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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids By Councillor Lisa Robinson This year, it’s time to raise strong, confident children who know their value comes from being human — not from a label. As the 2025 - 2026 school year begins, parents, teachers, and students must ask: are we truly preparing children for life — or are we exposing them to confusing messages and adult agendas that could harm them? Schools should teach reading, writing, math, and character. Yet many classrooms have become social experiments, filled with identity labels, sexual themes, and divisive categories that pit students against each other. No child should ever be bullied or feel unsafe because of who they are. That is obvious. But the current approach is not protection — it’s confusion. It sends a message: some children deserve the spotlight, while others are invisible. Consider straight students who receive no recognition while other sexualities are celebrated. Every child wants to feel special, to be seen and recognized. When straight children are overlooked, some may go along with what is being presented — even if it doesn’t reflect who they are — just to feel acknowledged. That is not equality — that is favoritism. Glamorizing sexuality in front of children is not protection. It is adult content thrust on minds that are not ready. And then we wonder why anxiety, confusion, and even suicide rates among youth continue to rise. Parents need to be informed. Children should never be placed in situations where they are told to hide things or lie about what is happening in school. No safe, no good adult would ever instruct a child to deceive their parents — ever. Teachers, staff, and administrators must remember that respecting family boundaries is part of protecting children. If we truly care about children’s mental health, we must: Teach respect, kindness, courage, and resilience. Stop dividing students by labels and identities. Protect children from bullying without pushing ideology. Remind every child — straight, gay, religious, or non-religious — that their value comes from being human, not from a label. Remind children that it’s okay to be young. Childhood is not a rehearsal for adulthood — they do not need to rush into adult decisions or activities. Their childhood is valuable and deserves protection. Fantasy is not reality Every child deserves to be seen — not for a label, but for who they are. That is real equality. That is fairness. That is how we will actually reduce youth suicide — not by injecting identity politics into every classroom. Children need stability, not confusion. They need role models, not agendas. They need schools that build them up, not break them down. This school year can be different. It can be better. Let’s stop glamorizing sexuality. Let’s stop giving attention and praise based on who a child says they are attracted to. Let’s raise strong, grounded, confident young people who know they matter — not because of a label, but because they are human beings of infinite worth. Parents, teachers, and children: let’s put our children first this school year. Let’s make this a year of clarity, respect, and real support for every child. Let children be children “No label defines a child. No agenda owns their childhood.” - Lisa Robinson 2025 Then my name,”…… Kind regards, Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” City of Pickering “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

2025 - Canada Under Fire

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

Going Natural for Male Vitality

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

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

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

Terminations by Employers for Off Duty Conduct

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

DEAL BREAKER…

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

World Fatigue: Blame the People

World Fatigue: Blame the People By Dale Jodoin There’s a quiet illness spreading across the Americas. It’s not the kind you can cure with a pill or vaccine. It’s called world fatigue, and it’s affecting millions of people—especially the regular, everyday folks who work, pay taxes, and try their best to live honest lives. World fatigue isn’t about being tired from work or chores. It’s a deep emotional tiredness. A kind of sadness mixed with frustration. It builds up every time you turn on the news or look at your bills. It’s the feeling of being blamed, day after day, for problems you didn’t create. And it’s wearing people down. Ask anyone around you, and they’ll tell you the same thing: “I’m just done. I don’t care anymore.” But they do care—they’re just overwhelmed. That’s world fatigue. And it’s growing. So where is this coming from? Part of it starts with the government and the media. They say they’re trying to inform us, but more and more, it feels like they’re trying to guilt us. We’re told that everything wrong in the world is somehow our fault. There are too many homeless people? It’s our fault. Is the planet changing? It's our fault. Minorities aren’t treated fairly? Again, our fault. The list goes on. The message is always the same: if you don’t feel bad, if you don’t do more, then you’re part of the problem. And while it’s important to care about others, what about us? Who’s looking out for regular Canadians—people who are barely making it through the month? Who’s caring for the seniors, the young families, the people who never ask for much? Instead, we’re called selfish. We’re told we’re the problem. But the real problem is this: people are burning out. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been pushed too far. Even schools are becoming places of confusion. Kids don’t learn basic life skills anymore. Many can’t read a map, balance a budget, or understand how taxes work. Teachers say their hands are tied. They spend more time explaining political ideas and social movements than they do teaching reading, writing, and math. Our kids are growing up with strong opinions—but no tools to live in the real world. And again, who gets blamed when test scores drop? Parents. Taxpayers. Regular people. One of the biggest signs of world fatigue is how cold people are becoming. Neighbours don’t talk. Families drift apart. People don’t wave hello anymore. It’s not that people have lost all compassion—it’s that they’re tired of always being told what to feel, who to support, what to say, and what to believe. And if you don’t follow along exactly, you’re labeled as hateful, old-fashioned, or worse. Even the gay community, which once stood for love and understanding, has now become a political symbol in many ways. Regular people aren’t anti-gay—they’re just tired of being told they’re bad people if they don’t cheer loud enough. We used to give more to our neighbours, to strangers, to people in need. But now, everything costs so much that people are forced to pull back. Groceries have doubled. Rent has tripled. Hydro bills climb while wages stay the same. People aren’t being greedy. They’re in survival mode. Meanwhile, the government sends billions to other countries. Billions more go to foreign aid, international programs, and global projects that have nothing to do with the average Canadian. By the time they finish giving it all away, there’s nothing left for us. Our roads crumble. Our hospitals are full. Our veterans sleep on the streets. And when we ask why, we’re told to be more generous. More kind. But what’s kind about ignoring your own people? World fatigue shows up in our minds and bodies. People are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated than ever before. Psychologists are starting to talk about it, even if the media doesn’t. They say the human brain can only take so much pressure, so much bad news, and so much guilt before it shuts down. That’s what’s happening now. People aren’t angry because they hate—they’re angry because they feel powerless. They’re tired of being told they’re the cause of all suffering in the world. They’re tired of politicians pointing fingers. They’re tired of media stories that divide instead of unite. At the root of it all is one big truth: most people just want their lives back. They want to go to work, raise their kids, enjoy their weekends, and not feel like they’re under attack all the time. They don’t want to fight with neighbours. They don’t want to argue about politics. They don’t want to be called names just for speaking their mind. They want peace. They want fairness. And they want someone to finally say, “We hear you. We see you. And we’re sorry.” But that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the government pushes more rules. More taxes. More lectures. And every time a new problem comes up, they say, “If only the people had done more.” But we have done more. We’ve carried the weight for too long. We’ve stayed quiet. We’ve played along. Now we’re tired. Not because we’re cruel—but because we’re human This is the truth about world fatigue. It’s not a lack of love—it’s too much heartbreak. It’s not that we stopped caring—it’s that no one cared for us. And it’s time we said it out loud. We are not the enemy. We are not the problem. We are the people. And we want our lives back.