The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

th ei fp .c a Th e IF P -H al to n H ill s | T hu rs da y, D ec em be r 21 ,2 01 7 | 6 The Georgetown Independent & Free Press, published every Thursday, is a division of the Metroland Media Group Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Torstar Corpora- tion. The Metroland family of newspapers is comprised of more than 80 community publications across Ontario. The Independent & Free Press is a member of the National NewsMedia Council. Complainants are urged to bring their concerns to the attention of the newspaper and, if not satisfied, write The National NewsMedia Council, Suite 200, 890 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4W 2H2. Phone: 416-340-1981 Web: www.mediacouncil.ca newsroom@theifp.ca IndependentAndFreePress @IFP_11 ABOUT US The Independent & Free Press 280 Guelph Street, Unit 77 Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 Phone: 905-873-0301 Classifieds: 905-234-1016 Fax: 905-873-0398 Letters to the editor All letters must be fewer than 200 words and include your name and telephone number for verification purposes. We reserve the right to edit, condense or reject letters. Delivery For all delivery inquiries, please e-mail ssoles@metroland.com or call 905-234-1019. CONTACT US Publisher Neil Oliver General Manager Steve Foreman Retail Advertising Manager Cindi Campbell Regional Managing Editor Chris Vernon Regional Managing Digital Editor Robyn Wilkinson Distribution Representative Iouliana Polar Classified/Real Estate Kristie Pells Regional Production Manager Manuel Garcia Production Shelli Harrison WHO WE ARE OPINION • EDITORIAL • • LETTERS & COMMENTARY • Most of us are well aware of how our cable/satellite TV systems operate - you choose a carrier, then select pro- gramming that fits your needs and budget. Now, imagine the next time you go online, being pre- sented with the same types of limitations. This scenario is a very real possibility in the United States. Much to the chagrin of the giant service providers in the U.S., former president Barack Obama legislated a free internet (described commonly as net neutrality) during his time in office. In a speech, he said: "We cannot allow internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." Net neutrality essentially means equal access for all users. It means a small startup could conceivably have the same opportunities as a giant corporation to reach online shoppers. The Trump administration, determined to undo just about everything Obama put in place, will repeal net neutrality. And, more than that, the head of the Federal Commu- nications Commission, Ajit Pai, intends to prevent states/ cities from adopting similar consumer protections - all in the name of ending the 'micromanaging' of the internet. Of course, the micromanaging he refers to is actually non-existent with a free internet, but would be rampant when service providers get to decide what people can and can't access, based on their ability to pay. (It's similar to Republican-speak on health care, when they claim taking people's coverage away actually pro- vides them with "freedom.") Should Canadians care about this development? Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has no intention of abandoning net neutrality, so we won't be impacted, right? Wrong. The emerging online landscape in the U.S. means Ca- nadian businesses looking to provide content to U.S. con- sumers will have to pay to play. And the extra costs that content providers will pay to ensure their sites are available will be passed on to con- sumers, so Canadians could face higher fees to access sites like Apple Music, YouTube, or Netflix. Canadians already pay some of the highest prices in the world for internet access, and cope with some of the lowest caps on data. Being negatively impacted by U.S. policy is not a welcome development. Perhaps unwisely, we've taken for granted the notion that purchasing internet access includes freedom of choice in using the web. In view of the changes south of the border, complacency is no longer acceptable. Canada's government needs to entrench net neutrality through legislation, with support from all parties. We can't take net neutrality for granted Where are mental health policies? In any given year, one in five Canadians living in Ontario will experience a mental health issue, with 70 per cent of these mental health issues onset during adolescence. The mental health of students in schools is an often overlooked, yet ex- tremely relevant issue. I believe that it is cru- cial for all teachers to be informed on warning signs and how to proceed after recognizing these students suffering from these illnesses. The Peel school board is the second-largest school board in Canada and is located in Ontario; it schools 154,000 students from kindergarten to Grade 12. On the official website, there are 86 policies all schools that are a part of the board must follow, yet none are related to mental health issues. The Peel school board claims that they are "com- mitted to the well-being, safety and success of all of our students" on their offi- cial website; but if this were true, 80 per cent of teenagers with depression would not be going unrec- ognized and untreated. The education for teach- ers on this topic is option- al, not mandatory. High schools located in Onta- rio, Canada, are not de- signed to diagnose and manage mental illness. With depression and anxi- ety so prevalent in today's society, policies on pre- vention, intervention and aid are imperative and es- sential. Teachers must have an obligation to re- port any suspicion that a child is dealing with a mental health issue. As a student of the Peel school board, I witness students being neglected every day. It is absolutely heartbreaking, but not unique, that a child wakes up each morning and would rather take their own life than go to school. The education system and its policies are the issue, not the students strug- gling with mental health issues. If nothing changes within the schools, the blood of these adolescents is on their hands. Corsen Parker Individual opinions must be respected I don't like seeing let- ters to the editor as a fo- rum to publicly attack the opinions of others. Expressing an opinion, including an opposing opinion, is anyone's right, but that should be the ex- tent of it. Opinions are just that -- individuals' personal views. That does not make one opinion more correct or more important than another. Let's not deteriorate in- to the realm of attack ads. That's my opinion. Fiona Ryner l GET CONNECTED Visit theifp.ca/letters to see other opinions from the local community.