BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)The morn was spent in assembling thw posts below. There ae those who only receive them - and those not receiving them at all.
Should you prefer ABOVE (30) only or BELOW (30) only please inform me.
Should you wish to be removed completely on the one hand or have someone you'd like to have it sent to, send the addresses in either case.
Jeanette's Happy Canada Day ! Bonne fête du Canada ! is a day late but I;m certain not outdated in sentiments
Subject: Happy Canada Day ! Bonne fête du Canada !
From: Jeannette Fraser
Subject: Happy Canada Day ! Bonne fête du Canada !
From: Jeannette Fraser
Happy Canada Day ! Bonne fête du Canada !"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
« Je suis Canadien, libre de m'exprimer sans crainte, libre de pratiquer ma religion comme je l'entends, libre de défendre ce que j'estime juste, libre de m'opposer à ce que j'estime injuste et libre de choisir les dirigeants de mon pays. Je m'engage à préserver pour moi-même et l'humanité tout entière cet héritage de liberté. »
~ Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960 / La Déclaration canadienne des droits, 1er juillet 1960.
John George Diefenbaker
- Rene Who? Most Canadians struggle to ID icons http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090629/canada_survey_090629/20090629?hub=TopStories
- Canada comes to the centre of London (UK)
- Quebec-based icebreaker to visit for Canada Day http://www.timescolonist.com/Life/Quebec+based+icebreaker+visit+Canada/1742108/story.html
- Times Square to give Canada a big happy birthday wish http://www.kelowna.com/2009/06/27/times-square-to-give-canada-a-big-happy-birthday-wish/
Amusez-vous! Have fun.
From: alan heisey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Should the Tory parties have counterparts to "adherents"?
In a lively recent phone conversation a party activist told me he was
not as concerned about paid membership totals as about "activist"
totals. His view is that it is more important to recruit helpers or
volunteers than it is to worry about whether or not a new person
actually joins the party.
He recognizes that, for some, actually "joining the party" is a
hangup, whereas most volunteers do come around to joining the party
sooner or later.
This insight registered with me because for a long time I attended my
local United Church but did not want to actually become a member. That
church recognizes participation at that level as being "an
adherent", and years later I actually joined the congregation.
Should the local fed or provincial party eda encourage such looser
level interests? I am inclined to think so because I have a good chum
who is a Tory in every way except that he does not want a party card!
As a measure of organization health I would like to see them tracked,
because some time as a helper will help one understand that in the
privacy of a polling booth one can vote even Marxist-Leninist(!), as I
did after sewing up a poll for Jim Gillies many moons ago!
From: "Mahmood Elahi"
To: "Letters \(ott\)" <email@example.com>
Subject: On Canada Day, let's also remember the Loyalists
The Ottawa Citizen
On Canada Day, let's also remember Loyalists who transformed Canada
Re "My Canada includes Canada," by David Warren (Jule 1).
On Canada Day, we pay homage to the Founding Fathers, especially Canada's first Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald, for bringing together disparate British colonies to form one nation. In this context, it may also be worthwhile to remember the Loyalists who transformed Canada from an overwhelmingly French-speaking country to a predominantly English-speaking one.
It may be recalled that after the British conquest of Canada in 1759, even the colonial Governor Sir Guy Carleton believed Canada would always remian a French-speaking nation. "Europeans who migrate," he asserted, "will never prefer the long inhospitable winter of Canada to the more cheerful climate and more fruitful soil of His Majesty's southern provinces. So, barring tragedy shocking to think of, this country must, to the end of time, be peopled by the French-Canadian race."
This was not to be. Within a decade and half, came a crowd of American royalists driven into exile by revolutionary upheavals in their own country. They were North America's first political refugees who fled to Canada to escape persecution in the hands of so-called Patriots.
Influx of New England royalists, known as the United Empire Loyalists, signalled the transformation of Canada. It could no longer be contended that Canada would remian French to the end of time. A substantial and growing population of Anglo-American stock had been planted in Quebec and areas next to it what was to become Ontario, triggering a process in which the francophones became a minority in a country founded by them.
Thus the Loyalists played a historical role in laying the foundation of Canada as we know today. It can be argued that if the Americans didn't revolt and the Loyalists stayed home, the subsequent British immigration would have gone to "His Majesty's southern provinces," and Canada would have remained French. Canada Day is an appropriate occasion to remember the Loyalists.
From: Tom Brewer
Date: 24/06/2009 11:11:37 PM
Opps, I dare suggest my comments irritated a few. I wish to state again, I only ask that we treat everyone with the same respect we want.
Listen, I too no not believe or want to see the debauchery mentioned in the response to my comments! Let whomever behind closed doors do as they wish. My concern people is what I perceive as the rudeness presented when one is asked to partake yet does not have the decency to respond.
MP's are invited to a lot of things and yes cant make some appointments. A call or letter can address the matter but when nothing is done it purports a rudeness.
Tom Lukiwski started this mess with his comments. To then cry tears and yet NOT act as he said he would makes him out, in my opinion, to be a hypocrite.
I do not appreciate some of the comments made as much as those who did not like mine. Our opinions are important... Ones sexuality need not see the comments made. My opinion in all of this is and was treat each one as they too like to be treated. Anything less... No matter one's orientation suggests one can belittle no matter what and in doing so suggests to me at least he who yells louder and can throw more dirt wins. Let me again state... Treat others as you want to be treated... Please!
From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Here's an answer to homelessness, Jon Ferry, June 26
- Re: Here's an answer to homelessness, Jon Ferry, June 26
- Homelessness has more to do with Vancouver's high cost of living than with so-called "free lunches" that lure the world's vagabonds. These days its easier to identify the real "mooches" -the bankers and big corporations that have run the economic system into the ground and need billions of public monies to bail them out. Far easier for Jon Ferry to criticize "do-gooders" and a hard-working Mayor than to examine our socio-economic policies - tax cuts for the wealthy, service cuts for the poor, loss of jobs and wage reductions through privatization and outsourcing, higher educational fees, scarce child care, and stagnant minimum wages - that have led to gross inequalities and a permanent class of citizens, many of them working poor, who cannot afford a decent place to bring up their children. Jon Ferry's views are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem.
- Larry Kazdan,
- Vancouver, B.C.
From: Rubie Britton
Subject: Did I send this before?
Subject: Five year old.....
IF THIS DOESN'T MAKE YOU LAUGH
A mother took her five-year-old son with her to the bank on a busy
They got behind a very fat woman wearing a business suit complete with
pager. patiently, the little boy said loudly, "Gee, she's fat!"
The mother bent down and whispered in the little boys ear to be quiet.
A couple of minutes passed by and the little boy spread his hands as far
as they would go and announced; "I'll bet her butt is this wide!"
The fat woman turns around and glares at the little boy. The mother gave
him a good telling off, and told him to be quiet. After a brief lull,
the large woman reached the front of the line. Just then her pager begin to
emit a beep, beep, beep.
The little boy yells out, "Run for your life, she's backing up!!"
From: Rory J. Koopmans,
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:55:45 +0000
June XXIXth, MMIX
Hon. Peter Milliken, PC, MP
Speaker, THe House of Commons
I just got a flyer from my MP, Col. Laurie Hawn asking which of "the following leaders is on "the right track IV lowering taxes?"" The 17th flyer with the right track statement I have received from the Colonel. The 17th. Of course, I immediately sent it over to my neighbor for his birdcage.
Now I am not saying that what Col. Hawn & I presume the other 143 Conservative MP's is doing is illegal, but it just seems a tad unethical. A tad. They are sending out what is clearly an electioneering brochure, out on the Government tab, from Government Caucus Services, which is a joke as flyers should be addressed from the MP's office, especially as they are not paying postage.
I feel sorry for my friend the post lady IV having II deliver this claptrap & carry it over her back. Clearly Conservative MP's should send out flyers that actually have issues on them, not 1 liner rigged questionnaires that contain nothing but communistic, ram it down your throat or else propoganda.
Of course I do not begrudge the Colonel his Air Force pension. His service there was beyond honourable. But when he & Her Majesty's Government MP's put out this kind of spin, I am ticked off at paying his MP & Parliamentary salary/expenses/etc.
So I say Pete, make it illegal to send out this spin from the Caucus Services offices. Make the Conservative Party, and all party's pay 100% of the cost of the flyers if they contain no issues whatsoever. And Pete, this one clearly isn't worth the paper its printed on!
From Rene Moreau
Subject: John Manning
Despite repeated attempts to find out, he, or his people are not
saying. Pro-American, pro Republican, anti-royalty, in line for a
charge of treason, and aware that he is in line for that charge of
treason, definitely. As I have said before, he gets Really upset, when
told, but obviously, does not mend his ways.
I called the CCCE to let them know about this aspect, and left a
message with reception to have someone call me.
That may sound dumb, calling the most pro-corporate rule, group
in Canada, but hopefully, it sends a message.
Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)
To Joe 01/07/2009,
From Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)
Repeatedly I have mentioned that Nortel has been in the hands of
Yankee carpet-baggers, (aka, sleazers), out of New Jersey. Obviously
our media have been told to shut up on the issue.
While travelling in Europe I had some-one tell me that corporate
-rule advocates, world-wide, are actually, in large part, laced with
Mafia. New Jersey is the U.S. equivalent of our Woodbridge, or our
Canadian Mafia Tony Clement is the Minister of Industry. Shouldn't we
the people, be concerned, since our government isn't, obviously.
Using taxpayers money to facilitate the cementing of the end of
Nortel is of course to be expected!!
Just for the hell of it, call 1-866-484--7773, which they say is
Nepean, outside of Ottawa, but you get Illinois, then call
1-800-466-7835, and they say they are in St. John, ON CANADA DAY!!
At what point do we say, "Thats enough, eh", to the sleazers and
impose a corporate Magna Carta?
As a parting gift, why not export Harper and his gang to the States?
We could also tell Harper that if he doesn't go, a charge of
treason awaits him and his guys, including John Manley and Thomas
D'Aquino of the Council of Chief Executives.
Joe, please confirm receipt as this may not get through considering
the efforts of Echelon.
Like Hitler, all they need to function is darkness and a quiet
media and populace!
Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)
We accept Separatistes so why not Continentalists as well?
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
From: The Natroses
Hi Joe, Quantitative Easing - As describe in the Toronto Star: "In quantitative easing, the central bank purchases assets from financial institutions such as banks in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity. As described by Murray, credit easing "involves central bank purchases of private sector assets in segments of the market where dislocations and credit constraints appear to be most severe." It also is designed to ease credit conditions "by stimulating more active trade in certain assets and through a process of portfolio substitution."
When all is said and done, though, it all amounts to printing money.
- From: Joerge Dyrkton,
- Subject: A Review of John Ralston Saul's "A Fair Country"
- Hello Joe,
- You and some of your subscribers might want to take a look at my review of John Ralston Saul's book, "A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada" (2008). I don't expect you to agree entirely, but I remain hopeful you will appreciate certain points. You can find this latest entry to my own blog at: www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
- Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
- He most certainly has had an excellent observation point.
- And we can only hope that it's taught him a few things. I clearly remember reading a book of his in the early 90s, "Voltaire's Bastards", in which he argued that Canada should consider making a new start by ... uuuhhh ... repudiating it's debt. Mind you, this WAS when it looked like Canada would never rise out of its debt hole. But then again, the small issue of what would be done about Canadian savers and pension funds getting stiffed for the Canada Bonds that they were holding; not to mention the other poor sods who would get 'Argentinaed' before Argentina ever thought of pulling that stunt.
- Li'l Stratos, a beaty and bouncy 27-28 or so when he read Mr. Saul's boom, didn't know what to make of this provocative thinking; but he's growed up since then and better understands what the (catastrophic) consequences would have been. And he now has a better appreciation of how stupid and self-service big-muscle unions can be: sometime after the book came out, one of the CUPE or CAW head honchos, when told by then-PM Brian Mulroney that Canada's finances didn't allow for large wage increases, answered that Canada should repudiate it's debt, etc. But all ended well: I learned a valuable lesson about trusting 'public intellectuals' doing my thinking for me.
- So, respect for 'public intellectuals' on my part? Meh ... Give me experienced specialists over vapid ponderers ANY day.
- From: Joerge Dyrkton,
From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: 25/06- But we are still being forced to pay for Carbon Credits by our goverments?
Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C the latest date in fifty years of record keeping
Subject: 25/06- Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
Subject: 25/06- Bilderberg 2009 Intel Already Proving Accurate
Subject: 02/07- A repeat of the USS Liberty? israel can do no wrong? Where is our media on this?
The "Spirit of Humanity
From: The Natroses
Subject: Re: Daily Digest June 25, 2009
Hi Joe, A thought to combine a few articles, into one common theme that represents a danger to what and who Canada is all about.
1. The breakup of Nortel, is just another Canadian icon that will soon be own by foreigners to do whatever they want, with the nodding approval of our federal government. The lowly pensioner, the ones who are presently employed at Nortel can look forward to and it is without a doubt to reduce pensions, or no pension what so ever, or reduced salaries. Canadian governments of the past and current, and its politicians have and still making laws that are always in favour of companies, so they can continue on to be unaccountable not only to their investors, their employees, but also in revising history, where Canadian innovation, products and the very people have never been worthy of protection or pride. Our people, have been reduced down to cost factors where we are no longer seen as investments on both sides of the camp. So 300 million dollars of the public purse will be given to Nortel, to help breakup the Canadian icon. None, will even have a thought or a care on the lowly employees, whose hard work made Nortel great and not the top management as everyone seems to think.
2. The Sham-oracy articles, points out the every present danger of accountability and transparency of our Canadian government , that are no longer, nor do they have to be to the Canadian public. MP expenses, the cost of the Afghan mission, our watchdogs turning into lapdogs providing cover for our government to hide, co-opting our media where there become the frontmen for spin, rewriting the rules for our democracy, and the demise where participation of the general public is no longer an requirement or needed. It is the unravelling of our democracy, where our citizens becomes the yes-men to rubberstamp and approve without thoughtful debate. Debate is falling away, when laws are being enacted in bits and pieces where debate is no longer a problem for the politicians that is coming from us lowly voters.
3. Revision of our Canadian history, that shifts the view of what actually did happen with all its warts and beauty marks, to a view that has been sanitized to fit certain ideologies, dogma, and shift people's concepts of Canadian history to a more homogenous context, where certain events over ride all other events, and are marked or hailed as being Canadian. The latest commericial on Pier 21 reflects this, where Harper states, 'All Canadians'. The commercial infers that Canada and their immigrants, began here without reference to dates. Pier 21 was in operation from 1928 to 1971, and yes it is an important part of our history, but to infered that it was the most important part is an affront to all Canadians that came before 1921. But more so, when in 5 to 10 years from now - most Canadians will think only certain events like Pier 21 are important without seeing the whole picture. That in itself is a danger, where the public can no longer debate effectively with those who are actively revising Canadian history to suit their needs, and in some cases to advance an outlook, that will be accepted as a general truth in years to come; in order to advance legislation that would be rather troublesome today.
4. We see this in the thesis, and writings of John Ralston Saul, and his book, "A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada". The main theme of the book, is that we are not a civilization of British, French or European collective, but our roots come from within and from the aboriginal peoples of Canada. His main premise, is that Canada was shaped deeply by aboriginal cultures and as a result our main culture adaptation taken from aboriginal peoples who had an abundance of is fairness. Apparently, we are a very fair country according to Saul. I fear this particular type of revising history, is more so to suit a political agenda in years to come to solve the ongoing problems that our governments have had and still do, our aboriginal peoples. I fear that this crap will become the truth to most of the general public, that our aboriginal peoples have always been part of what Canada is and its democracy. The reality is, that the aboriginal peoples and their needs have always been a problem for those who have governed. The unwillingness of the aboriginal peoples to assimilate in culture and economic systems. Their culture were seen as being inferior to the Christain Europeans. Their economic system, based on supplying all needs from the land and common ownership over land, water and other important basic needs, were considered insane by the ones who governed. How can one make a buck or two for our nations of France and England, when the natives had a different concept on what was valuable and private ownership. The saddest thing is the ignoring and often put in as a footnote, the contributions that our aboriginals have made to Canada, since the first European stepped on the land of what would be known as Canada. It is the part of history, that is often ignored. Without the aboriginals, Canada would be different today. It is one part that I do agree with Raul, but Canada is Canada and it has been shaped by all cultures, and not just from a singular one. Fairness stems from all immigrants, who came to this country to have freedom, without being oppressed by those who governed us. The aboriginals care more about the collective good of their tribe, than the needs of a single individual. Too bad governments of the past and the present have not learnt this lesson, with the latest example of being stingy with the health supplies to combat the swine flu in Northern Manitoba reservations. Would it not be nice to see this sense of fairness extend to our federal and provincial governments? And would it not be nice to do so, without revising history in the process!
Subject: Re: Daily Digest Dominion Day, 2009
There is a saying, that seems very apt at this time.
"Injustice is when the equal are treated unequally, and the unequal are treated equally."
Apparently from where I stand, I do believe that our political and other institutions live by the above motto, where the word injustice is change to 'justice'.
1. In the Cape Breton article, http://tinyurl.com/naz72z
At the end it states, "Almost eight years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. which led to an unprecedented expansion of secretive security operations throughout the Western world, Canada is still a long way from sorting out the new balance needed among the competing interests of public security, individual rights, due process and the rule of law. Canadians can't participate in such questions unless they understand something about the concepts and how they came to be. It's for reasons such as this that history matters."
It is the reason why history courses have gone the way of the dodo bird, when citizens are ignorant of their own country's history, a government can than treat all people who are equal under the constitution, in an unequal fashion.
2. Another article on balance the rights of minor, http://tinyurl.com/lzturh
At the end it states, "The Supreme Court's ruling, although focused on Manitoba, clarifies countrywide the extent of the rights of minors to have a determining say in their medical treatment.
The court rightly noted that maturity cannot automatically be assumed to be present in older teens or missing in younger ones. Each individual is different and must be assessed in light of a variety of factors, including parental influence on their views, on a case-by-case basis.
"The more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a truly mature and independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that must be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion," wrote Justice Rosalie Abella.
However, the court has also defended forced medical interventions involving minors as valid, in the appropriate circumstances, under the Constitution."
Supreme court decisions, often dance around the above motto by trying to balance and making it appear that the unequal is on the same footing and is being treated as an equal. This particular ruling downgrades the rights of parents, where their influence over their children is suspect, if not dangerous to the state and society. At the same time, preserving the power structure of state where they have the final say on not only health matters, education matters and other social matters that are vital in civil society.
3. Another article is the Rights Commission's report to parliament, http://tinyurl.com/lfuwwc
As stated, "With frightening eagerness to rein in Canadians' free expression, the commission finds the authority to restrict honest opinion in Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, a notoriously vague bit of legal writing that forbids transmissions "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." The subjective power of that "likely to" makes everyone vulnerable to bureaucratic whim, malice, or distemper."
In this case, we have an agency playing both sides of the above motto, where if the Human Rights commission gets the go ahead, it will not take too long before it spills into other areas, where people have access problems for services, and often here angry words are often said in the heated discussions, where persons are likely to be expose to hatred or contempt. Can you imagine, if the state gets an unexpected new tool, to quash freedom of citizens expressing their view points where contempt charges can be issue, in order to control the citizen. It will stop open debate on important issues, where only the state has the freedom to debate without oversight from its citizens.
4. IE benefits, where some people are more equal than others, depending on location, job and other factors. The unemployed cannot affect changes within the IE system, unless the government is willing to concede to stop playing the game of, " "The right to an IE benefit, is based on the equal are treated unequally, and the unequal are treated equally." It is pretty tough for government to do so, when the system as is, is a nice revenue maker for any government.
5. The article of Charest and the autonomy of non-sovereign states, describes the federal government where Quebec is a little more equal, than the rest of the provinces. This is where Harper and his government do their best creating conditions that puts all provinces under the column of the unequals, at the same time maintaining their equal status at the expense of the provinces. Decentralization, is code word for centralization and history will show this, where people in the year 3000, would be questioning the many moves of the Harper government, that appears to be decentralization, when in reality it was really the opposite - centralization.
'From: "John Feldsted"
Subject: 24/06-Fool us once . . . . . . . . . . .
The next election may be a watershed in Canadian politics. For the first time, Canadians may have their votes stolen from them.
In the blue corner, we will have the current champion, Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada. In the red corner we will have the combined resources of Michel Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. They are the alternative to a majority Harper government.
During the 2008 general election, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Stéphane Dion conspired to throw the election and install an unholy coalition unless the conservatives won a majority. Elector ballots were deemed expendable; we would be governed in accordance with the wishes of the troika leadership. They were prepared to toss a few centuries of Westminster parliamentary tradition in the toilet as they demanded the levers to our government.
The road to democracy is smeared in blood and littered with the bodies of those who died securing our freedoms and liberty. Our tradition of seeking governance from the party leader with the most seats in a parliament is not to be trifled with.
There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for opposition parties to form a coalition and subsequently usurp a minority to govern a Westminster parliament. I recall Jack Layton braying last December: "You have lost the confidence of parliament, Mr. Harper!" Jack refuses to accept that electors, not parliament or Members of Parliament or political party leaders choose our government. When a minority government falls, the Governor General may, but is not required to ask the leader of the Official Opposition if he has enough support to form a government.
Neither the NDP nor the BQ will ever form a government. The LPC is deeply wounded, in financial trouble and has lost the allure of a perpetual winner. For the record, past election performance is as follows:
The LPC became a wounded duck in December 2003 when Paul Martin Jr. wrested the party leadership from Jean Chretien. Canadians sensed weakness and Adscam translated into a LPC minority government in 2004. That was 66 months ago and a stunning lack of leadership since has left the LPC adrift.
There is a real danger that the opposition parties who were thwarted from a coup d'etat last December will mount another challenge to our Westminster traditions if they fail to achieve governance by a legitimate vote. Cobbling together a government comprised of the parties rejected by electors is not an acceptable evolution of our electoral system, particularly since the public has had no opportunity to review and approve of a change.
Subject: 25/06 The risks of rewriting rules of our democracy
I wrote yesterday about the risks of another po9litical coup d'etat if we do not elect a majority government next fall, or whenever we do have an election. Half-truths such as that from below help to confuse the situation:
"But, under Canada's parliamentary system, it was wholly legitimate for the Liberals and New Democrats, with the support of Bloc Québécois MPs, to get together last December to try to defeat the Conservatives over what they saw as the government's woefully inadequate response to the economic crisis."
As far as the opposition having a legitimate right to defeat the conservative minority, the statement is accurate. However, the problem lay in opposition demands that the Governor General turn over governance to a coalition of opposition parties. The Governor General may, but is not obliged to, ask the leader of the opposition of he or she has sufficient support to form a government. Considering that the LPC and NDP together could not govern without the help of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the Governor General had sound reason to consider a new general election instead.
The troika proposed much more than a simple defeat of government. The party leaders proposed a huge shift in the way our electoral system operates. That must not be allowed to happen without the prior consent of those governed.
Subject: 28/06 Swastika sprayed on anti-racism activists' home
'Anti-racism activists' is a fancy name for vigilantes and no less loathsome. The Devines are busybodies on a quest for their fifteen minutes of fame. Canada has an embarrassing history of fighting phantom racists and neo-Nazis from white supremacist groups formed and funded by the RCMP to CHRC operatives posting racist slurs to web sites to entice people to contribute more of the same and face persecution. Anti-racism activists need racists to justify their existence and have proven to be adept at creating racists whenever the supply dwindles.
Canadians recognize racists when they encounter them and are well able to hold them up to the public ridicule they deserve. The notion that our society needs to be protected against racism is vile. The Devines and their ilk want to suppress speech they do not like. The loss of our freedom of expression is far too high a price to pay for countering a few misfits marching in the street chanting silly slogans. The Devines' cure for verbal discomfort is lethal to democracy.
Subject: 30/06 -A little Revenue Canada Humour
A little Revenue Canada Humour
Revenue Canada decides to audit Grandpa, and summons him to the Revenue Canada office.
The auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his attorney.
The auditor said, 'Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment,
Which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure Revenue Canada finds that believable.'
I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it,' says Grandpa. 'How about a demonstration?'
The auditor thinks for a moment and said, 'Okay. Go ahead.'
Grandpa says, 'I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.'
The auditor thinks a moment and says, 'It's a bet.'
Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor's jaw drops.
Grandpa says, 'Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.'
Now the auditor can tell Grandpa isn't blind, so he takes the bet.
Grandpa removes his dentures and bites his good eye.
The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Grandpa's attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.
'Want to go double or nothing?' Grandpa asks 'I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.'
The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.
Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.
The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win.
But Grandpa's own attorney moans and puts his head in his hands.
'Are you okay?' the auditor asks.
'Not really,' says the attorney. 'This morning, when Grandpa told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and pee all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it!'
Subject: 01/07- Ignatieff on how the West will be won
"To the degree this is about my patriotism and devotion to Canada, frankly, get lost."
Mr. Ignatieff - your pointless pontificating and childish threats are as uninspiring as they are typical of the LPC. We are familiar with LPC backstabbing, breach of trust, cronyism, deceit, elitism, entitlement, lying, opportunism, snobbery and theft of public funds. While you are speaking, we watch your hands, your body language and what you do. Trust broken is not easily repaired; the LPC has not apologized or made amends for its many transgressions and has done nothing to earn our respect. We have not forgotten LPC treatment nor have we forgiven the LPC.
From: Robert Ede
Subject: FYI --Video Clip from Bloomberg
Brynjolfsson says Inflation to Crop Up in Six Month
Subject: Dominion Day Challenge - Read your country's foundational documents
From: Robert Ede
We hear Canadians from all walks of life crying out for a 'better system' of government. I believe they deserve more than that, I think Canadians deserve the 'very best' possible system and I want to assist in making that a reality.
Not by revolution, but by revelation.
Not by noisy demonstrations and civil disobedience, but by looking right beneath our noses.
Not by creating or imposing something new or borrowed, but by applying all of the provisions of our existing, as-written Constitution.
The purpose of this page is to provide the foundations of my belief that since 1940, the national government has NOT been following the as-written Constitution of Canada and as a result the government is not serving Canadians, although Canadians ARE working more and more of their lives serving the government.
I believe an examination of our fundamental and supreme laws will lead to an understanding of 'how it's supposed to be' and demonstrate the care, intelligence and forethought that went into that original design.
I believe a return to the first principles of governance, set down FOR Canada, by Canadians that were similar, but not-exactly the same as the systems in Great Britain, or France or the USA or any other commonwealth country will provide us everything we need from and for government, from and for other Canadians and from and for ourselves.
In a nutshell, the Legislative component has usurped the power intended and prescribed for the Executive component and as a result the built-in, multi-layered, checks and balances of our wonderfully suitable, hierarchical, power-sharing system has been destroyed - at the very least, it has been turned on its head and we have allowed the creation of a new system where the 'inmates are running the asylum'.
Since 1940, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has gathered up control of too much, unchecked and uncheck-able executive (i.e decision-making) power. The holder of the Office of Prime Minister was never intended to be unassailable "King/Queen" of the administration of Canada's assets, treasury, civil service and legislative order of government.
The Prime Minister was intended to be the Lead Advisor, representing the lowest Order of our tripartite 'One Parliament', a person representing many voices, but constitutionally just one of many sources of advice - not the decision-maker. Since 1940, when the leadership of the Privy Council was grasped away from the Governor General (with Order-in-Council P.C. 1940-1121, under cover of unifying execution of the war-effort), the veto powers of the Monarch, the prerogative powers vested in the Governor General, the decision-making powers of the Governor General's office and the supervisory and decision-making powers of the committees of the Governor General's Privy Council of Canada have been consolidated in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office.
Too much executive power with no counter-balance, all in one person's hands. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the fact that our system has been corrupted is no one human being's fault-it's the fault of human nature.
Our as-written constitutional system was expressly designed to make the exercise of this well-known aspect of human nature an impossibility. I believe that any Canadian who takes the time to read the Constitution Acts governing Canada will come to the same conclusion and so I've tried to make it as easy as possible to do the reading.
The electronic magic of the internet makes creation of a document with automatic links to proofs and sources a breeze and I can only hope that my attempt at 'translating' the 1867-1982 legal documents into more readily understandable language makes poring over these never-read documents just as breezy.
Canada's Single-Prayer Health Care
From: Mike Palecek
Subject: The NAD Interview: The Progrrressive Avenger
"Our problem is civil obedience.
Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war.
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country.
That's our problem.
We recognize this for Nazi Germany. We know that the problem there was obedience, that the people obeyed Hitler. People obeyed; that was wrong.
They should have challenged, and they should have resisted; and if we were only there, we would have showed them.
Even in Stalin's Russia we can understand that; people are obedient, all these herdlike people.
Subject: Re: Export Development Corporation funding Nortel break up. Why?
From: Robert G. Gauthier, Prop.
The National Capital News Canada, Ottawa
You ask, "Since when has Export Development Canada's role become financing the export of Canadian assets? Just what are the "economic growth and employment opportunities " flowing to Canada for the $300 million dollars?"
When I launched The National Capital News Canada in 1982, following the closing of The Ottawa Journal in Ottawa and The Winnipeg Tribune in Winnipeg, being denied equal access to the publicly funded facilities and services, parliamentary press gallery, provided by the House of Commons for the media, I brought a complaint of a violation of the provisions of the Competition Act for refusal to deal, restricted trade, preventing a new entry into the market to the Director of the Bureau of Competition Policy, as it was then called, and to Howard I. Wetston, the Director.
Instead of evaluating the merits of this interference with fair competition, they dismissed the complaint with this commentary by one of their investigators, Robert McCrone: "We had a similar complaint from another nut,"
I read recently in The National Post and elsewhere that the Hon. John Manley has been named president of The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE).
Manley was the Minister of Industry which also oversees the Competition Bureau and he was made aware of the unprofessional and illegal handling of my complaint with indifference and also dismissed my concerns. This eventually led to my successful hearing at the United Nations where, in 1999, Canada was found in violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, the right to seek, receive and impart information without interference.
The CCCE, according to their website, is an association of Canada's business leaders committed to the shaping of sound public policy in Canada, North America and the world.The non-partisan and not-for-profit organization was founded in 1976 as the Business Council on National Issues to enable public-spirited leaders from every region and every major industry to devote their time and energy to addressing key issues that affect the country as a whole. Strongly committed to effecting economic, social and political change, the Council has repeatedly broken new ground with its ideas and has played an influential role in most of the major policy developments in Canada over the past three decades.The members of the Council include the chief executive officers of some 150 leading Canadian corporations and Canada's pre-eminent entrepreneurs. These companies administer C$3.5 trillion in assets, have annual revenues in excess of C$800 billion and account for a significant majority of Canada's private sector investment, exports, research and development, and training. As Canada entered the 21st century, it became clear that "national issues" increasingly had global dimensions. Addressing the key challenges facing the country therefore required a much greater degree of global engagement on the part of Canadian chief executives. In 2001, the Council decided to expand its mandate. Reflecting the need for a clearer identity worldwide, it also changed its name to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
As mentioned in their blurb above, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) was formerly called, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL ON NATIONAL ISSUES (BCNI), headed by Tom d'Aquino since its creation.
The CCCE and BCNI remind interested persons of the number of jobs created by their member companies. Rarely, however, have they provided information of the number of jobs lost.
According to BCNI, it was founded in 1976 by the CEOs of US-based Imperial Oil and Noranda, the Business Council on National Issues (BNCI) is Canada's version of the European and US business roundtables. Among its 30 members are the CEOs of several large banks and major Canadian and foreign companies including Air Canada, AT&T, Bechtel, Bombardier, Canadian Pacific, Cargill, Dupont, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, Loram, MacMillan Bloedel, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Nestlé, Northern Telecom, Petro Canada and Placer Dome. Over the past two decades, the BCNI's relationship with successive Canadian governments has become increasingly intimate. The lobby group worked strenuously for the passage of the 1988 Canadian-US Free Trade Agreement, and organized a costly campaign to secure the election of the current neoliberal government. However, the BCNI's approach to the MAI has been less aggressive, perhaps due to the group's wish to sweeten its negative public image. In the November 1997 MAI hearings, the BCNI professed its strong support for the Paris negotiations, focusing on the people-pleasing job creation aspects that such a treaty would bring -- "recent studies have indicated that for each billion dollars invested over a five-year period in Canada, something in the order of 45,000 jobs are created." BCNI companies have also used other fora to fight for their favourite provisions in the MAI. Lobbying has been conducted through the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Council for International Business, and the BCNI is also a member of the OECD's official business advisory council, BIAC. In particular, the BCNI is strongly opposed to the EU's general exception for regional economic integration agreements (which would permit EU member states to discriminate against non-members), and, in solidarity with the USCIB, was quite disappointed at the recent rejection of "fast track" negotiating privileges for the president by the US Congress.
To give your readers who may also be concerned about Nortel among others, the list below will provide some idea of the clout available to lobby Parliamentarians, many having little business background, others with little industrial, scientific or technical experience, probably most never having seen a million dollars, yet subjected to the influence of these companies, some with former parliamentarians on the board of directors and similar advisors.
A couple stand out in my area of interest such as Canwest, being a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery Corp. which allows their newspapers and tv reporters access to the House of Commons media services while my journalists, including myself, are denied these substantial competitive advantages.
Another is Michael Wilson noted, among other accomplishments, for bringing in the GST. At the time, The Wall Street Journal repeatedly reviewed the false claims that the GST would be 'revenue neutral" in making adjustments to the manufacturers' tax which was inequitable, ranging from 22% on some goods to zero on others.
The first attempts by Wilson claimed the revenue neutral tax rate should be 17%. Confronted by a challenge in a WSJ editorial, the proposed rate was reduced to 13%. This was again challenged, the WSJ calculations showing it would be revenue neutral at 3%.
Knowing that few Canadians were following this issue for lack of understanding or other reasons, notwithstanding they were aware that 3% was the honest calculation result, they tried again at 9%, three times the fair value, and were confronted again.
Finally, they managed to settle on 7%, knowing it was two and a third times the fair value, but they imposed this fraud on Canadians anyway...and reducing it to 5% is still almost twice the true revenue neutral rate.
Joe, you know there is no answer to your question, "Since when has Export Development Canada's role become financing the export of Canadian assets?'
The ongoing severe erosion of the commercial base across Canada as a result of self-appointed, out-of-touch-with-future-trends advisors to government functionaries behind closed doors and under secret conditions with a less than diligent and anti-competitive media means only that we can continue to see more of the same.
This can only be stopped by the continued and diligent massive efforts you and similarly-minded concerned and informed Canadians will make to support and provide well-meaning public officials with accurate, relevant information to guide their decisions and lessen the influence and powers of the lobbyists.
Keep up the challenge, please.
Robert G. Gauthier,
National Capital News Canada
Listed below are the member chief executives of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
William F. Morris, Accenture Inc.
Blake C. Goldring, AGF Management Limited
Michael M. Wilson, Agrium Inc.
Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada
Ronald N. Stern, Alberta Newsprint Company
Joseph L. Rotman, Amaranth Resources Limited
John E. Peller, Andrew Peller Limited
Chris S. Fawcus, Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc.
Juergen Schachler, ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc.
Ian Greenberg, Astral Media Inc.
Nancy C. Southern, ATCO Group
Richard E. Waugh, The Bank of Nova Scotia
Peter Munk, Barrick Gold Corporation
Aaron Regent, Barrick Gold Corporation
George A. Cope, BCE Inc. and Bell Canada
Gary Whitelaw, Bentall LP
William A. Downe, BMO Financial Group
Laurent Beaudoin, Bombardier Inc.
Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Inc.
Jack L. Cockwell, Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
J. Bruce Flatt, Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power
Robert E. Brown, CAE Inc.
Roger Thomas, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
David M. Culver, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Thomas d'Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
J. Edward Newall, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
David T. Fung, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Fred Green, Canadian Pacific Railway
Peter J. G. Bentley, Canfor Corporation
James F. Shepard, Canfor Corporation
Leonard J. Asper, CanWest Global Communications Corp.
Leonard (Len) J. Penner, Cargill Limited
Harold A. Roozen, CCI Thermal Technologies Inc.
Serge Godin, CGI Group Inc.
Michael E. Roach, CGI Group Inc.
Sylvain Allard, CHC Helicopter
Mark A. Nelson, Chevron Canada Limited
Reid Bigland, Chrysler Canada Inc.
Gerald T. McCaughey, CIBC
John C. Risley, Clearwater Fine Foods Inc.
E. Hunter Harrison, CN
Michael I.M. MacMillan, Common Ground Capital Inc.
John LeBoutillier, Conseil du patronat du Québec
John K. Amundrud, Coril Holdings Ltd.
Ronald N. Mannix, Coril Holdings Ltd.
John M. Cassaday, Corus Entertainment Inc.
Alan N. MacGibbon, Deloitte & Touche LLP
Monique F. Leroux, Desjardins Group
Deryk I. King, Direct Energy
J. Jeff Johnston, Dow Chemical Canada ULC
N. Murray Edwards, Edco Financial Holdings Ltd.
Michael J. Oxley, E.I. du Pont Canada Company
Duncan N. R. Jackman, E-L Financial Corporation Limited
Randall K. Eresman, EnCana Corporation
Gordon J. Kerr, Enerplus Resources Fund
Mark Henderson, Ericsson Canada Inc.
Louis P. Pagnutti, Ernst & Young LLP
V. Prem Watsa, Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited
David Binks, Federal Express Canada Ltd.
Laurence G. Pathy, Fednav Limited
Michael T. Waites, Finning International Inc.
Jim W. Davidson, FirstEnergy Capital Corp.
David A. Ganong, Ganong Bros. Limited
M. Elyse Allan, General Electric Canada
Arturo S. Elias, General Motors of Canada
Gordon Reid, Giant Tiger Stores Limited
D. Allen Loney, The Great-West Life Assurance Company
Kenneth E. Field, GreenField Ethanol Inc.
John Harris, Harris Steel Group Limited
Paul J. Hill, Harvard Developments Inc. - A Hill Company
Paul Tsaparis, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.
J.-Robert Ouimet, Holding O.C.B. Inc., Cordon Bleu International Ltd. and
Piazza Tomasso International Inc.
Annette Verschuren, The Home Depot Canada and Asia
J. Lindsay Gordon, HSBC Bank Canada
Brandt C. Louie, H.Y. Louie Co. Limited
Dan J. Fortin, IBM Canada Ltd.
Bruce H. March, Imperial Oil Limited
Yvon Charest, Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.
Hassan Khosrowshahi, Inwest Investments Ltd.
Kenneth Irving, Irving Oil Limited
Hartley T. Richardson, James Richardson & Sons, Limited
Edgar F. Kaiser, Jr., Kaiser Resources Limited
Daryl A. Katz, The Katz Group of Companies
David Aisenstat, Keg Restaurants Ltd.
Jon E. Love, KingSett Capital Inc.
Bill Thomas, KPMG
Joseph Kruger II, Kruger Inc.
R. Jack Lawrence, Lawrence & Company Inc.
Linda S. Hasenfratz, Linamar Corporation
Galen G. Weston, Loblaw Companies Limited
James W. McSheffrey, 3M Canada Company
Marc de La Bruyère, Maclab Enterprises
Donald A. Guloien, Manulife Financial
Michael H. McCain, Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
Alan W. Garner, Marsh Canada Limited
Ronald P. Mathison, Matco Investments Ltd.
Dale F. Morrison, McCain Foods Limited
Stephen P. DeFalco, MDS Inc.
Jacques Théorêt, Mercer (Canada) Limited
Phil Sorgen, Microsoft Canada Co.
Pierre Blouin, MTS Allstream Inc.
Louis O. Vachon, National Bank of Canada
Harry R. Steele, Newfoundland Capital Corporation Limited
Christopher D. Pappas, NOVA Chemicals
Tom Jenkins, Open Text Corporation
Arthur A. DeFehr, Palliser Furniture Ltd.
Ross A. Grieve, PCL Construction Holdings Ltd.
James S. Kinnear, Pengrowth Management Limited
Ron A. Brenneman, Petro-Canada
Michael J. Audain, Polygon Homes Ltd.
André Desmarais, Power Corporation of Canada
Paul Desmarais, Jr., Power Corporation of Canada
R. Jeffrey Orr, Power Financial Corporation
Christie J. B. Clark, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Roger Rossi, Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership
James L. Balsillie, Research in Motion
H. Sanford Riley, Richardson Financial Group Limited
Jacynthe Côté, Rio Tinto Alcan
Nadir Mohamed, Rogers Communications Inc.
John R. Barnett, Rothmans Inc.
Gordon M. Nixon, Royal Bank of Canada
William P. Buckley, ShawCor Ltd.
Brian Straub, Shell Canada Limited
Roland Aurich, Siemens Canada Limited
Pierre Duhaime, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.
Joseph Iannicelli, The Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada
Tony Gagliano, St. Joseph Communications
Guy J. Turcotte, Stone Creek Resorts Inc.
Donald A. Stewart, Sun Life Financial Inc.
Richard L. George, Suncor Energy Inc.
John A. Manzoni, Talisman Energy Inc.
W. Edmund Clark, TD Bank Financial Group
Don Schroeder, The TDL Group Corp.
Donald R. Lindsay, Teck Cominco Limited
Darren Entwistle, TELUS
Alberto Iperti, Tenaris
Stephen G. Snyder, TransAlta Corporation
Hal Kvisle, TransCanada Corporation
George F.J. Gosbee, Tristone Capital Inc.
Jean Bernier, Ultramar Ltd.
Anthony R. Graham, Wittington Investments, Limited
W. Geoffrey Beattie, The Woodbridge Company Limited
Russel Marcoux, Yanke Group of Companies
Marc P. Tellier, Yellow Pages Group Co.