s made of everything in our daily lives, from the moment you are born to the day you die. The key to understanding yourself comes from analyzing every experience, everything you consume, and everything you practice. Only through this reflection can you begin to truly understand what makes you, you.

They’re Turning Pickering Into a Nuclear Dump — And They’re Doing It Quietly

They’re Turning Pickering Into a Nuclear Dump — And They’re Doing It Quietly By Councillor Lisa Robinson Something is happening in Pickering, and most people don’t even know it. The federal government — through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has quietly approved a new nuclear waste storage structure at the Pickering Waste Management Facility (PWMF). You weren’t notified. You weren’t consulted. And unless you’ve been tracking federal regulatory bulletins, you probably didn’t even hear about it. But make no mistake — it’s happening. This facility is located right on the Pickering Nuclear site, just steps from the shoreline of Lake Ontario, and directly adjacent to residential neighbourhoods, schools, and parks. It’s operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), and is already used to store low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste — things like contaminated tools, filters, and building materials from inside the reactors. So what’s the big deal? This new structure is being built to handle waste from two sources: The decommissioning of Reactors 1 to 4 — which are already offline or being phased out. And — this is key — the possible future refurbishment of Reactors 5 to 8. Now here’s what they don’t want to say out loud: The refurbishment of Units 5 to 8 has not been approved. The formal application won’t even be heard until 2026. And yet — they’re already building the storage site for the waste it would create. This is what happens when decisions are made before the public has a chance to speak. The hearing is still a year away, but the groundwork is already being poured — physically and politically. Let’s talk numbers: Out of a city of over 100,000 people, just nine members of the public submitted feedback on this waste facility. Nine. There was no mailing. No town hall. No door-knocking. No real attempt to inform or involve the community. That’s not public consultation — that’s engineered silence. And while all of this is happening behind the scenes, look who’s suddenly setting up shop in Pickering: SNC-Lavalin — now rebranded as AtkinsRéalis — the same company tied to one of the biggest political scandals in Canadian history. They now own CANDU Energy, the engineering firm that handles nuclear refurbishments. They’ve worked on reactors at Bruce and Darlington — and now, they’re clearly positioning themselves to take on the refurbishment of Pickering’s Units 5 to 8. So let’s put it all together: A new waste facility has already been approved. A refurbishment that hasn’t been approved is being prepared for. A company with political ties is moving in early. And the people of Pickering have been completely cut out of the process. They’ll tell you this is about energy, progress, and modernization. But when radioactive waste is being stored beside homes — for reactors that haven’t even been given the green light — and residents aren’t even told? That’s not modernization. That’s a betrayal of public trust. Let’s be absolutely clear: This is not a done deal. The future of Units 5 to 8 is still subject to public hearings. But what’s being built — and who’s moving into town — tells you how little they care about what you think. So here’s what I’m asking you to do: Demand a public meeting. Ask OPG and the City why you weren’t consulted. File a Freedom of Information request. The paper trail matters. Talk to your neighbours. Most people still don’t know this is happening. Share this op-ed. Get the truth out before it’s too late. Make it clear: Pickering is not Canada’s nuclear dumping ground Email me your thoughts at lrobinson@pickering.ca “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023On And Rise Above It: Lisa Robinson 2023

A Short History of the Canada US Tariffs War

A Short History of the Canada US Tariffs War by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East We are fast approaching a difficult deadline in negotiations in the tariff war between Canada and United States. In a couple of days we may be in for a shattering awakening. The United States has recently made preliminary agreements with Japan and the European Union for a tariff of 15%. However, for the moment, Canada is still being threatened with a 35% tariff and no signs from President Trump that he may eventually lighten the load. Was he deliberately mocking us when he stated a few days ago that Canada is not a priority for him? Surely, he jests. The 2025 Canada–United States tariff war marks one of the most serious trade disputes in the modern history of the two countries. As two of the world’s closest trading partners, Canada and the United States have long benefited from free trade agreements such as NAFTA and its successor, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). However, the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in January 2025 set the stage for a dramatic shift in American trade policy. President Trump campaigned on a strong protectionist platform, promising to revive American manufacturing and reduce dependence on foreign imports. On February 1, 2025, he signed executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs: 25% on most Canadian imports and 10% on Canadian oil, gas, and potash. He justified these measures on the grounds of national security and unfair trade practices, invoking sections 232 and 301 of U.S. trade law. The tariffs officially took effect on March 4, 2025. Canada responded immediately by imposing 25% tariffs on approximately CA$30 billion worth of U.S. products, targeting politically sensitive sectors such as steel, aluminum, household appliances, and certain agricultural goods. Both governments adopted an increasingly confrontational tone, with President Trump threatening even higher tariffs if Canada did not agree to new trade terms. In the following months, the U.S. introduced increasingly stringent measures. Tariffs on steel rose to 50%, and auto parts not fully produced in North America faced 25% duties. Canada expanded its retaliation, increasing tariffs on additional U.S. goods and filing challenges at the World Trade Organization. By mid-spring, the trade dispute had disrupted key industries, particularly in the automotive, steel, aluminum, and forestry sectors. On May 28, 2025, a U.S. trade court ruled that some of the new tariffs exceeded the president’s authority under emergency powers. However, tariffs imposed under national security (Section 232) and unfair trade (Section 301) provisions were deemed fair, and were therefore upheld. That left most of the measures in place. The tariff war caused immediate economic disruption. The automotive industry, deeply integrated across the United States–Canada border, reported billions of dollars in losses. Stellantis, a major automaker, alone projected a US$1.7 billion hit in 2025 as shipments fell by about 25%. United States tariffs on Canadian lumber were increased to an effective rate of around 35%, pushing up housing and construction costs in the United States. Canadian aluminum producers began diverting exports to Europe and other markets to reduce reliance on the U.S. For consumers, prices of imported goods rose on both sides of the border. Small and medium-sized businesses reported difficulties claiming USMCA exemptions, meaning that they were paying full tariffs even on qualifying goods. The Canadian public reacted strongly to what many people perceived as United States economic bullying. Consumer boycotts of American goods and travel to the United States gained widespread support. Politicians from across the spectrum called for Canada to diversify trade relationships, deepen ties with Europe and Asia, and reduce its economic dependence on the United States. Through mid-2025, trade talks between the two countries remained deadlocked. Trump set an August 1, 2025 deadline for a new bilateral trade deal, threatening to impose 35% tariffs on Canadian imports if no agreement was reached. At the same time, he floated the idea of a universal “world tariff” of 15–20% on imports from all countries, which could further harm Canadian exporters. Canadian officials, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, describe the current talks as being in an “intense phase,” but they acknowledge that a comprehensive deal before the deadline is unlikely. Canada has continued to prepare new retaliatory measures and pursued formal disputes through the World Trade Organization. The 2025 Canada–U.S. tariff war has underscored the fragility of even the closest trade relationships when political priorities shift. While the two countries remain bound by the USMCA, the conflict highlights the limits of trade agreements in constraining unilateral tariff actions. As of late July 2025, the outcome of the negotiations—and the future of North American trade integration—remains uncertain, with significant economic and political consequences looming for both nations. Let us hope for the best, and good luck to Canada in making the best possible deal for its people!

Terminations by Employers for Off Duty Conduct

Terminations by Employers for Off Duty Conduct By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP When an employee’s misconduct occurs outside of office hours, employers must tread carefully between protecting their reputation and respecting individual privacy. Striking that balance has become a pressing challenge as social media and public visibility blur the line between personal life and professional role. Legal experts agree that discipline for off‑duty behaviour is only justified when there is a clear connection to the employment relationship. An employer needs to show that the conduct undermines its business interests, damages its reputation, or directly impacts workplace harmony. Without that link, disciplinary action risks violating privacy laws and human rights protections. Certain positions carry an elevated duty of public trust, making off‑duty discipline more readily defensible. Police officers, teachers, health‑care professionals and high‑level executives are held to a higher standard because misconduct outside work can erode public confidence and impede effective job performance. In one recent British Columbia case, a special provincial constable was terminated after an off‑duty altercation that received local media coverage. The court upheld the dismissal, noting the incident’s serious damage to the constable’s credibility and the force’s integrity. By contrast, employers should think twice before disciplining rank‑and‑file employees for private‑life choices. Courts have ruled that social media posts or lifestyle decisions, however distasteful, warrant discipline only if they are illegal or if they create a foreseeable risk in the workplace—such as disclosing confidential information or harassing co‑workers online. Employers need very strong, narrowly tailored policies to intervene in off‑duty conduct. To reduce legal exposure, organizations are advised to adopt clear, accessible off‑duty conduct policies that define the scope of prohibited behaviour, outline potential disciplinary measures, and provide examples of real‑world scenarios. Regular training for managers ensures consistent application and guards against unconscious bias. “A well‑drafted policy is your best defense,” says HR consultant Laura Patel. “Ambiguity invites disputes.” When an incident arises, fair process is essential. Employers should investigate thoroughly, afford the employee an opportunity to respond, and apply progressive discipline where appropriate. Immediate termination without warning may be defensible in extreme cases—such as violent or criminal acts—but risks being overturned if the employer cannot show prior guidance or if the conduct bears no direct link to the workplace. Beyond legal risk, off‑duty discipline carries reputational stakes. Public perception of an employer punishing someone for harmless personal conduct can prompt social‑media backlash, harming morale and consumer goodwill. A well‑known retailer learned this lesson after briefly suspending an employee over controversial political views expressed on social media. Public outcry prompted a swift reversal and a costly public apology. Experts also note the importance of proportionality. If an employee’s off‑duty conduct has no tangible effect on job performance, a verbal reminder may suffice; more serious infractions might call for written warnings or temporary suspension. In determining an appropriate response, employers should weigh factors such as the nature of the misconduct, its frequency, the employee’s disciplinary history, and the potential impact on co‑workers and clients. For companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, local legislation adds another layer of complexity. Privacy statutes in Canada, for example, protect employees from overly intrusive inquiries into personal social‑media activity. Employers must ensure that any monitoring or investigation of off‑duty conduct complies with provincial privacy laws and applicable human rights codes. As the boundary between personal and professional lives continues to blur, balancing organizational interests with respect for individual rights grows ever more complex. Employers that invest in clear policies, manager training, and fair investigative processes position themselves to respond effectively when off‑duty issues arise—protecting both their brand and their employees’ fundamental rights. In an era where a single social‑media post can reach thousands within minutes, the question is not whether off‑duty conduct will come to light, but how employers will respond. The answers lie in thoughtful policy design, consistent enforcement, and a measured approach to discipline that respects both the workplace and the private sphere.

DEAL BREAKER…

DEAL BREAKER... By Wayne and Tamara As I sit on my computer emailing a woman I could start an affair with, I search for answers. Your explanations about infidelity are plausible, reasonable, and thoughtful, but I still have questions I would like to ask. I would like to start by saying I love my wife, but we are at a crossroads. My wife seems to have an unknown mental aversion to sex, something neither of us recognized upon meeting the first time. She saved herself for marriage, only to find she did not care for sex. We have been and are in counseling. Our therapist has tried to give my wife tools and direction to focus on our sex life, while telling my wife and me she is surprised by my understanding, support, and patience. Unfortunately, in seven years not much has changed, and I'm looking for a balance between self and marital preservation. I work with someone who obviously has issues of her own with her marriage, and she introduced the idea of having an affair. I'm not one to complain about my wife openly, nor did I confide in this woman, prior to her offer, about my own marital problems. It simply was based upon a mutual unconscious attraction, as best as I can tell. Prior to having anyone in mind, I once asked my wife if she would allow me to have an affair. While crying and shaking her head no, she told me that I could. I am old enough to know I am reaching middle age where I will be more interested in planning my retirement than becoming the table-dancing, lampshade-on-the-head guy at the next wild party. I do not want to go into those years without a fulfilling, active sex life. My wife is the kindest, warmest, most caring human being I know. She would do anything for anyone, but she is greatly struggling with what her husband wants and needs. We work together to raise our children, pay our bills, and juggle our finances. So, standing upon the precipice of infidelity, I'm asking for advice. I’m beyond asking my wife and our therapist for help because the result is the same. Don Don, a fulfilling, active sex life is not something you can purchase at Walmart. You think your wife is standing between you and a given. It is not a given. You have a mental picture of what things will be like, but having an affair could change your life in ways you cannot imagine. You want a great sex life with someone who wants sex, but the woman who suggested an affair has more on her mind than a roll in the hay. She wants out of her marriage and a new man. Women don’t give away sex for free. A young girl having sex isn’t getting anything out of it except to say, “He’s my boyfriend, he loves me.” A mature woman may get pleasure from sex, but her underlying desire is still love. If you find a woman who wants only sex, you will get a woman who has been altered or damaged in some way. If you find a woman you have great chemistry with, you will think you love her and want to be with her. The idea of saving yourself for marriage goes hand in hand with the idea sex is for procreation, not pleasure. Perhaps your wife is the way she is because of religious conditioning. Possibly she is one of those women who are nonorgasmic. Since she is not excited about sex, it is a gruesome event. We don’t know what her issue is, but we do know she shook her head no. That’s her answer. The body doesn’t go along with lies coming from the mouth. It boils down to this. You have to decide what you want: wife and kids, or the risks that come from going outside your marriage. Wayne & Tamara

Job Search Rule #1: Know and Accept What You Can

Job Search Rule #1: Know and Accept What You Can By Nick Kossovan Attributed to Tony Robbins: "What you focus on is where your energy goes." Maintaining steady progress towards your goals, such as securing a job, is straightforward: Always focus on what is within your control. Feeling frustrated or angry usually means you're trying to influence or control someone or something over which you don't have authority. The most effective job search strategy I know is to identify what you can influence and control and then focus your efforts on these areas. What You Can't Control Employers' Decisions: It's their business, not yours. Rightfully, employers make hiring decisions that benefit their interests; your interests, or circumstances, aren't part of their hiring equation. The Job Market: You have no influence or control over the main driving force of the job market, the economy, or the many other factors that shape it, including shifts in consumer demand, automation, AI adoption, changes in age demographics, and government policies. Other People's Behaviour: Job seekers spend a significant amount of time and energy deluding themselves that they can control the behaviour of recruiters and employers. You have no control over disrespectful behaviour, such as ghosting. All you can control is ensuring that a recruiter's or hiring manager's behaviour doesn't derail your job search efforts. Focus on your behaviour, not those of others, and refrain from judging others for sinning differently than you do. What You Do Control Your Behaviour: How you behave publicly, especially on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, impacts your job search. Understandably, job seekers can feel frustrated; however, posts criticizing recruiters and employers show you can't control your emotions, making you someone employers will avoid hiring. Your Resume and LinkedIn Profile: The career story you share on your resume and LinkedIn profile, using quantifying numbers to demonstrate how you added value—employers hire results, not opinions—to previous employers, is entirely within your control. Your Networking Efforts: If you're not actively networking, then be prepared for a lengthy job search. Reach out to those whom you believe can assist with your job hunt. Offer value upfront! A simple networking tip: When you meet someone for the first time, ask yourself, "How can I help this person?" How you interview: An interview is a sales meeting; therefore, treat it as such and avoid the common mistake of spending too much time talking about yourself and too little time learning about what the employer is looking for. Because most job seekers don't focus on what they can control, they fail to understand that they're in complete control of the crucial determining factor of whether they get hired or not: how employers interpret them. As a job seeker, you're responsible for how employers perceive you. If you want a quick job search, then adopt the mindset of hyper-focusing on managing the aspects that employers use to interpret (read: evaluate) candidates. Admittedly, in a world where media and social media platforms design algorithms that support their business models, requiring your attention and eyeballs to benefit their advertisers—their revenue—focusing on what is in the best interest of your job search is easier said than done. Focusing on what's in our best interests is why my wife and I got rid of our TV 15 years ago and made a conscious effort to limit our social media scrolling. We decided we no longer want the media, influencers, and digital strangers telling us what to focus on. Today, I don't start my day like many others, doom-scrolling on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, or reading and watching the news. No checking layoffs. No reading rants. No listening to pundits talk about tariffs or foreign wars. Avoiding other people's panic in the mornings has significantly improved my ability to focus on my goals. Before coffee, I was absorbing fear, dread, and large amounts of negativity and drama from mostly strangers. Unsurprisingly, starting my days with a digital toxic diet led to me not fully engaging in my work, and my cynicism was at an all-time high. I kept having "What's the point?" conversations with myself, which wasn't conducive to doing my best work. So I stopped. My mornings are now sacred, dedicated "me time." I start my day with my priorities (read: what I control)—exercising, journaling, reading, outlining my next column, creating a to-do list for the day, and replying to emails over coffee—that serve my interests. Avoiding negativity that I can't control has noticeably boosted my energy. Just as eating healthy involves choosing nutritious foods, focusing on what's in your best interests means selecting what will mentally nourish you and help you reach your goals. There's a reason negativity is called "a downer." You'd be surprised how much time you free up when you're not focusing on what doesn't serve you. Make two lists regarding your job search: 1. What you can control. 2. What you can't control. Make peace with what you can't control and commit to focusing only on what you can influence or control. Ultimately, you're steering your job search. Only by taking steps in the right direction will you get closer to your next job. _____________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.