Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Daily Digest August 17, 2011



Members of project selection committee Clement chaired received 83 per cent of $50-million G8 fund
A select committee of nine mayors, reeves and municand vetted applications from their own and other municipalities for a share of $50-million Ottawa spent on sidewalks, streets, even flower boxes for the G8 summit in Mr. Clement's riding last year received $41.4-million from the fund. MORE...

Township administrator contradicts Clement's June committee testimony
>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<


From: "Paul Downie"
Subject: Therapeutic Yoga

"Yoga: Renewal of Life," DVD

From: "S Booiman" <>
To: "Stephen Harper" <>,
        "CBC" <>
"Albas  MP Dan   Okanagan-Coquihalla" <>,
        "Cannan MP Ron   Kelowna-Lake Country" <>,
        "Duncan John. MP The Hon." <>,
        "Fast  Edward MP The Hon" <>,
        "Findley  MP Kerry-Lynne   Delta=Richmond" <>,
        "Grewal MP Nina   Fleetwood-PK" <>,
        "Harris MP Richard     Cariboo=PG" <>,
        "Hiebert MP Russ" <>,
        "Kamp MP Randy Pitt Meadows-Mapleridge" <>,
        "Lunney MP James  Nanaimo - Alberni" <>,
        "Mayes  MP Colin  Okanagan-Shuswap" <>,
        "Moore  james MP The Hon" <>,
        "Saxton  MP Andrew   North Vancouver" <>,
        "Strahl MP Mark-Chilliwack" <>,
        "Warawa MP Mark  Langley" <mark.warawa@PARL.GC.CA>,
        "Weston MP John West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast" <>,
        "Wilks  MP David    Kootenay-Columbia" <>,
        "Wong   Alive MP" <>,
        "Young  MP Wai        Vancouver South" <>,
        "Zimmer  MP Bob  Prince George= PR" <>,
        "hueglin Joe" <>

Subject: CBC Duceppe
I think it is so wonderful that the CBC is showing it;s bureaucratic arrogance. costing
millions of tax dollars, to hire DUCEPPE a Francophone  separatist, double dipping.
Suan.H. Booiman

From: Joseph <>
Subject: 9/11 skeptics to meet in Toronto | Is National Post censoring responses on blog?

I read the article and started to read the responses on NP blog and was astounded to see that the responses allowed on the blog were mostly against the inquiry into what really happened at 9/11.

Now my gut says that the NP is selecting the blog posts they want to make 9/11 truth seekers look stupid and to diminish the validity of independent inquiry  by labeling them nut case or conspiracy theorists, tin hats, etc.

So do read the article and respond to the National Post blog and if your blog posting does not get included or is quickly taken down then send me a copy of your blog posting by email and we will keep track of what they post or do not post.

Lets see what the National Post posts or not posts.

So send the National Post your text and see if it actually gets on the blog or not.

Let me know the results.


Yours for independent media.
Subject: CTV Confirms Government(s) employing Internet Trolls, Shills & PR Agents to 'correct misinformation' - YouTube

From: The Natroses
Subject: Re: Daily Digest August 15, 2011

Hi Joe, Just a few thoughts on how the wool is pulled over citizens heads every day, while the collective - the government and corporate entities work to extracting more money out of everybody's pocketbooks, raise the profits for Corporate entities and in the strange world of government, savings are achieve concerning public services. I somehow doubt the savings achieved by the government, but I certainly do not doubt the profit margins of the corporate entities.
"One of the problems is that Canada's big oil companies can't easily import fuel if they run low because a refinery breaks down. Experts say government regulations, particularly in terms of sulphur levels in refined gasoline, make it too difficult. The government can relax those rules to allow the importation of gas from another country " but only if there's a national emergency.

Experts say the government needs to go further.

"There's a real simple solution," to the crisis, Collins said. "Change the rules on sulphur."

He insists the rules are so strict on sulphur levels in gasoline that fuel imported from any other country usually needs to be refined further. In Canada, sulphur levels in gasoline must be less than 30 parts per million. In the U.S., sulphur levels are not as strict. Removing sulphur from gasoline takes time, and the companies would also end up paying a premium for the fuel. That makes it difficult for firms such as Shell to buy foreign gasoline in dry times.

Shell couldn’t change those rules last week and partially because of that, scores of their gas stations were empty at the end of the week with reports of as many as 100 dry from Sarnia to Toronto, but the company refused to say how many were empty. There are about 2,300 to 2,500 gas stations in Ontario, according to Dan McTeague, a gas critic and former Liberal MP, who has been warning of gas shortages for more than a decade."

When I read the above paragraphs, my immediate thoughts were, "Yeah, I smell a rat. Gas shortages this week, and last week water shortages." Time to probe, and question the premises of the cries from corporate entities serving their own best interests. So I did, only to discover that they actually do think ordinary citizens are stupid, or at the very least incapable of retaining knowledge learned years ago, the same knowledge that was omitted in the article.

"Sulfur dioxide (also sulphur dioxide) is the chemical compound with the formula SO2. It is released by volcanoes and in various industrial processes. Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide unless the sulfur compounds are removed before burning the fuel. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2] Sulfur dioxide emissions are also a precursor to particulates in the atmosphere. Both of these impacts are cause for concern over the environmental impact of these fuels."

As well as background knowledge concerning gasoline. "Gasoline , or petrol, is a translucent, liquid mixture, derived from petroleum that is primarily used as a fuel in internal combustion engines. It consists mostly of organic compounds obtained by the fractional distillation of petroleum, enhanced with a variety of additives. Some gasolines also contain ethanol as an alternative fuel. In North America, the term "gasoline" often shortened in colloquial usage to "gas", whereas most current or former Commonwealth nations, use the term "petrol". Under normal ambient conditions its material state is liquid, unlike liquefied petroleum gas or "natural gas".

Now, the science is in the picture and the concerns of sulphur in gasoline and the negative environmental and health effects are known, the question of sulphur levels in gasoline can be explore. Gotta love the Internet where I found this beauty called, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reducing the Sulphur in Gasoline. " In 1994 the sulphur content of Canadian gasoline was found to be high and varied widely across the country. Scientists and health experts have found evidence that emissions of pollutants from vehicles cause considerable harm to the health of Canadians and to the environment. In order to estimate the net economic benefits, we integrate the economic benefits with the economic costs for each of the alternative scenarios. In the cost-benefit analysis, all private costs must be measured in terms of their economic opportunity costs. The results indicate that reducing the sulphur in gasoline for any scenario under consideration would generate substantial net health benefits or well-being for Canadians as a whole. Estimates of the net present value (at a seven percent discount rate) range from $1,985 million to $2,814 million in 2000 prices."

It is a beauty, because it exactly describes the process how Canada arrived at sulphur at 30 parts per million in gasoline, and also one of the many papers on the net, dealing with the harmonization between Canada and United States. The conclusion of the above paper is, " The above cost-benefit analysis has confirmed that reductions of sulphur in gasoline for all of the six alternative scenarios will generate a substantial amount of health benefits to Canadians, ranging from $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion in 2000 prices. The net present values are calculated using a real discount rate of seven percent. The risk analysis also suggests that in the case of reducing the level of sulphur to the level of either 150 ppm or 30 ppm, there is zero probability of getting a negative economic benefit. The stakeholder analysis indicates that the Canadian refiners can pass a significant amount of costs forward to final consumers in the higher prices of fuels; hence, their competitiveness should not be significantly affected. The most stringent scenario 6 of lowering sulphur in gasoline to 30 ppm would not only generate a considerable amount of the economic benefits ($2.8 billion in 2000 prices) but  also have a number of benefits that are not easily taken into account in the quantitative analysis. The analysis shows that the net present value of this scenario 6, before including these additional unquantifiable effects, would have a slightly lower net present value than scenarios 4 and 5. However, this scenario will create a suitable regulatory environment for the greatest pursuit of research and development by the automobile industry to make further improvements in pollution control devises on automobiles. Given these conditions, it is our judgment that scenario 6 which lowers the sulphur level in gasoline to 30 ppm is the preferred option to be recommended for implementation. This option lowers the risk of a more rapid deterioration of the air quality in the future."

Anyone like the part of passing on the costs to the Canadian consumers? Or the part that lower sulphur levels of gasoline, would be the incentive for the auto industry to do the research in further improvements in pollution control on autos? Either way,  consumers are being seen by the government and corporations as the means to increase revenues and profits respectively, downloading the costs of producing unto the backs of the citizens' pocketbooks.
 As for benefits for the citizens, are the benefits that cannot be seen as easy as the pocketbook, and that depends on the knowledge, values, genes, etc., of the individual citizens. Why it irks me so much, is in the next link a 2009 report from the Canadian government, issued in November. Whereas, the former report was issued in December of 2009, and reads just like the government report called, Report of  The Technical Working Group on Certain Fuel Quality Parameters November 2009.

"In response to issues raised in a report by the Pembina Institute1, commissioned by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), the Minister of Environment asked the Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy Division of Environment Canada, in collaboration with industry, to make recommendations on a path forward for four fuel quality parameters related to on-road gasoline and diesel. These parameters include sulphur in gasoline, deposit control additives (DCAs) in gasoline, lubricity in diesel, and cetane in diesel. The Minister specified that the recommendation should be in the context of harmonization with the United States2, and in the context of environmental and/or health benefits."

The conclusions of the report, concerning sulphur levels in gasoline is, " Canada is currently harmonized with the U.S. on gasoline sulphur levels. In the context of continuing this harmonization, the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. should work jointly to determine benefits and costs of further reduction of gasoline sulphur levels."

So, who is fudging the truth - Shell Canada or the Government of Canada?  It sure looks to me that Shell Canada is fudging the truth using sulphur levels of gasoline to change the focus on the lack of refining facilities in Canada, to prevent gasoline shortages such as the one Shell Canada has. Ditto for the United States in the number of refining facilities, but than the big oil guys would not be able to create artificial gas shortages, causing price increases, and enhanced profit margins. It can't be the sulphur levels in gasoline, since the government of Canada, has stated that the new objective for both Canada and United States, is to decrease levels of sulphur to 10 parts per million. And the costs will be borne by the consumers, keeping within the framework using the same number of refining facilities, with no additional refineries to be added.

Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: Banksters shaking in their boots???
Daylight Robbery, Meet Nighttime Robbery
Subject: Is Western Democracy Shattering?  The Tyee

What a phenomenal article.  Finally someone tells it like it is.  The LTEs posted also tell the  truth.  We are brain dead or even dead if we can believe that this is 'democracy'.  Thanks for posting this truth--it shall set us free?
Subject: Genetically Modified People?

What a phenomenal blog posted by Arthur Topham.  Betty is so right--except that we are already 'modified' people--and the next step is genetically modifying us.  Of course when we eat these genetically modified foods we are already damaging our own genes.  We already eat foods that are loaded with growth hormones etc.  When my son was about 11 years old he started developing breasts.  My doctor stated that we must quit eating chicken because they have growth hormones in them.  We quit and my son went back to normal.  My vet told me never to eat liver from feedlot cattle because 95% of those livers are condemned through contamination from hormones etc.  The water we drink is contaminated with drug residue etc from sludge spread on the fields that produce our foods and animal food.  Are people getting fatter because of all the growth hormones given to our meat animals?
I never eat fish because of the contamination of our water, both salt water and fresh.  Sadly I still have to eat and breathe the contamination foisted on us.  Our brains have already been modified by the msm etc and the next step will be to GMO our bodies.  After all, we are nothing but serfs and must be made more malleable so we obey without question?

From: The Natroses
Subject: Re: Daily Digest August 16, 2011

Hi Joe,  John, considers the speech from our Governor General to the law society, impressive. Impressive would not be the word that I would describe it, but it is impressive in running around the Elephant in the room, largely created by the lawyers themselves. It is the same elephant that everyday people bumped into when seeking law services or justice in a world where lawyers judge people by their pocketbooks first, and the case secondary. Justice is not in their minds, unless there is a large amount of monies attached to the case. It is why I was amused at David Johnston's statement, "We enjoy a monopoly to practise law. In return, we are duty bound to serve our clients competently, to improve justice and to continuously create the good. That's the deal. What happens if we fail to meet our obligations under the social contract? Society will change the social contract, and redefine professionalism for us. Regulation and change will be forced upon us—quite possibly in forms which diminish or remove our self-regulatory privilege."
Amused and wondering what part of society he meant. All of society, or just a part of society?  Who has the power to redefine professionalism?  The politicians sitting in the House of Commons and provincial legislatives across the country.  Seems more worried about the reputation, actions of lawyers that reflects badly on their profession, than any real concern about others changing the social contract. A smart and caring nation are words that our Governor-General repeats as his main message, but in the legal profession one would be hard press to find lawyers actively working under the motto - smart and caring. Or as Beverley McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice stated a few days ago, "  In my view, access to justice is the greatest challenge facing the Canadian justice system. I am not alone in this regard. In its 2011 Rule of Law Index, the World Justice Project surveys 66 countries to assess the state of the rule of law in each of these jurisdictions. Canada, as you would expect, does rather well. The one area where the Rule of Law Index shows that we have significant difficulty is access to civil justice. On access to justice, the index ranks Canada 9th out of 12 wealthy Western European and North American countries. The most problematic areas, according to the index, are access to legal counsel and unreasonable delay in civil justice."
It is access to justice, and not what the Governor General has stated which reflects more on the inner workings of the law profession and its culture. Below is a series of news article where a lawyer could intercede to protect the average citizen, but they rarely do unless the client is a paying client.
1.  Ottawa widow stands firm against Conservative threats
2. Water risk database backed by big U.S. companies
(In this case, protect the rights of citizens to access to water)
3. A wheelchair monopoly
4. Smart Meters
5. Pushing the limits of state surveillance
6. Internet privacy experts raise concerns over crime bill
Just a few of them, where laws or policies have potential legal ramifications for the ordinary citizens. Often the laws enacted by our government, or policies by either government or in the private sector, are find tune by the legal staff that are at hand, often doing the bidding of the government or a corporation, without a thought on the potential legal ramifications that might be imposed on the citizens.

The wheelchair monopoly, is one such beast in Ontario. Unfair and where all legal options are closed to most of the people who are in need of a wheelchair. "Severely disabled senior Don Smith has been told a new custom-fitted wheelchair will cost as much as $30,000"

Where was the government lawyers on this one?  Too busy, finding ways to extract more money from the taxpayers, while at the same time fine tuning, dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's creating a new revenue source for one health corporation. 

Rebecca Gingrich
 General of Canada

Joe--I got this response from Nicholson.  I don't have a copy of what I wrote to Harper about C51.  Then today I read Lawrence Martin's article re this subject. While I disagree with Martin's statement re 'poor America' being drawn into these 'traps' when any thinking person knows that it was the USI that did 9/11 but that is old news.  I stated at the time our 'Security' Bill was made law that it was to control us, not the 'terrorists', but no one listened. 
I loved his statement that the truth is a defence!!!  He doesn't mention who decides what the 'truth' is!!!
Subject: Correspondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:46:51 -0400

Joe--I got this response from Nicholson.  I don't have a copy of what I wrote to Harper about C51.  Then today I read Lawrence Martin's article re this subject.  While I disagree with Martin's statement re 'poor America' being drawn into these 'traps' when any thinking person knows that it was the USI that did 9/11 but that is old news.  I stated at the time our 'Security' Bill was made law that it was to control us, not the 'terrorists', but no one listened. 
I loved his statement that the truth is a defence!!!  He doesn't mention who decides what the 'truth' is!!!

Dear Ms. Gingrich:

The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning former Bill C-51, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.  I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools they need to fight crime in today?s high-tech environment.  For this reason, on November 1, 2010, I introduced Bill C-51 in the House of Commons.  This bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 2011; however, our government intends to reintroduce this legislation in due course.

I note your concerns about a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that was contained in this legislation.  Based on your correspondence, I assume you are referring to clause 5.  In addition to having created new production orders, preservation orders, and warrants to address today's computer and telecommunications environment, former Bill C-51 proposed to update certain existing offences that are facilitated by the Internet.  Some of these updates were included in order to enable the ratification of the Council of Europe?s Convention on Cybercrime, and its Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature committed through Computer Systems.  The amendment to clause 5 in former Bill C-51 was included for that purpose.

I would like to take this opportunity to address some of your concerns.  This former clause proposed amending section 319 of the Criminal Code, which creates two offences under the heading of hate propaganda that involve the act of communicating.  Specifically, subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements that incite hatred against any identifiable group in any public place, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.  Subsection 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate statements, other than in a private conversation, which wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group.  Identifiable group is defined by subsection 318(4) to mean any section of the public distinguishable by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.  Subsection 319(7) currently defines communicating for the purposes of these sections as communicating by telephone, broadcasting, or other audible or visible means.

Clause 5 proposed to update this definition to state that communicating means communicating by any means and includes making available.  While it is true that providing a hyperlink would fall under this definition in certain circumstances?as it would under the current definition of communicating in subsection 319(7)?providing a hyperlink alone is not enough to commit either of these two hate propaganda offences.  As the previous paragraph shows, many other elements must be proven before a person can be found guilty.  The amendment merely described the manner in which a prohibited statement could have been made.  It would not have determined whether a statement was of a prohibited nature, or whether a communicator had the necessary guilty mind to commit the offence.  The necessity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a guilty mind for these crimes is an important safeguard that protects freedom of expression.  For example, in the case of R. v. Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the crime of ?wilfully? promoting hatred against an identifiable group means ?intentionally? promoting hatred.  This excludes the reckless or negligent promotion of hatred from the scope of this crime.  These stringent requirements already exist in the Criminal Code and would not have been changed by the amendments proposed in former Bill C-51. 

It is also worth noting that the crime of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group contains several defences found in subsection 319(3) of the Criminal Code, which further limit the scope of this crime.  For instance, the fact that a statement is true is a defence.  So too is the communication of statements that are relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which is for the public benefit, where the person reasonably believed them to be true.  None of the defences would have been affected by the amendments proposed in former Bill C-51.

Please be assured that the Government of Canada carefully considered input provided by a broad range of stakeh?olders in developing former Bill C-51, including civil liberties groups, the telecommunications industry, victims' advocates, police associations, and provincial and territorial justice officials.  As a result, I believe this proposed legislation struck an appropriate balance between the need to protect the safety and security of Canada and the rights of Canadians.

I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson