Real Talk with Cheryl

Canada Did Not Steal Your Booze Sales. You Lost Them.

​Congresswoman Claudia Tenney’s proposed "CANADA Act"—a bill aimed at forcing an investigation into Canadian liquor boards—is a masterclass in political delusion. The U.S. is demanding an inquiry into why Canadians are no longer buying American alcohol, as if consumer preference is something that can be legislated back into existence.

​Let’s be clear: Canada isn't holding American booze hostage.
​For the past year, the U.S. has subjected its neighbor to a steady diet of tariffs, insults, and "51st state" rhetoric. Faced with blatant disrespect for our economy and sovereignty, Canadians didn't need to be hypnotized by government officials to change their habits. We simply stopped reaching for American brands.

​When you treat your best customer like an inconvenience, you shouldn't be shocked when they decide to support their own.

​The real scandal isn't that American bottles have vanished from our shelves; it’s the sense of entitlement that assumes Canadian shelf space is a birthright. You cannot tariff a country, threaten its industries, and then act wounded when its people move on to other options. Habits, once broken, are hard to repair, and you cannot sue your way back into a nation’s goodwill.

​Congresswoman Tenney wants an investigation into "unfair" trade practices. If the U.S. truly wants to understand why its products are gathering dust in our warehouses, the answer isn’t in a trade file or a liquor board regulation. It’s in the mirror.

Disability benefits are supposed to help people stay healthy and live with dignity. Too often, they do the exact opposite.

One of my closest friends is on CPP Disability. After deductions, their monthly income is about $800. They rely on several medications just to manage their health, yet they don't have prescription drug coverage that meets their needs.
How is someone expected to survive, let alone afford essential medications, on that income?

Another one of my very close friends is on ODSP. Their rent is about $1,600 a month, so they work as much as they physically can just to keep a roof over their head. The heartbreaking part is that one of the medications they truly need for their diabetes is extremely expensive. They aren't refusing to take it because they don't care about their health—they simply cannot afford it. No one should have to choose between paying the bills and taking life-changing medication.

Now I'm facing my own version of this problem.
My diabetes clinic wants me to use the Libre 3 continuous glucose monitor because it allows me to monitor my blood sugar much more effectively. The hospital kindly provided me with my first sensor and another one to cover my first month. After that, the sensors cost about $160 every month.
ODSP won't cover them because I'm not on insulin.
Think about that for a moment.

We're told that preventing complications is one of the most important parts of diabetes care. Continuous glucose monitoring can help people understand how food, exercise, stress, and medication affect their blood sugar before things become dangerous. Yet the system often waits until someone is sick enough to require insulin before helping pay for the technology that may have helped prevent their diabetes from getting worse.

That doesn't make sense.
Health economists have long pointed out that investing in preventive care can reduce healthcare costs over time. Preventing complications is often far less expensive than treating them after they happen. Hospital admissions, emergency room visits, kidney disease, amputations, vision loss, heart disease, and other serious complications cost our healthcare system far more than many preventive treatments and monitoring tools.
So why are we waiting until people become sicker before helping them?
Why are people with disabilities expected to live on incomes that don't even cover the basics?
Why are people forced to choose between medication and rent?
Why do we create barriers to preventive care when it could improve people's quality of life and potentially reduce long-term healthcare costs?
This isn't about asking for luxury items. It's about giving people access to the medications, monitoring tools, and supports that help keep them healthy, independent, and out of the hospital.
We need to stop designing systems that react to illness and start building systems that prevent it.

I'd love to hear from others. Have you or someone you know experienced similar barriers to getting the healthcare or medications you need because of the way disability benefits or public funding are structured? The more stories we share, the harder they are to ignore.

Topic: Tough on crime Ontario? GET BENT!

​ Justice or a Slap in the Face?
​I am struggling to find the words to express the absolute outrage I feel today.

​We are hearing about a recent court ruling here in Ontario where a man, convicted of sexually assaulting his 12-year-old sister, was given house arrest instead of a prison sentence. The judge in the case even remarked that the gap between the mandatory five-year minimum and house arrest is "striking."

​Striking? It is a slap in the face.
​As a survivor of childhood trauma who has endured every type of abuse imaginable, I know the reality of this pain. It doesn’t just "happen"; it destroys. It shatters lives. I have lived this. I have lost my sister to the long-term, devastating effects of this kind of trauma. The abuse didn’t pull the trigger, but it led to a life being cut short. That is the reality of the damage done.

​We keep hearing that we need to be "tougher on crime," yet when it comes to the most heinous violations of a child’s safety, the system fails us again and again. Five years in jail isn't enough to begin to account for the lifelong trauma inflicted upon a survivor. To offer house arrest instead? It feels like the system is telling victims that their pain does not matter.

​We have serious, systemic problems in our legal system, and it is clear that our elected officials are not doing enough to fix them. We need a major overhaul—not just talk, not just headlines—but actual, meaningful change that protects victims and holds perpetrators accountable in a way that reflects the gravity of their crimes.

​How many more lives have to be ruined before the law decides that justice actually means something?

- Cheryl Steffer, 2026

Autism and the Open Road

I came across a post today that left me thinking.
An autistic driver was pulled over because the insurance slip in her vehicle was expired. She explained that she had the current proof of insurance but needed a little extra time to find it or pull it up on her phone. What surprised me wasn't the traffic stop. It was the reaction from so many people in the comments.

The comments were filled with things like, "No special treatment." "She should have been prepared." "There should be no exceptions."
But that raises an important question.
What is an accommodation?

An accommodation is not a free pass. It is not lowering the standard. It is not changing the law.
It is simply recognizing that two people can be held to the exact same standard while needing different amounts of time, different ways of communicating, or different forms of support to meet that standard.

The driver wasn't asking to be excused from the law. She wasn't asking to drive without insurance. She was asking for a few extra moments to locate the correct document.
That is very different from asking to ignore the rules.
We already make accommodations every day in our society.
We build wheelchair ramps so people can enter buildings.
We have accessible parking spaces.
We provide sign language interpreters.
We allow service animals.
Many workplaces provide flexible accommodations so employees with disabilities can succeed.

These accommodations don't remove responsibility. They remove unnecessary barriers.
We also extend patience to people who don't have disabilities.

Think about the student driver with a "New Driver" sign on the back of their car.
Most of us instinctively give them a little more space. We know they are learning. We don't expect perfection. We understand they may hesitate a little longer before making a turn or pulling into traffic.

Why?
Because patience makes the roads safer.
The same principle applies to many autistic drivers.
Many people don't realize that autistic drivers don't receive an "easy" road test.
There isn't a separate driver's licence for autism.
There isn't a simpler exam.
There isn't a reduced standard.
Every licensed driver has to prove they can drive safely.

One of my closest friends, Adam, is autistic.
He went through driver's education three different times before he finally earned his licence.
He didn't receive special treatment.
He earned it.
Today, he is one of the safest drivers I know.
When he's leaving a busy parking lot, he doesn't pull into traffic because someone behind him is impatient and honking.
He waits until he believes it is safe.
Some people get frustrated.
I don't.

Because if he cannot clearly see that it's safe, why should he risk his life—or someone else's—simply because another driver wants to save a few seconds?

I'd rather share the road with a cautious driver than with someone who believes impatience is more important than safety.
Driving represents something many people take for granted: freedom.
For some autistic people, earning a driver's licence is a tremendous achievement. It may take more lessons, more practice, and more determination than it does for someone else.
That doesn't make the accomplishment any less meaningful.
In fact, it often makes it even more meaningful.
Our society has made tremendous progress toward becoming more inclusive.
We recognize that different people have different needs.
We don't build ramps because wheelchair users deserve special privileges.
We build them because everyone deserves a fair opportunity to participate.
The same principle applies to autism.
Offering someone a little patience, a little understanding, or a reasonable accommodation does not weaken society.
It strengthens it.

The next time you find yourself behind someone who hesitates before pulling into traffic, remember this:
You don't know their story.
They might be a new driver.
They might be an older driver.
They might have autism.
They might simply be choosing caution over risk.
Whatever the reason, an extra few seconds of patience is a very small price to pay if it helps everyone arrive home safely.
Accommodation is not exemption.
Kindness is not weakness.
Patience is not preferential treatment.
Sometimes, the safest driver on the road is the one everyone else is honking at.

Topic: Trouble Makers (not really )

I have a great deal of respect for the people in our city who are willing to stand up and speak out. They are often labeled as troublemakers, instigators, or difficult simply because they refuse to stay silent.

The truth is that many of these people care deeply about our community. They are trying to make a difference, improve lives, and hold those in positions of power accountable. Change rarely comes from people who are comfortable with the status quo. It comes from those who are willing to ask hard questions and challenge the way things have always been done.

I think that I'm too small time to get on this exclusive list, But if speaking up for fairness, transparency, and positive change earns someone the label of "troublemaker," then perhaps we need to rethink what that label really means.
I admire people who have the courage to use their voice—not to create division, but to make their community better.

-Cheryl Steffer, 2026

The $60 Million Disconnect: Why Ontario's New Digital Lesson Bank Has Parents and Teachers Asking Tough Questions
For years, we've been told that technology is coming for our jobs.

Truck drivers worry about self-driving vehicles. Office workers worry about automation. Writers worry about artificial intelligence.
Most teachers probably assumed they were safe.
Then Ontario announced a $60 million investment in a centralized digital lesson platform, and suddenly some educators are jokingly asking whether they're next on the list.

Of course, no one seriously believes a lesson database can replace a teacher. But the joke points to a much larger concern: at a time when schools are struggling with staff shortages, growing behavioural challenges, mental health pressures, and special education needs, why is the province spending tens of millions of dollars on software instead of people?

The new province-wide agreement with Nelson Education will provide all 72 Ontario school boards access to the Edwin digital learning platform. According to the government, the goal is to improve consistency, provide curriculum resources, and better track student progress.
Supporters see it as modernization.

Critics see it as a troubling continuation of a trend that accelerated during COVID.
When schools were forced online during the pandemic, educators had no choice but to rely heavily on digital platforms. Understandably, governments and school boards invested heavily in technology to keep learning moving.
But many parents believed that online learning was a temporary emergency measure—not the blueprint for the future of public education.
Now, six years later, some families are wondering whether Ontario is continuing down a path that places more emphasis on screens, data tracking, and centralized digital resources than on the human relationships that make learning possible.
That concern becomes even harder to ignore when the government's messaging appears contradictory. Schools are being encouraged to reduce distractions from personal devices and limit student screen use, while at the same time millions of public dollars are being invested in a platform that requires students to spend more time interacting with screens.
The question many parents are asking is simple: if excessive screen time is a concern, why does every new solution seem to involve another screen?

More importantly, many educators argue that Ontario's biggest challenges are not technological.
Ask teachers what they need most, and many won't say software.
They'll say Educational Assistants.
They'll say Child and Youth Workers.
They'll say mental health professionals.
They'll say more support for students with complex needs.

A lesson bank can store information. A teacher can inspire a child. Those are not the same thing.
A software platform cannot calm a student in crisis. It cannot build trust with a struggling teenager. It cannot recognize the subtle signs that a child is being bullied, neglected, or falling behind.
People do those things.
And people are exactly what many schools say they need more of.

There is also a practical reality that seems to have been overlooked. Many Ontario schools continue to struggle with aging technology, limited devices, and shrinking budgets. Some classrooms still share a small number of outdated Chromebooks while teachers spend their own money on classroom supplies.
In that context, a $60 million software investment can feel disconnected from everyday classroom realities.

Technology certainly has a place in modern education. Few would argue otherwise.
But technology should support great teaching, not become a substitute for investing in the people who make great teaching possible.
The real debate isn't about software.
It's about priorities.

When Ontario classrooms are crying out for more support staff, better resources, and sustainable funding, many parents and educators are left wondering whether $60 million was spent solving the problem schools actually have—or the problem government wished they had.

What do you think? Is this investment a smart step toward consistency and modernization, or would those funds have been better spent on Educational Assistants, mental health supports, and front-line classroom resources?

Topic: Life goals in the real world...

Sprinkle Donuts
There’s something about a sprinkle donut.
You walk into a coffee shop, and there they are behind the glass...bright, colorful, cheerful little circles of sugar-covered happiness. Out of all the plain donuts sitting quietly in the background, the sprinkle donut practically screams for attention.
And honestly? Life is kind of like that.

We live in a world full of sprinkle donuts. Shiny things. Fancy things. Expensive things. The stuff we’re constantly told we need in order to be happy or successful. The luxury cars. The designer makeup. The giant houses with pools nobody really swims in. The endless shopping hauls. The newest phone that somehow makes last year’s phone suddenly feel ancient.

Everywhere we turn, something is sparkling at us.
And if we’re being real, sometimes it works. Sometimes we want the sprinkle donut.
Not because we’re greedy or shallow, but because life is hard. People are tired. People are stressed. Some people comfort eat. Some stress shop. Some buy little things because it feels like one tiny piece of happiness in the middle of an exhausting week.

Sometimes a sprinkle donut is just a sprinkle donut. Sometimes it’s a lipstick from Sephora after a rough month. Sometimes it’s takeout because you’re too overwhelmed to cook. Sometimes it’s candles, books, video games, shoes, or finally buying yourself something small after putting everyone else first for too long. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying little comforts.

The problem starts when life becomes all sprinkles. When every goal becomes about owning more, showing more, flexing more, upgrading more. When we spend more time chasing appearances than peace. When we start measuring our worth by what we own instead of who we are.That’s the trap... Because the truth is, most of the things we chase lose their shine pretty quickly. The excitement fades. The novelty wears off. The next shiny thing shows up, and suddenly the old shiny thing doesn’t feel shiny anymore.
It’s exhausting trying to keep up with a world that always wants more from you.

Maybe that’s why simple things matter so much.
Maybe happiness isn’t always found in the sprinkle donut. Maybe sometimes it’s found in quiet mornings, good conversations, laughter with people you love, cheap coffee, warm blankets, healing, surviving hard seasons, helping someone else, or finally learning how to breathe again after life knocks the wind out of you. Maybe the goal isn’t to never enjoy the sprinkles. Maybe the goal is simply not forgetting that underneath all the colorful distractions, it’s still just a donut.
And maybe real fulfillment comes from learning the difference between enjoying life and trying to fill empty spaces with stuff.

So buy the sprinkle donut sometimes. Celebrate birthdays. Wear the nice outfit. Enjoy the coffee. Take the little trip. Buy yourself flowers once in a while. Just don’t build your entire life around sprinkles. Because eventually, the icing melts, the colors fade, and what really matters is the life you built underneath it all.

- Cheryl Steffer, 2026

Topic: Inmates unaccounted for, still at large...

Ontario’s Inmate Release Scandal: What Really Happened and Why It Matters

In recent days, a troubling issue has come to light across Ontario. One that raises serious questions about public safety, government transparency, and the reliability of our correctional system.

Since 2021, more than 150 inmates have been improperly released from Ontario jails. While that number alone is alarming, the situation escalated when it was revealed that some of those individuals were not immediately recaptured, and in a few cases, remained unaccounted for months later. As of the latest reports, six inmates are still at large.

This has sparked widespread concern across the province, especially in major urban areas like Toronto, where discussions about crime and safety are already front and center.

What Does “Improper Release” Actually Mean?

Before jumping to conclusions, it’s important to understand the term itself.

An “improper release” doesn’t necessarily mean a dramatic prison break. In many cases, it refers to:

Administrative or paperwork errors

Miscommunication between courts and correctional facilities

Timing issues related to warrants or sentencing

That said, even if the cause is bureaucratic, the outcome is serious: someone who was legally supposed to remain in custody was released instead.

Where the Situation Became Controversial

Initially, officials suggested that all mistakenly released inmates had been quickly located and returned to custody. However, that statement was later clarified, and partially walked back.

It turns out that while police may have been notified quickly, not all individuals were actually recaptured right away. Some remained out in the community for extended periods, which has understandably shaken public confidence.

This shift in messaging is what really intensified the backlash.

Government Response

Premier Doug Ford has called the situation “unacceptable” and has assured the public that efforts are underway to locate the remaining individuals and prevent future incidents.

Despite the criticism, Ford continues to stand behind Solicitor General Michael Kerzner, who oversees Ontario’s correctional services. According to the Premier, Kerzner is doing a strong job overall, though many disagree.

Opposition leaders, particularly from the NDP, have raised serious concerns about transparency and accountability, with some calling for resignations.

Why This Matters to the Public

This issue goes beyond politics. It touches on several key concerns that affect everyday Ontarians:

1. Public Safety. People want to know: Who are these individuals? Are they dangerous?While not all cases involve high-risk offenders, the lack of clear information fuels anxiety.

2. Trust in the System. When errors like this happen repeatedly, it raises concerns about whether the system is:

Properly staffed

Adequately managed

Equipped with the right safeguards

3. Transparency and Accountability Conflicting information from officials makes it harder for the public to trust what they’re being told, and when.

The Bigger Picture

Mistakes can happen in any large system. But when those mistakes involve the release of inmates, and when they happen more than 150 times, it signals a deeper issue.

This situation highlights the need for:

Stronger internal checks and verification processes

Better communication between justice system partners

Clear, honest communication with the public when things go wrong

Final Thoughts

At its core, this isn’t just about six missing individuals or a number on a report. It’s about confidence, in the systems designed to keep communities safe, and in the leaders responsible for overseeing them.

As investigations continue and more details emerge, one thing is clear: Ontarians deserve transparency, accountability, and a correctional system they can trust.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think enough is being done to address it?

- Cheryl Steffer, 2026

🇨🇦 THIS IS ABOUT TRUST — AND IT’S TIME WE FIX IT.

I need to speak honestly about something a lot of Canadians are feeling right now.
People are frustrated. People are tired. And more and more of us are asking the same question:
“Who are we actually voting for?”
Because when an MP is elected under one party… and then switches to another after being elected…
It doesn’t just feel political.
It feels personal.
It feels like our vote—our voice—gets reshaped without us being asked.

⚠️ THIS IS THE ISSUE:
Right now in Canada, Members of Parliament can “cross the floor” and join another party without triggering a new election.
That means:
You vote for a platform
You vote for a promise
You vote for a direction
And then it can change… without you being consulted again.

🧭 THIS IS WHAT WE ARE CALLING FOR:
We need a mandatory by-election if an MP switches parties.
Simple. Fair. Democratic.
If an MP changes the political party they were elected under: ➡️ They step down
➡️ A by-election is held
➡️ The PEOPLE decide again
Because voters deserve the right to say:
“Yes—we still support you.”
or
“No—we didn’t vote for that.”

*** THIS IS NOT ABOUT LEFT OR RIGHT
This is not about Conservatives.
This is not about Liberals.
This is not about any one party.
This is about something bigger:
Accountability. Trust. Integrity.
No matter who you vote for, your vote should not be quietly redirected after the election.

📣 WHAT WE NEED TO DO...RIGHT NOW
If you believe in fairness in our democracy, here’s what we must do:
✔️ Contact your Member of Parliament
Ask them directly:
“Will you support a law requiring a by-election if an MP switches parties?”
✔️ Share this message
The more people who see this, the harder it is to ignore.
✔️ Demand a private member’s bill
We need an MP willing to bring this forward in Parliament of Canada.
✔️ Make this an election issue
Ask every candidate where they stand on it.

****BECAUSE SILENCE IS WHAT LETS THIS CONTINUE
Nothing changes when people stay quiet.
But when enough Canadians speak clearly, consistently, and respectfully…
Parliament listens.
Not because they want to, but because they have to.

🇨🇦 FINAL WORD
This country belongs to the people who vote in it.
And if our vote changes hands after the election, without us having a say…
Then the system needs to be corrected.
Not later.
Not someday.
Now.

If you believe in democracy, fairness, and accountability, share this. Talk about it. And most importantly:
Contact your MP. Make your voice impossible to ignore.


-Cheryl Steffer, 2026

Are We Being Represented… or Just Managed? 🇨🇦

Lately, I’ve been hearing the same thing over and over again... from friends, neighbours, and people in our community:

“We’re tired.”“Tired of struggling.”“Tired of not being heard.”“Tired of choosing between the same options and feeling like nothing really changes.”

And honestly… I feel it too.

We’re watching politicians switch parties after being elected under a completely different promise. We’re watching decisions get made that impact our daily lives. Our rent, our groceries, our children’s future, and many of us are left wondering:

Did we actually vote for this?

🧭 What’s Really Going On?

In Canada, when you vote, you’re technically voting for a person, not just a party. That means an MP can switch parties without asking voters again.

But let’s be real for a moment:

Most of us do vote based on party values.So when someone switches sides after being elected… it can feel like our voice was taken and redirected without our consent.

⚖️ Why Are People Worried About Majority Governments?

A majority government means one party has full control to pass laws without needing support from others.

Yes, things can move faster.But faster doesn’t always mean better.

It can also mean:

Less debate

Less compromise

Less accountability

And for many of us, that raises a serious question:

Who is making sure our voices are still being heard?

*How This Affects Everyday People

This isn’t just “politics.” This is real life.

It affects:

The cost of food on our tables

Whether our kids get the support they need

Access to healthcare and mental health services

Housing, rent, and homelessness in our communities

When decisions are made far away from the people living the reality, the gap grows—and we feel it.

*So What Can We Do?

We are NOT powerless.

Here’s what we can do:

✔️ Speak up — Your voice matters more than you think✔️ Stay informed — Not just headlines, but real understanding✔️ Contact your local representatives — Hold them accountable✔️ Support community initiatives — Change starts locally✔️ Vote with intention — Even if it means rethinking old habits

And maybe most importantly…

*Talk to each other... respectfully, honestly, and openly

❤️ A Final Thought

This isn’t about left vs. right anymore.

It’s about people.

It’s about whether the system is still working for the everyday Canadian—or if it needs to be challenged, questioned, and reshaped.

We don’t need to have all the answers.But we do need to start asking better questions.

Because silence doesn’t create change. People do.



-Cheryl Steffer, 2026