Why Flying Is Safer Than Surgery?

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

The True Rise of Evil

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

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEED TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER

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

STOP NEGOTIATING

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

When Democracy Becomes Propaganda

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

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

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

Canada used to be a country that got things done

Canada used to be a country that got things done By Dale Jodoin Canada used to be a country that got things done. We built highways through rock, railways across frozen land, towns from nothing. We didn’t stop because someone might be afraid of noise or dust. We worked, we built, we grew. Now, it feels like we’ve traded courage for comfort and backbone for bubble wrap. Everywhere you look, someone’s afraid of something. The left tells us to tremble at every tweet from Donald J. Trump, the current president of the United States. They say his name will terrify Canadians into silence, making them fear their ammo. And if you don’t side with the left? You’re labelled fascist, racist, or worse. The center is under attack from both sides while the country slowly fractures. Look around. We’re scared of words, jokes, fireworks, even history. People demand that everyone else stop doing what makes them happy just because someone might be uncomfortable. Life doesn’t come with a comfort guarantee. Take fireworks. Every July, a few voices demand their cancellation—because they rattle dogs, unsettle veterans, or trigger anxiety. Those are valid concerns. But the solution is not to cancel joy for everyone. If fireworks bother you, stay home. Don’t take something meaningful away from thousands of others. That’s the deeper problem: we’ve become a nation afraid to offend. You can’t build anything that way. You can’t have free speech if everyone is terrified of it. When did we forget how to disagree without crying for someone to be silenced? On university campuses, the culture’s even worse. Students are screened for “triggering” words. Professors are censured for jokes that used to spark debate. We’re training a generation more worried about being offended than about being resilient. What happens when life gives them something truly hard, without trigger warnings or safe spaces? Here’s the truth: fear has become a shield. It’s easier to say, “I’m terrified,” than to take responsibility. If someone says something you don’t like, talk, debate, or walk away. Don’t demand the world rewrites everything just so you’ll never feel uneasy. Canada was built by people who faced fear, not by people who hid from it. Immigration, once a symbol of hope, is being twisted into a tool of division. Immigrants came to build something together with us to enrich the country. Now politicians use immigration stories to pit one group against another. They whisper victimhood to some, blame to others. That’s not unity. That’s manipulation. It’s quietly ripping the country apart. We used to be one people, proud and united. Now we fracture into isolated groups, each one afraid someone else will speak. The loudest voices are treated like everyone’s voice. The rest of us are just trying to keep the lights on, raise kids, and live in peace. It’s almost absurd. We live in one of the safest countries on Earth, yet act like we’re on constant alert. Our grandparents survived wars, hunger, freezing winters. We stress over tweets. If we keep living by everyone else’s fear, Canada won’t survive not in spirit. Fear shrinks people, kills joy, stops progress. The only cure is courage. And a little humour along the way doesn’t hurt. So here’s the deal: if you’re scared of something, fine. But don’t ask the rest of us to silence our joy because of it. If you don’t like what someone says, let it pass. If fireworks bother you, stay away. If politics makes you anxious, switch off the news. Canada can be strong again. We just need to remember who we are: people with courage, hard work, and the freedom to speak our minds. We’re not here to babysit fear. We’re here to build a country. And if that offends someone well, maybe they should try being offended elsewhere. Written by Dale Jodoin newspaper writer and journalists

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.

Starting Point

Starting Point By Wayne and Tamara My husband and I have been married over 26 years. He was my dream come true. He has been drinking since age 16, but it never occurred to me he was an alcoholic because I thought alcoholics were bums drinking out of brown paper bags on street corners. My husband graduated from law school, then joined the Air Force where most activities he chose centered around drinking. Later he worked to establish a private practice and was successful. The nightly drinking continued, and he would blow in later and later. I sought counseling and the therapist told me he is what is called a functioning alcoholic. I was in total disbelief. My husband turned to the counselor and admitted he was an alcoholic, though he later denied that admission. The next session he came in wasted and was asked to leave. Since then the alcoholic has filed for divorce and refuses to speak to me. I know of at least one affair. He has acknowledged he is an alcoholic, but he has absolutely no intention to stop. I can’t believe this is really happening. How do I start over? Robyn Robyn, a study in the Archives of General Psychiatry reported 76 percent of alcoholics in the U.S. never seek treatment. The 24 percent who do get treatment wait an average of eight to 10 years before seeking that treatment. Even then, it will be years more before the alcoholic stops drinking for good, and additional years before they stop acting like an alcoholic, if they ever do. Alcoholics have a smugness about the castles in their mind. In that domain they set the rules and they make the laws. Like any absolute monarch, they are unwilling to give up their power. It doesn’t matter whether you think alcoholism is a disease, a moral failing, a chemical addiction, or the aftereffect of a lousy childhood. The prognosis for successfully living with an alcoholic is poor. If children are present, the consequences are dire. Human development follows a predictable pattern. To develop their own brain, children need to be around mature brains--brains working from reality, brains meeting challenges and facing facts. Observing those brains and patterning themselves after them, give children what they need to master life. Child abuse is the term which most accurately describes what children in an alcoholic home endure. The effects of an alcoholic home on children are well-known: depression, inability to form close relationships, relentless self-criticism, inability to complete projects, and constant approval seeking. Even the non-drinking spouse is changed. That person is co-opted into making excuses, covering up, and pretending what happened the night before never happened. That’s what’s so striking about your letter. You left nearly everything out. The fears, the arguments, the spoiled occasions, the conversations which he didn’t remember are all missing. It’s as if you still don’t want to go there. That’s understandable because denial is a powerful defense mechanism; it keeps us from having to face pain. Denial operates in two ways. On an internal level, denial keeps us from having to confront our fears and the loss of our hopes and dreams. On an external level, denial keeps us from difficult confrontations with events and other people. But the cost of denial is high. That is why it is so dangerous. When a person fails to prepare for the consequences of what they seek to deny, those consequences escalate. You feared the dismantling of your marriage and becoming a single woman again, but what you feared you must now confront. So it’s time to go back to your therapist and tell him or her what you didn’t tell us. You need to talk through why you did what you did, and why you couldn’t admit what was before your eyes. It will feel embarrassing and humiliating at first, but that is where you must begin. Wayne & Tamara

It’s Flu Season But It`s Not the Flu

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

SHALL WE DANCE?

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

Tax Efficient RRSP Withdrawal Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PULLING TEETH…

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

Fights Over Drugs Have Enduring Meaning

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

When Disaster Strikes, You Need to Be Ready

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