Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Daily Digest October 25, 2011


The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/

OPINION AND INFORMATION

Consultant's email 'false and ridiculous': Clement
Tony Clement said a Toronto-based media consultant he recommended for a municipal job in his riding did not know
what he was talking about when he said infrastructure projects were being approved directly by Cabinet.
MORE...


_____FOREIGN AFFAIRS 25 October 2011
24 October 2011
>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<
MARDI 25 OCTOBRE 2011
[]

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)30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)

QUESTIONS RELATING TO MINISTER BAIRD'S WORDS ON VIDEO

Was the Libya War "...won on the ground ..." or through NATO bombing?
http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/canada-and-the-future-of-libya/16aaidft5

Did "Syrian protesters call for international help amid crackdown" or not?
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM
http://www.wcnc.com/news/world/129532938.html

Change under the new NATO installed regime
Libyan women being raped as spoils of Shariah law: group 3
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/24/libyan-women-being-raped-as-spoils-of-shariah-law-group

«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

From: Larry Kazdan
To: letters@thespec.com
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Tax-free savings give wealthy access to poverty benefit, Dean Beeby, October 23, 2011

Re:  Tax-free savings give wealthy access to poverty benefit, Dean Beeby, October 23, 2011
http://www.thespec.com/print/article/613728

The tax-free savings accounts, which the Conservatives portrayed as benefiting low and middle income savers, has been used by more affluent Canadians to sock away $5,000 each year for themselves, their spouses and other family members, and will ultimately deprive the government of billions of dollars in tax revenue.  Now who in the world could have predicted that richer Canadians would be more likely to have long-term savings than poorer ones?  How ironic that Stephen Harper and company are always trying to help those economically squeezed, and it just never seems to work out as intended

===================================
From: Robert Ede
Subject: re: a CPP question appeared on the DD

"What if CPPIB makes poor investments and the fund goes broke?" or approximately that, appeared in the DD
 
Answer from

General Information About The Canada Pension Plan

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/cpp/cppinfo.shtml#a25


27. How is the Canada Pension Plan financed?

The Canada Pension Plan is a "contributory" plan. This means that all costs are covered by the financial contributions paid into the Plan by employees, their employers and self-employed people, and from interest earned on the investment of that money. The Canada Pension Plan is not funded through general tax revenues.
 
 So...
 
I dug around for a few minutes to find a section within http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/FullText.html that would verify my recollection that "if the CPP has depleted/ distributed all the 'contributed funds'  ... it is under no obligation to pay 'benefits' " - but I cannot find anything other than #27 above in the time available.
 
But, don't be alarmed ... this was the CPP mandate/mechanism from the beginning. The officials of the CPP now maintain it's NOT a pay-as-you-go system anymore, but, the only part that's not pay-as-you-go is the Investment Board's attempts to generate returns and interest.
 
PLEASE Stop reading here if you cannot tolerate sarcasm, bitterness and/or angry-toned writing.
 
Thank you.
 
 
While we're on the CPP ... Did you notice the other day when :
..... Canada Pension Plan Investment Board buying an American dollar store chain while China's national oil co. is buying a Canadian oil and gas firm.
 
From BNN CPPIB buys "99 Cents" for $1.6B http://www.bnn.ca/News/2011/10/11/CPPIB-buys-99-Cents-for-16B.aspx
"Daylight" says to be bought by China's Sinopec http://www.bnn.ca/News/2011/10/8/Daylight-says-to-be-bought-by-Chinas-Sinopec.aspx
 
 or in 2008

CPPIB unfazed by short-term losses

 
No, didn't notice? .... not to worry .... the Stewards of THIS public fund (and your public healthcare funding and public education funding) have been hoping/praying/lying for years that you would NOT pay particularly strong attention to what they're doing with your money (ie since the 1960's when they made these 'universal' promises based on the baby-boom being perpetual and then absolutely have been lying ever since it became apparent that the very same baby-boom was over - say 40yrs).
 
However since you didn't notice then .... why would these Stewards be concerned that you might start noticing NOW ... esp with so many "distractions" abounding.
 
 
So, in conclusion, notwithstanding the upset that any kind of CPP payment/funding failure would cause to Canadians who have their retirements "planned around" the CPP benefit payments .... I think it's only a worry for us if the world's monetary system fails ... or the world's financial system fails.... or several of the bigger nation's fiscal systems fail to retain consumer confidence in THEIR own, pay-as-you-go systems.
 
ie not for a few years yet.
 
The Price of Freedom was said to be ...? what?
 
What about the Price of "Order"?
 
or the Price of "Peace"?
 
or the Price of Good Government?
 
.......... are they all the same price ?  for each? or is it a combo-platter ? keep vigilant and you get the whole she-bang for ONE price?
 
Stop "paying" attention and you get none.
 
1971 Warning ... by Who (small pun)

===================================
From: Rebecca Gingrich
_______
Subject: [On-Guard] Canada and the future of Libya Watch the video    

DD

Joe--I couldn't watch the whole video--had just eaten breakfast and didn't want to bring it up all over the keyboard.  This lying piece of garbage Baird could justify anything.  Wait until Sharia Law is instituted in his newly created  'democracy'--that should make him happy.  He mentioned something about 'women's rights'?  Sharia is so good for that--and he failed to notice that women took up arms against the NATO supported rats.  That to me is equality--something Baird has no concept of--he is of the more equal part of the planet.  He has no concept of truth and justice.  He aided in destroying one of the most developed countries in Africa--and is proud of it.  Can't have a country getting uppity and doing things the right way?  Until he admits that he is nothing but a greedy pig controlled by the banks and corporations(and we know who owns them) nothing that oozes from his lying fangs is worth listening to or watching.
Becky

A couple of other inconsistencies were pointed out as well as backward movement on equality.
_______
Subject: [On-Guard] Genocide, murder and mayhem just another game to israel??

Operation Trojan:
How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/28/how-israel-wages-game-theory-warfare/
_______
Subject: [On-Guard] Ex-mossad agent tells how israel got Regan to bomb Tripoli.  I thought I smelled the evil of israel in the latest killing in Libya
CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-MOSSAD AGENT http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/deception.html
_______
Subject:  This writer should have included Canada in the countries ruled by zionism
America Rules The World But Zionism Rules America http://www.rense.com/general95/salb.htm

===================================
From: Henry Atkinson <henry.atkinson@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Fwd: How are guns classified in Canada?

Begin forwarded message:

Not entirely correct but about as near as a non-firearms owning journalist will ever get.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/guns+classified+Canada/5594881/story.html

===================================
From: alan heisey <hize@earthlink.net>
Subject: worm 10 10 23


Editions emailed to 2,900+ email addresses. Publisher is Alan Heisey, 38 Avoca Avenue, L.P.H #6, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4T 2B9,    Phone 416 923 5381, 239 513 0444, 705 756 3289. From Toronto, ON
     
Publisher comments

Tim Uppal, our democratic reform minister, lays it all out!

Ex-MP Reg Stackhouse attacks a larger house of commons!

Ontario needs to begin thinking about packing

Avoca's current events club may vote on privatization

Comparing St.Paul's fed/prov. election processes & results

Multi reasons why Hize probably won't get/stay on Tory board

To be removed from this mailing list:

Publisher comments

Tim Uppal, our democratic reform minister, lays it all out!

     I admire the crisp way our newish minister of state for democratic reform laid out the three distinct promises of our Conservative government in a short letter in last Fridayâ's National Post. My problem is that I profoundly disagree with all three priorities, making me wonder if there is the slightest chance for any one of the three to be re-thought.
     “First, we will increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta;
second we will protect the number of seats for smaller provinces;
we will protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to population.”
      I think the federal cabinet would be surprised, if we could get a polling organization to ask the questions, to discover just how many Canadian voters think the present house of commons is quite big enough right now to handle the country’s business, if seats were laid out with more attention to population balances . There is increasing awareness that an M.P. for every 110,000 residents is plain too rich, particularly set against the increasing reality that to the south of us their representatives in their lower house each handle populations four to six times what ours do! And before any recognition that our national government is hell-bent on adding close to 100 newly elected senators, whereas in the U.S. ten times our population gets along with exactly 100 elected senators!
      The Canadian voter is increasingly aware that our urban populations are disadvantaged by offsets from historic accords granting five provinces and three territories more parliamentarians than their populations pretend to justify. These are now being treated as perpetual committments, as in “perpetuity”  I find it difficult to access the current population data, and official forecasts being discussed by premiers and ministers,  but I attach on the facing page the last census numbers and relationships of the thirteen participants, because those facts show just what skewings are being continued at least until the census following the current 2011 version, or 2021 and probably forever.
       The intent of our founding fathers to set in concrete the principle articles of confederation is best illustrated by the fact that any attempt, (here merely for example,) to mess with P.E.I.’s four federal seats plus senators, would require a unanimous endorsement by the majority of every upper and lower provincial legislature and our house of commons and senate!
      Thus the well intentioned 150 years of negotiations and deals which have brought the country to its present vigour, are based on the wheeling and dealing of earlier eras when provincial and territorial existences counted for much more then, than actual populations count for today!
      It is not within my capacity to calculate but it seems to me that assuring one founding partner, Quebec, of its percentage of commons seats being established by its percentage of the national population, ought reasonably to granted to Ontario!
      Are you kidding? Where would all those nice overages for MPs in so many provinces - and territories, come from? Remember, they come from Ontario being under-represented, and if not from Ontario, of course, from Alberta and British Columbia. So only Ontario, necessarily, can go with proportionately fewer M.P.s  than Quebec’s apparently fully agreed, “full” proportioning. Ontario’s early Loyalists, apparently, are not as well honoured as their Canadien counterparts on the other side of the Ottawa river. To put it more plainly, Ontario has and will have “enough” seats, in the opinions of a lot of our leaders! And look at all the dozens of senators you may be about to elect as well!
       John Ibbitson’s  last Tuesday Globe story on the latest thinking about seat allocations was well summed up in the article’s headline: “In redrawing the House Harper plays to Quebec”. The introductory paragraph clarified: “Fast-growing suburbs in Ontario and British Columbia are losing some of their promised new voices in Ottawa as the Harper government adjusts the plan to alter the regional balance of seats in the Commons.......”


 Ex-MP Reg Stackhouse attacks a larger house of commons!

       I know that there are a lot of prominent Tories here in Toronto who are not peruaded that we have to add so many unjustified M.P.s because our leaders’ spines,  not sufficiently stiffened by that nice majority, can not and will not face the wrath of all those nice people in those nice provinces who have got used to being over-represented, as I see it, in perpetuity. So we leave them flabby and stretch the national coffers to shut up Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia with unjustified additional parliamentarians, when we could get along with much the same number if all 308 or 318, or whatever, were better positioned in relation to actual populations.
      Earlier this summer I refered to the very welcome, but off-the-cuff comment by then brand new Etobicoke-Lakeshore M.P. Bernard Trottier in the Toronto Sun when he opined that he favoured a smaller house of commons, smaller than it is at present! While undoubtedly that going-in position has been worked over by his participation in government fulltime in Ottawa, it was a chance and revealing remark.
       My neighbour and friend in St. Paul’s, Reg Stackhouse, former M.P. for Scarborough Southwest, had a comparable view published last June in the Globe and Mail, wherein he also attacks the case for an upper house, thusly:

Bigger Commons? Bad choice
REGINALD STACKHOUSE, Published Friday, Jun. 03, 2011

This government’s first major legislative proposal is about the worst choice our new Parliament can make. What Canadians need least is a larger House of Commons and an upper house of any kind ­ elected  or appointed.

Despite rationalizations of expanding the Commons so that growth regions will have more equitable representation, that is not the motive at all. This proposal is not primarily to give them more MPs. It is designed to prevent regions with static or declining populations from having their representation cut.

That has been the driver in reapportioning the Commons since the 1970s, when all parties bought the expediency of enlarging the total number of MPs so that provinces would not lose representation ­ and hence,  clout ­ if their populations fell.
Redrawing the electoral map could not be avoided because the Constitution requires redistribution after a census. But there was no constitutional limit on the total size of the Commons. Ergo ­  just increase the total membership and keep everyone happy, or at least quiet.

Well, why not? The first reason is that it is not necessary for giving the people adequate representation. The average member of the U.S. House of Representatives represents more than 400,000 voters. While our American neighbours are never backward about coming forward with political protest, none of them even whispers that they need more politicians in their lower house. Why must Canadians smoke this propaganda drug that the more MPs we have, the happier we’ll be?

Even our massive distances do not provide an argument. Yes, our northern territories do cover space-age distances, but most of the people live in a few urban centres there. Territorial MPs do not have to spend their weekends on dog sleds, mushing from one settlement to another.

They can communicate with most of their people without going outside a few towns.

In a time when cutting a gargantuan deficit has to be a government priority, reducing the cost of the Commons should surely come ahead of cutting health care ­ especially when its work could be done  better by fewer rather than more MPs.

Parliament ­ as the name itself indicates ­ should ld primarily be a place for debate, and that purpose could be fulfilled by a reduced membership better than by an increased one. But is it likely to happen?

Not when a government proposes something as senseless as preserving the Senate. If ever there was an institution dedicated to futility, this has to be it. In our early decades following Confederation, each province had one, but over time, each province had the good sense to abolish it. Does anyone now say that what the provinces need to function better is restoring upper chambers to their legislatures?

It cannot be demonstrated, either, that having a federal Senate ensures the regions of being adequately represented where the decisions are made. The real champions of the regions are not senators at all. They are the premiers. They meet regularly. They have their own staffs. They ­ not senators or MPs ­ are the voice of the regions ns where it counts ­ in eyeball-to-eyeball sessions with the prime  minister.

Can it encourage citizens then to learn that the first act of a newly elected majority government will be to perpetuate a mistake?

Reginald Stackhouse is a former member of Parliament.

Ontario needs to begin thinking about packing

       Ontario should not count too strongly on its re-elected premier to see us get the share of parliamentary seats which our population justifies. The Globe reported last week that “Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged Tuesday that his province might end up with fewer new seats in the altered bill. The difference, he said, would be tied to figures from Statistics Canada that show that the population of the province has declined.

“I think in fairness we’ve got to wait for the feds to come forward with a specific proposal, with a bill and with some reliable data from Stats Canada so that we can then make an assessment as to whether or not Ontario is being treated fairly,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters.

Heres the good news: There's a broad consensus on Parliament Hill that we are being shortchanged as, by the way, is B.C. and Alberta. We need to address that.

      A more vapid statement would be hard to imagine since the feds have been promising more seats for some years. McGuinty should be remembered as the premier who promised to give grossly over-represented northern Ontario an additional seat when and if he formed his first provincial government, and did just that, ignoring the further distortion it created in favour of northern Ontario voters compared to everyone else in the province!
      If McGuinty were as aggressive in defence of his citizenry’s representation as is Quebec. the whole, historic over-representation nonsense for the older and smaller provinces would have to get the re-examination which it needs!
      As it is, our hoary constitution is put forward as the basis for leaving Ontario, and now B.C., but not so much Alberta, once again under-represented while others keep seats their populations cannot justify. This plebian thinks the time approaches when our rigid constituion needs a major workover to end the abuses in favour of people who choose to live in smaller provinces compared to those who choose differently. I can see very quickly that only the barest suggestion that Ontario might choose to go it alone will shake the lethargy which big acreage/small population jurisdictions have wrapped themselves in.

Avoca’s current events club may vote on privatization

       My condo’s current events club monthly meeting is this next Thursday evening in the party room. Once again I am about to post on the mail room notice board a proposal for a motion to be discussed very briefly and voted at the end of the hour-long meeting. There was vigorous objection to any motion about anything at the last meeting, but the incredible excitement of knowing where one’s neighours are on issues of the day drives me to propose a new motion.
      I have long felt that our governments should regulate but not operate lottery and gambling activities. There is too much temptation for other governments to repeat lies about the virtues of such pasttimes, such as the one here in Ontario a few short years ago about “we all win when we play lotto”, etc. So I will post on our bulletin board a short motion requesting the meeting to address the subject briefly and vote. My federal and provincial Conservative associations in the seven years I have lived here have had only a couple of closed policy meetings which are kept that way so we do not embarrass our parties’s leaderships. Me, I don’t think they should take things so personally!

Comparing St.Paul's fed/prov. election processes & results

     A fairly major heart operation kept me right out of the spring 2011 federal election campaign, but Barb and I contributed to the recent provincial campaign and I canvased my poll, after a fashion with our sprightly candidate, and scrutineered the poll’s results.
      These two campaigns being so close together, over exactly the same ground  - I would like very much to read - and publish - any comparison and contrasting of the two political events.  So I have asked a chum who worked on both campagins to see what might be published for the two parties’ memberships and also for the general public!
      It is very naughty of me to suggest the unwashed voters of St. Paul’s should be able to see the two Tory organizations compared the way we ourselves see ourselves in the heat of combat, but I so wish. One thing that encourages me is that when I went out to the provincial campaign office seemingly far out west on Eglinton Avenue on election day afternoon to pick up my scrutineering kit, two of the three bodies present were federal party organizers within Toronto! To protect the innocents I will not name them, but frankly I thought the provincials were bloody lucky to have their help! They are probably not the ones to write what I want to read but again, I dare to suggest, how constructive and interesting it would be if they would do so!

Reasons why Hize probably won't get/stay on a Tory board

      It ain't easy for me, but I recognize that there have to be a few secrets within the local political parties' federal and provincial boards, but most of them see almost everything they do as deep dark secrets, not to be revealed even to their memberships, let alone the unwashed outside!
     I have become very conscious of just how secret everything is by my experience as a member of the South East Georgian Bay Chamber of Commerce. This group publishes information about their executive meetings to all their membership quite routinely, but I know that for whatever reason my two local Tory associations do not even tell their memberships when they have executive meetings, let alone what is discussed (even aside from the truly secret stuff!)
      I think a part of the reason in the case of the feds is that their national constitution actually sets out exactly how many members of their boards, composed of 30 usually, may sit on the executive and the great minds in the cabinet caucus and administration say the magic number is SEVEN! One of the most powerful associations in the GTA fakes the addition of a couple of just two other doughty persons to the executive, but does not want headquarters to know, because apparently hq will demand changes, unless cleared with the all beforehand! It is entirely understandable that 7 only "in-the-knows" do not include a secretary charged with notifying the membership by email of all the minutiae!
       There is slight risk, apparently, that I might get elected to one of the St. Paul's boards, which would, necessarily, require me to  loyally report only the good stuff which their brass might actually want distributed, but nuthin' about the interesting stuff.
       None the less, I would be honoured to return to one of the boards after an enforced absence of some six years. I trust this would not prevent me as a private citizen and spear carrier from lamenting the ending of a quarter-century long local Tory tradition of a Xmas (or whatever you would prefer} party out by the airport with some 400+ city party members assembled for lunch.
        What really would be exciting about board participation is learning how our newly minted city caucus of nine federal M.P.s  see their number growing after six, consecutive, immediately prior, federal and provincial elections in which both levels of the party were blanked, again and again, in the 23 city ridings, now that we have broken through in a reasonably substantial way!
 
Commercial: The Winter edition of "Georgian Bay Today', due out about December 10, provides an in-depth look at a new cottage run with no attachment to Ontario Hydro, but by solar and alternate power only!

Replies-O-Gram #123,  write, if you are pleased or offended, or anything in between!

To be removed from this mailing list: You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking "Reply" and writing "unsubscribe" or "disconnect" or even "git" on the subject line.  It greatly facilitates removal if you can quote the exact time of transmission of last edition! I continue to have perhaps a new dozen who have asked politely to "git"but are not yet cleared, but will be soonest.

Next issue from Naples, FL!  Cordially, hize

===================================