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The Strange Power of Fake Pills By Diana Gifford I have been sorting through unpublished Gifford-Jones columns.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

A Candid Conversation

A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate We have always had three markets when it comes to real estate in Canada. The buyers’ market, the sellers’ market and a balanced market. Awhile back, I coined a new term for the market we seem to be in. The Trump market. What exactly is the Trump market you ask? Well, it’s a market where the interest rates have really come down nicely considering where they were a year ago, house prices are down 22% from their peek during Covid-19, in fact some absolutely stunning homes that would normally be on offer for well over a million dollars are now being offered well below a million dollars. It’s truly astonishing to see what some of the more palatial mansions of old Oshawa are going for in this market. Why is this the case? In a word, tariffs. Donald Trump’s Tariffs have cast a cloud of fear over Canadian workers to the point that those who were thinking about buying when the interest rates dropped, seem to have completely abandoned the idea. So, while we would have called this a buyers’ market a few years ago. There is definitely something that keeps the buyers from buying. That is the underlying fear of losing their jobs in this very uncertain time. I have heard many stories over the years of people who signed the mortgage papers one day and were laid off or let go the next. Nerve wracking times to be sure. Some real estate agents are reporting zero traffic through their open houses on weekends. That in and of itself screams volumes because even when you’re not necessarily looking to purchase immediately, it’s always been something that people who are intending to purchase at some point enjoy doing. They get out and look. The news is full of reports that housing starts have collapsed, prices are down, the volume of sales is down. Interest rates will continue their downward trend over the next year, but will that make any difference whatsoever? It will help the homeowner who is renewing their mortgage next year, but it will not do much to convince the would-be homeowner that the water is fine and to jump on in. I will admit I have never seen a market like the one we are currently experiencing. That being said, the observance of human nature never disappoints. I find it truly fascinating to see how people behave in different environments, and this is no exception. One thing that stays with me and has since I was a child is a saying that my uncle had. He always used to say, “this too shall pass”. I have brought that to mind many times over the years and firmly believe that it is something we can take comfort in when things are uncertain.

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.

Tariffs and TV Ads Won’t Heal Our Hospitals: Ontario’s Misguided Priorities

Tariffs and TV Ads Won’t Heal Our Hospitals: Ontario’s Misguided Priorities by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Ontario devotes $75 million to a cross-border advertising campaign and faces punishing U.S. tariffs of 35 – 45 percent on Canadian exports, the fallout is being felt not just in factories but also in hospitals. The trade war threatens to drain over $1 billion annually from the province’s health-care system through lost revenues and higher costs for medical supplies. Instead of funding more nurses, beds, and diagnostics, Ontario’s leadership is spending on political optics while patients wait longer for care. Canada’s true deficit is not in trade—it is in health. Ontario’s paradox of priorities Ontario’s health-care budget now exceeds C$80 billion, roughly half of total provincial expenditures. Despite this enormous investment, hospitals remain overcrowded, rural clinics understaffed, and emergency rooms frequently forced to close because of personnel shortages. In 2025, the provincial government launched a C$75 million U.S. advertising campaign—complete with clips from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address against tariffs—to defend Ontario’s manufacturing base and appeal to American public opinion. The gambit backfired. The Trump administration retaliated by imposing a 35 percent tariff on Canadian exports, which rise to 45 percent on certain goods not meeting “America First” domestic-content rules. Ontario, whose prosperity relies on cross-border trade in autos, steel, machinery, and pharmaceuticals, is hit hardest. The economic shock is now rippling into the very heart of public services. The indirect hit to health care Although the tariffs target export industries, their secondary effects—lost revenue, weakened growth, and supply-chain disruption—land squarely on the health-care system. 1. Revenue loss and slower growth: Ontario exports about C$200 billion a year to the United States. Even if only 10 percent of that total (C$20 billion) faces the 35–45 percent penalty, the province stands to lose C$7–9 billion in trade value annually. Lower profits mean smaller corporate and payroll-tax intakes, cutting provincial revenues by an estimated C$500–700 million each year—funds that otherwise would finance hospitals, long-term care, and medical infrastructure. 2. Rising costs for imported health goods: While the tariffs are levied on Canadian exports, the ensuing retaliation and logistical friction drive up import costs as well. Ontario’s hospitals depend heavily on medical technology, diagnostic equipment, and pharmaceuticals that originate in or pass through U.S. supply chains. Border delays, insurance surcharges, and counter-tariffs could inflate procurement costs by 8–10 percent. Given an annual operating budget near C$60 billion, even a modest 1 percent price increase translates to C$600 million in extra spending—money siphoned from patient care to cover higher bills for essential supplies. 3. Cumulative impact: Combining revenue losses and cost inflation yields a C$1.1–1.3 billion annual burden on Ontario’s health system. That sum could otherwise finance 1,200 to 2,400 new hospital or critical-care beds, pay yearly salaries for 7,000 registered nurses, purchase 150 MRI or CT scanners, or fund comprehensive home-care programs for 250,000 Ontarians. Instead, these resources are evaporating through a trade conflict that delivers neither economic stability nor better public health. Meanwhile, patients wait Across Canada, the median wait to see a specialist is 78 days, and one in four patients waits 175 days or longer. Ontario faces some of the worst backlogs for elective surgery among G7 countries. In northern communities, doctor shortages persist; in urban centres, ambulance off-load delays have become routine. It is difficult to justify multimillion-dollar ad buys in U.S. media markets while emergency rooms at home struggle to find enough nurses to stay open overnight. Political messaging has taken precedence over measurable service improvement. Eroding equity and the social contract Universal health care remains Canada’s proudest social covenant: access based on need, not wealth or geography. Yet that covenant is eroding under fiscal and logistical strain. When a government invests C$75 million in political advertising that provokes tariffs costing the treasury more than ten times that amount, while hospital budgets strain to maintain basic services, something fundamental has gone wrong. The result is a quiet inequity—urban hospitals absorbing shocks while smaller communities fall further behind. Every dollar spent on public relations warfare is a dollar not spent on the front lines of care. Why Ontario—and Canada—are falling behind • Fragmentation: Provinces administer health care independently, creating duplication, uneven standards, and limited data sharing. • Capacity constraints: Canada maintains fewer hospital beds and diagnostic units per capita than most OECD peers. • Under-investment in prevention: Only about 5 percent of total health spending goes to primary and community care, compared with 8 percent elsewhere. • Workforce exhaustion: Chronic shortages and overtime have driven thousands of nurses to the private or U.S. sectors. • Policy distraction: Trade wars and industrial headlines dominate the agenda, while systemic reform languishes. A road map for renewal 1. Re-centre priorities. Treat health care as national infrastructure, not a secondary political cost. 2. Set measurable national standards. Enforce maximum wait-time targets, minimum bed ratios, and rural-access guarantees. 3. Invest upstream. Strengthen family-health teams, community clinics, and preventive programs to reduce hospital demand. 4. Ensure transparency. Publish all government communication and trade-response expenditures beside health-care investments. 5. Coordinate federally and provincially. Align transfer payments and performance targets to ensure accountability for every public dollar. The lesson Ontario’s C$75 million advertising campaign and the ensuing U.S. tariff escalation to 45 percent reveal a profound misalignment of priorities. Political optics displaced policy substance—and patients are paying the price. If even a fraction of the money and lost revenue tied up in this trade confrontation were redirected to front-line care, Ontario could shorten surgical waits, expand capacity, and restore public confidence in universal health care. Canada’s hospitals do not need patriotic slogans broadcast across American airwaves. They need stable funding, long-term planning, and leadership focused on the well-being of Canadians. Canada does not need future aggravation by unnecessarily antagonizing an unpredictable president already primed for tariff battle. Ontario’s misguided ad, at great taxpayer expense, will put a serious spike in Canada’s future tariff negotiations and can be perceived as direct political interference in US domestic affairs. What do you think?

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"

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.

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

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

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

The Gift of Rejection - How Failure Grows Into Success

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

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

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