BY SIMONE J. SMITH

Is it just me, or is it becoming a common theme to see traffic jams caused by…

Car Accidents!

During the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2021, traffic volumes dropped across the country, road casualties dropped even further to the historic low of 4.6 fatalities per 100,000 people.

Well! The pandemic seems to be far from people’s minds, because the driving patterns have returned to normal, and there’s been a worrying resurgence in both road collisions and fatality. In 2022 (the most recent data is available) the number of people who lost their lives on Canadian roads was 1931. This is the highest seen since 2013.

There is a new study that was released by MNH Injury Lawyers that analyzed the most dangerous provinces for young drivers (aged 15-19) across Canada’s provinces using these key metrics: the total number of injuries and fatalities involving young drivers, the crime severity index, the earliest legal driving age, highway maximum speed limits, and the percentage of cannabis-impaired driving.

The study aimed to rank the most dangerous provinces for young drivers in Canada by analyzing multiple risk indicators, and key metrics. The numbers for young driver injuries and fatalities are calculated by first determining the total number of drivers involved in accidents, and then identifying how many of those were aged 15-19.

A spokesperson from MNH Injury Lawyers, Michael Hoosein, commented on the study: “The high number of injuries and fatalities involving young drivers in provinces like Ontario and Quebec is a stark reminder of the risks faced by this age group on the road.”

“These alarming statistics highlight the urgent need for improved safety measures and preventive strategies. It’s clear that more needs to be done to protect young drivers, whether through better driver education, stricter regulations, or improved infrastructure. By addressing these issues, we can work towards creating a safer environment for young drivers to develop their skills and reduce the number of preventable accidents.”

Well, when I looked at the statistics, the picture is somewhat more mixed, as some provinces are seeing motor vehicle fatalities spike, while in others, their number appears to be declining. That said, the number of road deaths is increasing in six out of 10 provinces. Let’s take a look at the list.

Ontario leads the rankings as the most dangerous province for drivers aged 15-19. The province reported 1176 injuries involving young drivers, the highest in Canada, along with 16 fatalities in a single year. Ontario also has one of the highest highway speed limits in the country, set at 110 km/h. contributing to its position in the rankings.

Quebec ranks as the second province where young drivers face the greatest risks, with 933 annual injuries and 10 fatalities involving 15-19-year-old drivers. Additionally, 26.1% of all drivers here reported driving within two hours of smoking cannabis, further contributing to the province’s risk profile.

Saskatchewan is the third province in Canada, with a composite score of 61 for young driver safety concerns. The province has the highest crime severity index at 160.2 and the lowest legal age for driving alone, set at 16. Moreover, 30.3% of all drivers in Saskatchewan reported driving within two hours of smoking cannabis, creating a riskier driving environment for youngsters.

Alberta ranks fourth in the analysis of the most dangerous provinces for young drivers in Canada. Similar to Saskatchewan, here people aged 16 are permitted to drive alone. On average, eight drivers aged 15-19 are involved in fatal crashes annually. The province reports approximately 597 injuries caused by traffic accidents among this age group, further

British Columbia ranks 5th, with more than 419 young drivers losing their lives in car crashes in a year. Annually, eight young drivers lose their lives due to car crashes within the province. Like Quebec, the legal age for young people to drive alone is 17. British Columbia also has the highest highway speed limit in Canada, set at 120 km/h., which also influences the overall safety risks for this age group.

Manitoba holds the sixth spot in the rankings, with 247 young drivers involved in injury-causing accidents. The province has the second-highest crime severity index at 145.5 after Saskatchewan.  Additionally, Manitoba has a unique legal driving age of 16.25 years for young drivers.

New Brunswick ranks as the seventh province where young drivers face the greatest risks. It has a legal driving age set at 16.67 years, similar to Ontario. Like Saskatchewan, the province also has a highway maximum speed limit of 80 km/h. Additionally, 23.2% of drivers in New Brunswick reported driving within two hours of smoking cannabis, raising a significant safety concern for young drivers in the province.

Prince Edward Island ranks eighth among the provinces with the highest risks for young drivers in Canada. Like Ontario, the legal driving age for young drivers is set at 16.75 years. The province has a 90 km/h highway speed limit.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the ninth most risky province for young drivers, with 68 injuries involving drivers aged 15-19. The province has a Crime Severity Index of 86.3, and 18.9% of drivers reported driving within two hours of smoking cannabis, the lowest percentage across all provinces.

Nova Scotia is the least risky province, experiencing no fatalities and few injuries among young drivers.

Clearly, driving safety has become a concern in certain provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Is it just the fact that we have a larger population, and therefore more young people? What can be done?

How about implementing Enhanced Driver Education Programs:

• Beyond the Manual: Go beyond the basic driver’s manual. Include in-depth modules on:
• Risk Perception: Helping young drivers understand the dangers of speeding, distractions, impaired driving, and aggressive driving.
• Decision-Making: Developing critical thinking skills for analyzing road situations and making safe choices.
• Emergency Maneuvers: Practical training on skid control, evasive maneuvers, and proper responses to unexpected situations.
• Technology & Safety: Focus on the dangers of distracted driving (phones, passengers), the use of advanced safety features (ADAS), and the impact of emerging technologies (autonomous vehicles).

What about cultural considerations? Provincial regulated driving schools should have instructors who are able to adapt teaching methods to account for cultural driving norms and potential misconceptions. I think that driving programs should require parents to participate in driver education courses alongside their teens to reinforce safe driving habits.

I have to agree with Michael Hoosein when he said, “There is an urgent need for improved safety measures and preventive strategies.”

BY MICHAEL THOMAS

Nina Teicholz, who holds a Ph.D. and is a science journalist and author, calls the 421-page scientific report for the 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines “Insufficient and contradictory.” 

These are strong words, but after examining some of the dietary guidelines I am afraid she is correct, and anyone who cares about their health from a dietary point of view would agree.

Here are some of the key recommendations in this report.

• Reducing red and processed meats.
• Replacing poultry, meat, and eggs with peas, beans, and lentils as protein sources.
• No limits on ultra-processed foods, or UPFs.
• Continued caps on saturated fats are to be replaced by vegetable (seed) oils.

Despite pressure from people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to quit serving junk foods (aka ultra-processed foods- UPFs), the so-called expert committee responsible for the report insisted that the evidence for urging reductions in UPFs was “limited.” Translation, according to these experts, junk foods are good for children.

To add insult to injury, nine out of the 20 members who made these recommendations were found to have ties with: food, pharmaceutical, or weight loss companies, or industry groups with a stake in the outcome of the guidelines. This information was revealed thanks to a report by the non-profit public interest group, U.S. Right to Know.

The Right to Know makes it clear that the aim in calling out this scam of a recommendation, is to provide fuller disclosure of conflicts of interest of the members of the 2025 Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (aka DGAC), including: financial and other ties during the last five years to the: food, pharmaceutical, grocery, and other industries with a stake in the outcome of the dietary guidelines.

The 35-page report accuses the: food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as large grocery chains with a financial stake in the DGA, of repeatedly attempting and often succeeding in influencing the guidelines.

What could these Dietary Guidelines folks be thinking by allowing themselves to become compromised on matters concerning the nation’s health? Could this be just a few cases of mismanagement by uncertified people, or is this just a satanic plot to maliciously misguide the population?

Doesn’t this so-called committee know that poor diet contributes to the development of many chronic diseases and illnesses, including: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, depression, chronic kidney disease, and all-cause mortality? This cannot be allowed to continue.

According to government data, “Americans have largely practiced the guidelines, and despite this, we have not only become sick, but very sick.”

Supporting this view is a congressionally mandated report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which observed in 2017 that, “The U.S. dietary guidelines are not currently ‘Trustworthy,’ in part due to a ‘Lack of scientific rigor’ in the process.”

When it came to producing evidence on its advice to reduce meat, poultry, and eggs, let’s just say this committee was weighed and found lacking. It is all good to tell folks they need to drop meat and dairy, but then what? This advice does not consider that plant-based proteins are not as complete as those from animals and also not as bioavailable. Anyone let alone any committee that encourages this without sound alternative nutritional backing does not have the people’s best health interest at heart.

After being called out on their misleading advice and faulty recommendations, U.S. Departments of Agriculture (aka USDA) and Health and Human Service (aka HHS) officials responded in classic gaslighting fashion stating that the critics are spreading misinformation.

Dr. Nina Teicholz had this to say of USDA-HHS and the involved parties, “I’m not a fan of the term ‘misinformation,’ but with respect to non-evidence-based dietary advice, the USDA-HHS are prominent actors.”

From looking at who is on the conflict-of-interest list involved, there are no surprises. Almost all the usual suspects are in attendance: Pfizer, Mead Johnson Pediatric Nutrition Institute, Nestlé Nutrition Institute, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, WW International (formerly Weight Watchers International), just to name a few. These are just some of the folks that the people writing your “dietary guidelines” are in bed with.

If I were a betting man, I would say the plan is to mislead you with a faulty diet, then when you become sick, which eventually would happen, present the healing in the form of certain vaccines, but I digress.

BY STEVEN KASZAB

Stellantis is walking towards a bankruptcy wall in the near future. The Swedish lithium battery manufacturer, heralded by many to be the leader in such battery development, and the poster boy for the Green Movement in the EU stands on the brink of collapsing. Global car manufacturing is in a downward spin these days and new money can only be found in the accounts of national governments. It seems threatening to drop many of its unprofitable brands in the near future.

Oh, did I mention national governments? Aren’t the Canadian and Ontario governments investing heavily in projects partnered with Stellantis? This firm has invested heavily in the design, marketing and preparation of factories for the production of electric cars all over the world, like: Serbia, Hungary, Mexico, the EU and yes in Ontario as well. Now Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares has resigned. Confusion has hit the marketplace, and insecurity sets in as to where this firm is going, whether its plants will produce much needed batteries in the near future or close.

Yes folks, our government has invested heavily in these corporations, drawing out promises of much hiring, increased production, add-ons to secondary industries. Promises that may never come to fruition. To further complicate things, there is a shift in the fields of economic and tariff policies in North America. Economic nationalism has shown its face to add to future complications.

What happens if these manufacturing plants are established and in the near future forced to close because of global and financial demands upon these firms? Well, the regions they are in will have to deal with it: socially, financially and politically. Can these firms stand up to Chinese and Indian innovation and competitiveness? Probably not, and where will the fault of these closures fall onto? Can the regions that shelled out billions have something to fall back upon, guarantees perhaps? Well, who the heck knows?

Ontario’s agreements, along with agreements in Serbia, Mexico and elsewhere are hidden in secrecy where the public has neither transparency, nor accountability. Corporate handouts like these have no assurances. The folks who negotiated these agreements like Premier Ford and Canada’s Ministers of Economic Development are free and clear, with no obligation to defend their actions and the possible actions of often unaccountable corporations.

All the while China stands prepared to take these factories off the hands of European and North American corporate opportunists. Greed, possible subterfuge and unending legalities face the public’s attempt to know what is truly happening in their own social and political backyards.