Sandra Finley

May 082021
 

Received in reply to the last email I sent out,  2021-03-26  (copy APPENDED):

Sandra, I am appalled to see this message.  You are potentially contributing to pandemic harm by invoking vaccine harms, in a context in which (my City) has the largest covid variant spike in the country.  This is not evidence of critical thinking but of misplaced paranoia.  I urge you to cease.

= = = = = = = = = = =

SEQUENCE

  1.    This past week I emailed my reply to the Professor.  Among my defences: the methodology behind the statistics.  The numbers and statistics on covid.  I don’t think the methodology is defensible?  (elaborated below)
  2.    Statistical information about covid,  gained through an FOI on the Government of Alberta.   Government data.  I can’t vouch for the credibility of the analysis.   (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-governments-own-data-shows-hospital-bed-and-icu-utilization-at-five-year-low)
  3. On May 09 (today)  CBC Radio News (Regional) this AM:      They (main stream media) REPORTED that people are calling for release of data.  Hmm . . .  seems that the numbers and statistics on covid are openly under question.

 

REBUTTING  MY  MISPLACED PARANOIA:

This is not evidence of critical thinking but of misplaced paranoia.  I urge you to cease,

statement by a full-fledged Professor who cc’d the Provost of her University on the email she sent to me (copy at top of posting).

In my reply to the Professor it was helpful to draw on my “credentialing” (ha ha!) which is in Quantitative Analysis.

My reply includes a bit of common sense about the statistics, as I see it.

Dear Rebecca (prof) and Provost;

. . .   My degree is an honours Bachelor of Commerce with a major in Computational Science & Quantitative Analysis;  old, but not entirely obsolete!

I  have some understanding of how “the numbers” or “the statistics” can be, and are, routinely manipulated, it’s part of the training.  Try this easy example:

From the BC Coroners Service:  1,068 (BC) people have died of a fatal overdose so far this year.

I am currently trying to find the comparable figure for Covid:  How many people have died in BC from Covid,  so far this year?

I could find the CUMULATIVE number (since the Pandemic began in 2019-2020).  (I believe it is this figure that is usually quoted in the media – – but I need to know, to confirm that’s what the media is using.)   You can find WEEKLY reports to the end of March.   But I couldn’t find what I need.

So,  I input to the BC CDC website the question:  Yes but, SO FAR THIS YEAR,  HOW MANY DEATHS FROM COVID?   Compare apples with apples – number of covid deaths versus overdose deaths, to get an idea of the scale of covid.  I hope I receive an answer.   BUT! even that is problematic – – read on.

If I were the Covid statistician,  I definitely WOULD NOT have started and focused on reporting deaths from Covid among the elderly populations in care homes.  

Talk with someone who works in a community hospital:  EVERY YEAR with Flu Season approaching, they prepare for deaths from THE FLU among their elderly patients.  It’s a sad time of year for them. 

The person I spoke with (he initiated the conversation) had 30 years’ experience in the same Hospital,  on the Management Team:  they experienced 10-12 deaths from the flu every year, in a small Hospital (that is larger today).  Those deaths were of elderly patients.  They KNEW every year to gear up for the deaths;  they knew they were coming, along with the flu. 

He felt, and was bothered: the reporting of Covid deaths as it is done, is misleading / irresponsible;  it is skewed by virtue of the population being reported on (especially obvious in the first stages of covid).

Why anyone would choose to use the population of persons who are already on Life’s exit ramp, approaching the time of death, as the first cohort to highlight,  is beyond me.   If your intention is to create fear, to drive people to vaccination, it’s a good strategy IF you can create the environment that holds the lid on public discussion. 

Which is what the Professor’s email to me attempts to do:

This is not evidence of critical thinking but of misplaced paranoia.  I urge you to cease.   This was said in response to:

 (APPENDED)

MY EMAIL,  DISTRIBUTED MARCH 26, 2021

“Consent Form” which helps people to understand the natural consequences of taking the mRNA injections.

There are also links within the Form to help people research,  to better understand.

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/declaration-of-informed-consent/ 

/Sandra

THE REST OF MY REBUTTAL

From: Sandra Finley
Sent: May 8, 2021
To:  Rebecca,  Professor

Hi Rebecca,

Thank-you for communicating your view.

I believe we have to have robust discourse if we are to have an Open Society.

 

My actions are not driven by fear or mental illness or (I hope) propaganda,  thank-you very much!

Over years, I have delved into topics such as

  • how vaccines are made
  • what the ingredients are
  • Are the pharmaceutical companies trust-worthy;  are they corrupt?
  • I have looked into the American Government’s Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS), (check it out – available online) – – how it works,  how much it has paid out and continues to pay out in cases where children have been critically injured or died, from vaccines.
  • Outrageous conflicts of interest in the regulating bodies,  among the “scientists” who perform “the research”,  and the corrupting influence on the political side, of Corporate lobbyists who are also university funding sources.

The mRNA vaccine draws on technologies used in the manipulation of DNA.  I have been heavily involved in matters related to Genetic manipulation (commonly referred to as GMO or GE organisms).   I’ve done work in the area of immune systems.  So, I have a bit of a foundation upon which to build, to gain SOME understanding.  My somewhat-informed view is that the introduction of mRNA technology/injections into human beings has serious ramifications.  But the topic is verboten;  can’t be discussed.

It is absolutely fine with me if other people choose vaccination.  It’s up to you.  You know best what works for you.  For that I have respect.   My life experience is very different from yours.

I have read Dr. Bonnie Henry’s 2009 book on pandemics (“Soap, Water, and Common Sense”)  which describes, among other things, the conditions required for pandemic organisms to spread.

. . .  (then the bit about skewed results from the focus on elderly people in care homes, who are already on life’s exit ramp)  . . .

Your statement regarding my email:  This is not evidence of critical thinking but of misplaced paranoia.  I urge you to cease.

Well,  I leave that to you, Rebecca.

/Sandra

May 072021
 

A uniting force for Mothers, the original Mother’s Day Proclamation  (below)

But start with:
Two Excerpts from Kent Nerburn’s Neither Wolf Nor Dog, sub-title “On Forgotten Roads . . . ”.

Page 248, mid-para 3: (Young woman, Dannie speaking to Nerburn)

See, the men like my grandpa Dan, they are still fighting.  You’re helping them fight.  That’s good.  But it’s our turn now – – Indian women.  The men are tired.  They fought for almost two hundred years.  Now it’s our turn. . . . 

P 249, top:  It was taken from them (the men).  Everything. (result is shame, can’t provide for and protect their families)

. . . But no one paid any attention to us women.  We kept things alive in our hearts and hands.  . . . They ignored us.  We were just women.  . . . But we were always the ones to keep the culture alive.  That was our job as women and as mothers.  It always has been.  . . .  Our men may be defeated, but our women’s hearts are still strong.  . . .

(Nerburn speaking) When I worked on Red Lake it seemed to me that the Indian women were strong – – stronger than white women in a lot of ways.  But they were strong APART (my emphasis)  from the men, as mothers, as grandmothers.  . . .

 

Which leads into The Mother’s Day Proclamation, the strength of the women behind it.

MY SONG FOR MOTHER’S DAY

supported by my Mother who will be 94 years old this November, and by my 41-year old daughter

THE ORIGINAL MOTHER’S DAY PROCLAMATION, 1870, BY JULIA WARD HOWE

DOESN’T GET ANY BETTER!  

In the aftermath of the American Civil War (1861-65):

“Arise then, women of this day!  Arise all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be of water or of tears! 

“Say firmly”:  ‘We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies.  Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause.  Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience.  We women of one country will be too tender to those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.  From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own, it says “Disarm! Disarm!” The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.  Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.’

“As men have forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.  Let them meet first as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace. 

“In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality be appointed to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.” 

By Julia Ward Howe.

(who went on to work internationally (in Africa and elsewhere) at uniting women, implementing the ideals of The Mothers Day Proclamation.)

THE PRECEDING IS 2021.

MY 2007 POSTING, EDITED, includes JEZILE FILM.  Thanks to Phyllis

The history of Mother’s day is powerful.   Its founders never intended it as a commercial event.

Phyllis writes:

I have attached the Mother’s Day speech from 1870 for you. It is sad, really, that women have been saying the same things for centuries.

The history of Mother’s day is so much more than many of us know – it is much, much more than a Greeting Card and Flower Shop construct.  Please check out online the story of American women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who were early activists and promoters of the celebration of women and women’s work.

There was a marvellous speech written by Julia Ward Howe perhaps best known today for having written the words to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” when she was an antislavery activist.

The original Proclamation was an impassioned call for peace and disarmament.  In the years following the Civil War her political activism increased, as did her condemnation of war. Here are the words to:

The ORIGINAL           Mother’s Day Proclamation (as above)

“Arise then, women of this day!   . . .    “In the name of womanhood and humanity, . . .   ” 

Now – wasn’t that something? In this movie you are about to see, Son of Man – this mother/son story of Jesus, Mother Mary states those thoughts in her own fashion, surrounded as she is by the devastation that is Africa.

Today, I dedicate this movie to the intense bond between mothers and their children.   I hope you like it as much as I do.    /Phyllis

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

(Sandra speaking)

Phyllis saw the movie “Jezile, Son of Man” at a film festival.  She determined that it had to be seen.  She tracked it down, finally, to a British production company.  Phyllis’ efforts resulted in the film being shown here (Saskatoon, SK) on Mother’s Day.  Very appropriately so, when you read  THE ORIGINAL MOTHER’S DAY PROCLAMATION, 1870. 

THE MOVIE

(back to Phyllis)

Jezile: Son of Man

2006 South Africa

Dir: Mark Dornford-May

86 min.

English/Xhosa w/EST

(Note: the film is rich in spite of scant dialogue.  You might, however, want to sit close to the front in order to read the sub-titles.)

From wikipedia:  “Presently approximately 8 million Xhosa people are distributed across the country, and Xhosa is South Africa’s second most common home language, after Zulu, to which Xhosa is closely related. The pre-1994 apartheid system of bantustans denied Xhosas South African citizenship and attempted to confine them to the nominally self-governing “homelands” of Transkei and Ciskei, now both a part of the Eastern Cape Province where most Xhosa remain. Many Xhosa live in Cape Town (iKapa in Xhosa), East London (iMonti), and Port Elizabeth (iBhayi).”

To me there is an interesting parallel between Jezile, Son of Man and the book “Testament” by Canadian author Nino Ricci.  Jezile is set in modern-day Africa.  Testament is set in the Roman Empire during a period of political unrest.  The central character in both stories is a Jesus-like person.

Jezile:  “If Jesus were alive today, he would be singled out as a dangerous political leader, just as he was the first time around.”  Testament offers an interpretation of Jesus in his time as precisely that.

Jezile, Son of Man:  “Nominated for Grand Jury Prize Sundance Film Festival. This story of Jesus is set in present-day Africa and says the same sorts of things Jesus said in the Bible, updated only in terms of reference. The film sends an unmistakable message: If Jesus were alive today, he would be singled out as a dangerous political leader, just as he was the first time around. The movie has relatively little spoken dialogue but a great deal of music, that joyous full-throated South African music that combines great technical skill with great heart. Some of the best moments belong to Mary (Pauline Malefane), who sings in celebration after being told she will be the mother of Jesus (Andile Kosi). “One of the most extraordinary and powerful films at Sundance.” — Roger Ebert, rogerebert.com “

Apr 202021
 

by Stefania Maurizi

In an in-depth interview with Il Fatto Quotidiano, Nils Melzer discusses his investigation on the WikiLeaks founder, which has made him speak out as a whistleblower and raise an alarm on this case and its implications: “We have already created a parallel world of secret services that controls everything”.

Melzer is right on the money, and forcefully.   He’s published a book.  Interview at  https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edicola/articoli/2021/04/17/assange-melzer-says-the-treatment-of-julian-leaves-him-speechless/6169437/?fbclid=IwAR2ZtJQO3OZXRU6lyoQ6Cup7p8bJeFWIWCaP0y7hEOROzbiFK_ufzoQYkLc

 

The concluding 2 paragraphs of the interview:

When Navalny came to Germany, we didn’t say he was violating his bail, and when he flew back voluntarily to Russia and was arrested and sentenced for bail violation, everybody immediately screamed “foul” and imposed sanctions against Russia. But then I thought: Hold on, you have your own guy whom you sanctioned for bail violations, and he has finished his sentence more than a year ago, and he is still in prison without any legal basis. When I see the hypocrisy of the West I am speechless, I am honestly speechless.

We have already created a parallel world of secret services that controls everything, and it is getting worse every year. When you go to sleep in democracy, you wake up in tyranny. That’s the motto of my book, taken from a German lawyer, commenting on the Third Reich. That is precisely the situation we are in, we have a world population that is sleeping by and large, and we are still in democracy, but in the background the structures of tyranny are already being built up, and they are already advanced. My book rings the alarm bell, it is a wake-up call, because my biggest fear is that, by the time the world public wakes up from their sleep, we will all live in a tyranny.

From my perspective, we reached that red alarm situation some time ago.  Melzer describes why he was a late-comer to the realization.  I forgive him, because he’s coming out powerfully now.  But God!  what does it take?   Excellent article.

Apr 192021
 

In reply to an article,   Sandra Finley wrote:

Hi,

Re:  opposes nuclear power as a “solution” to the climate crisis, and also calls attention to the elephant in the room — the role of militarism, including nuclear weapons — in its very significant contribution to the climate crisis.

Just before opening your “Vets4Peace” I commented on an article;  it was apparent that the author was unaware of the history, there was no reference to it.  (Perhaps deliberately.)   The Comment:

The U.S. Military WOULD BE more resistant to forced vaccination than the population at large.  A million of their members and first responders were forced to get the Anthrax Vaccination with disastrous results for thousands upon thousands of them.  The “Gulf War Syndrome” was more accurately the Anthrax Vaccine Syndrome.  . . .   I always figured that the reason 4,000 U.S. Vets showed up at Standing Rock in solidarity with the Indians,  under the leadership of Wesley Clark Jr,  son of NATO Commander, General Clark, was because they had been so badly treated by the U.S. Military and the country they served.   Young lives destroyed by the forced vaccinations, tragic beyond belief, and then abandoned, thrown into destitution and homelessness.  

Another example of Militarism at its best.  Care not whether it’s foreigners OR your own people you’re killing.  Deny responsibility.  Deny, Deny, and keep denying.

/Sandra

From: Cindy Piester
Sent: April 19, 2021
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: re Vets4Peace, nuclear, . . .

Thank you, Sandra.  Good to hear from you.  yeah those vaccines really wiped out a lot of our people.

cindy

Mar 042021
 

Jack’s request for advice is appended.

Reply From: Sandra Finley
Sent: March 4, 2021
Subject: re Labor Force Survey  and  upcoming Census

Hi Jack,

When StatsCan reels in a live fish, they don’t like to let it go.   Unfortunately.

They don’t appear to evaluate the effectiveness of what they’re doing, or the quality of the information they receive.   Many people treat it as a joke;  if they participate, they supply silly answers.

What can I advise?   

               IN SHORT:

You can do what you like about the Labor Force Survey, continue with it, or stop with it.  They will tell you the same thing they tell others.

Fill it out, OR ELSE !! .”.    . . .  read on.

 

  1. I will send you TOO much information.  Just stop reading when you have what you need.  (I don’t know   enough about you to judge how much will be helpful).
  1. Evaluate – –  know what your situation is:

The 2021 Census of Population is TWO months away.  It’s a big undertaking for StatsCan, done every 5 years.

You might be a fish they’ve reeled in for the LFS,  but you are a very tiny fish, not worth eating.

There are a lot of Canadians who stand in defence of our Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, and others who are very determined that StatsCan should not be collaborating with Lockheed Martin Corporation (American Surveillance, war crimes, and big-time corruption).

StatsCan faces large, and increasing resistance.   You tell me:  where are StatsCan resources going to go?    (they won’t be after very tiny fish, ESPECIALLY with the Census only two months away.)

  1. StatsCan relies on Propaganda and lies to make you think “everyone is happily participating”.   An example from the Census,  but it applies to Surveys, (building detailed files on citizens) too.

From StatsCan, the head Census guy at the time, Yves Beland, at the trial of Audrey Tobias (89 years old when StatsCan and the Federal Justice Dept brought charges against her – – she objected to the involvement of Lockheed Martin):

under oath.  From the Trial transcript:

14.6 million requests were made . . .

Yes.

. . . for completion of the form?

Yes.

Okay.

We received a little bit over 13 million completed questionnaires for 98 per cent response rate.

DO THE MATH:

(14.6 million households less 13 million) means that 1.6 million forms were not returned.   Which means that StatsCan makes serious errors in basic math.  1.6 million non-compliance out of 14.6 million (the 2011 census) is 11% non-compliance.

To claim that non-compliance went from 1.6 million down to a few hundred households from one census to the next (2011 to 2016), is streeeeeetching things a little too far!

StatsCan says

For the 2016 census, 98.4 per cent of Canadians filled out either the long- or short-form census. Most of the remaining 1.6 per cent couldn’t be tracked down or didn’t provide enough information to be counted properly.  Statistics Canada identified 347 people unwilling to fill out the forms. 

They “identified” 347 people unwilling to fill out their form does not mean that only 347 people did not comply.

The message they spin is   zippity-doo-dah!  EVERYBODY is filling in their StatsCan forms!   There are no problems here!  (The communications strategy is to Use words that minimize the problem – – 11% non-compliance and rising) 

As reported:

A record number of Canadians filled out the 2016 census, but there were still a few hundred people who refused.

Call it for what it is, and after consistent experience:  nothing but Spin Doctors, “Communications Consultants”.  They lie.  Compulsively and without a twinge of conscience, even under oath in a Court of Law.  The preceding is but one example.

  1. Then they use Threats to make you do what they want.

I just did a quick look.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/road2021-chemin2021/index-eng.cfm

There’s a Census “short form” and “long form” this year, as usual.   I have not yet read the questions on the long form.  But it’s safe to say that if you get that form,  they will pressure you to provide personal information, under threat of prosecution if you don’t, and regardless of the Charter Right, or Lockheed Martin, or Surveillance.

But you don’t need to worry.  The ODDS of being prosecuted are infinitely small.  Think about it:  maybe 60 prosecutions in Canada out of 1.6 million people.  Much less than 1 percent – – point zero, zero, zero, zero . . .  0.00004%

  1. Further:  I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted over the LFS.

 

(You might be interested in this, even though it’s about the Census:

2016-04-03 (A primer on the Census) Response to Interview of Chief Statistician, Wayne Smith. CBC 

I wish you well, Jack.

/Sandra

APPENDED,  JACK’S REQUEST

I’m not sure if the forum is still active since the last post was awhile ago; but, if anyone is still active I’d appreciate some advice. I too was contacted for the Labour Force Survey.   After many phone calls and out of sheer pressure I started doing these surveys online. Well it’s been 5 monthly surveys in and frankly, I’m getting tired of it and I need some advice on the best way to end this.

Thank You

Feb 142021
 

Derek writes:

This really bothers me….I see it as a slithery ploy by Trudeau and Freeland to finally allow bulk sale of fresh water to the States under some mumble mouthed phrase that will be interpreted by “an independent Tribunal of corporate CEOs”.

If you have any way of supporting Sandra Finley please do.  (simply by drawing the Canada Water Agency into your conversations.)

I suspect that by using the route of “consultations” and establishing an Agency, this subject will never have a chance of debate in Parliament and nobody will ever be held accountable.

Derek

 

From: Sandra Finley
Sent: January 24, 2021 3:52 PM
Subject: Proposed creation Canada Water Agency. Invite from Federal Govt. Jan 27 & 28

Please Scroll down to the  

PROPOSED CANADA WATER AGENCY  INVITE,

from the Federal Govt.

 

Beyond which is, for some who may be interested, musings on:

QUESTION:  Can Water issues be used to help understand the difference between terms like Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Terrorist?

 

4 points from me, upfront:

 

  1. HEALTH and WATER QUALITY are inextricably connected.

 

True PREVENTION of disease is the goal.  Early identification is not the same as prevention.  Prevention comes with REMOVAL OF CAUSE.

 

The strong Laws & Regs to keep poisonous pollutants out of Canadian water supplies are a thing of the past;  over time they have been gutted.  To serve economic interests.

 

  1. Establish informed expectations about any proposed Canada Water Agency.

 

  • Typically, the economic interests in water, trump the need to protect it, at our peril.
  • Typically, “agencies” of Government in Canada are a way to loosen democratic oversight and control.  There is far less transparency and accountability.
  • Typically,  “agencies” are run by un-elected officials who have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) or equivalent.  They have been TRAINED & CREDENTIALED, in a specious mindset.

 

  1. The Federal Govt has well-resourced and funded programmes to expand the export of water from Canada.  Water export is seen as a tool of economic development.  Lots of money to be made.  Even if export-for-profit and government revenue were desirable,  water export creates VERY FEW jobs.  It moves water out of “the commons” into the private sector.  Quislings sell out the public interest.

 

  1. Just before Christmas, the CME Group, the New York-based market operator that takes its name from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, began trading water futures. For the first time, Wall Street traders are now able to take a stake in the future value of water, the way they have with other agricultural and mineral commodities. So far, the water contracts being bought and sold are limited to five water districts in drought-prone California, representing a tiny fraction of the water actually used in the state. But the idea of water as something to be bought and sold by Wall Street speculators does not necessarily sit well with those who study the economics of this resource in Canada. “I find it quite disturbing,” said Jim Warren, Regina-based scholar and author of Defying Palliser: Stories of Resilience from the Driest Region of the Canadian Prairies. “I mean it’s upsetting, especially since, you know, the world will be watching and others will be thinking it’s the way to go.” Read more analysis of water trading:  http://newsletters.cbc.ca/c/1F7Ks4WF0FDfJgom1noffLIuG

 

/Sandra

 

FORWARD:   PROPOSED CANADA WATER AGENCY 

 

. . . the upcoming National Freshwater Policy Forum, online Jan. 27 and 28, is really important – initiated by the federal Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MECC).

 

The two-day national event is valuable – scroll down and click open the “Placespeak” link to see the Agenda – to learn what is being recognized as current and potential threats, plus discovering various contacts for your own upcoming correspondence (on top of the general email contact).

 

After attending this National forum, you will have more insight to advocate to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRCan) why it is important for MNRCan to be fully inclusive of the other federal departments such as MECC, because the environmental and human health issues are so deeply interconnected.

 

Also important to note is that in February, the above-mentioned National forum is being followed up by a series of Regional Freshwater Forums where, once again, it is yet another excellent opportunity to spell out concerns where you regionally live.

 

Blessings,

 

———- Forwarded message ———

From: Grands Lacs / Great Lakes (EC)
Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:43 PM
Subject: Registration now open for the National Freshwater Policy Forum! / L’inscription au Forum national sur la politique de l’eau douce est maintenant ouverte!

(Le français suit)

Register today for the Canada Water Agency
National Freshwater Policy Forum!

Registration for the National Freshwater Policy Forum is now open! The two-day virtual event will take place January 27-28, 2021, from approximately 11 a.m. ET (12:00 p.m. AT/ 12:30 p.m. NT/ 10:00 a.m. CT/ 9:00 a.m. MT/ 8:00 a.m. PT) to 4:10 p.m. ET.

The National Freshwater Policy Forum will involve discussion of key freshwater issues and opportunities identified in the Discussion Paper “Toward the Creation of a Canada Water Agency.” It will also provide an opportunity to hear from leading experts, practitioners and knowledge holders involved in managing and protecting freshwater on what they see as the greatest opportunities to improve freshwater management through the creation of a Canada Water Agency.

Panel discussion topics will include: Freshwater prediction to inform climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction; Indigenous peoples and freshwater management; Agriculture and fresh water; Economic sectors and fresh water; Freshwater science and data; Transboundary freshwater management; Freshwater technology, innovation, and infrastructure; and, Engaging Canadians in managing and protecting fresh water.

Register here to reserve your spot for the National Freshwater Policy Forum. Full event details, including a draft agenda for the Forum, are available on our Canada Water Agency consultation site: www.placespeak.com/CanadaWaterAgency.  

Stay tuned! Registration will soon be available for the Regional Freshwater Forums, planned for February 2021. Visit the Events section of our PlaceSpeak consultation site to save the event date for your region.

For any questions, you can contact us at ec.water-eau.ec@canada.ca.

We welcome you to share this email with your networks.         

Stay Informed!

We appreciate and value your interest in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s efforts to protect the Great Lakes. If you wish to update any of your contact information, or to be added or removed from this distribution list, please send an email to ec.grandslacs-greatlakes.ec@canada.ca with your name, the name of your organization, and your email address. As always, your details will be treated as privileged information and will only be used to distribute our Great Lakes information to you. This distribution list is never shared outside of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Inscrivez-vous dès aujourd’hui au Forum national sur la politique de l’eau douce de l’Agence canadienne de l’eau!

L’inscription au Forum national sur la politique de l’eau douce est maintenant ouverte! L’événement virtuel de deux jours aura lieu du 27 au 28 janvier 2021, d’environ 11 h HNE (12 h HNA / 12 h 30 HNT / 10 h HNC/ 9 h HNM/ 8 h HNP) à 16 h 15 HNE.

Le Forum national sur la politique de l’eau douce portera sur les enjeux et les possibilités clés en matière d’eau douce cernés dans le document de travail « Vers la création d’une Agence canadienne de l’eau ». Il donnera également l’occasion d’entendre des experts, des praticiens et des détenteurs de connaissances de premier plan qui participent à la gestion et à la protection de l’eau douce sur ce qu’ils considèrent comme les meilleures possibilités d’améliorer la gestion de l’eau douce grâce à la création de l’Agence canadienne de l’eau.

Les débats d’experts porteront notamment sur les prévisions sur l’eau douce en vue d’orienter les mesures d’adaptation aux changements climatiques et d’atténuation des risques de catastrophes; les peuples autochtones et la gestion de l’eau douce; l’agriculture et l’eau douce; les secteurs économiques et l’eau douce; la science et les données sur l’eau douce; la gestion des eaux douces transfrontalières; la technologie, l’innovation et les infrastructures relatives à l’eau douce; et la mobilisation des Canadiens à la gestion et à la protection de l’eau douce.

Inscrivez-vous ici pour réserver votre place au Forum national sur la politique de l’eau douce. Tous les détails de l’événement, y compris un ébauche de l’ordre du jour du jour du Forum, sont disponibles sur notre site de consultation de l’Agence canadienne de l’eau : www.placespeak.com/AgenceCanadienneEau.

 Restez à l’affût! L’inscription sera bientôt disponible pour les Forums régionaux sur l’eau douce, prévus pour février 2021. Visitez la section Événements de notre site de consultation PlaceSpeak pour prendre en note la date de l’événement pour votre région.

Pour toute question, vous pouvez communiquer avec nous à ec.water-eau.ec@canada.ca.  Nous vous invitons à partager ce courriel avec vos réseaux.     

 Tenez-vous au courant!

Nous apprécions et estimons votre intérêt pour les efforts d’Environnement et Changement climatique Canada visant à protéger les Grands Lacs. Si vous souhaitez mettre à jour certaines de vos coordonnées ou que nous vous ajoutions ou retirions de cette liste de distribution, veuillez envoyer un courriel à ec.grandslacs-greatlakes.ec@canada.ca avec votre nom, le nom de votre organisme et votre adresse électronique. Comme toujours, vos détails seront traités de façon confidentielle et ne seront utilisés que pour vous diffuser des renseignements sur les Grands Lacs. Cette liste de distribution n’est jamais transmise à l’extérieur d’Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.

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

QUESTION:  Can Water issues be used to help understand the difference between terms like Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Terrorist?

 

Networks involving thousands of citizens across Canada have worked for decades to restore protection for Water.   The  4 points up top speak to obstacles to our success.

 

When decades of needed & legitimate citizen effort

run parallel to

steadily worsening systemic problems,

the land has been sown and steadily fertilized for Revolution by citizens.  (Protection of Water is far from the only issue.)

 

We conclude that the Government has abdicated its assigned role  to protect that upon which we all, humans and other life forms, are dependent for health and ultimately for survival.

 

The Government has also abdicated its assigned role of guarding our ideal of “peace, order, and good governance” in Canada.  Or so it seems to me, because

 

eventually comes realization, in spite of the rhetoric, that the money is flowing one-way (the income gap);  the water is not being protected.  We talk and we get restless (common sense tells you that).  We Protest, we Occupy and we Idle No More.  For how long?

 

When/if citizen action looks like it might result in actual protection of Water (e.g. stop the export-for-profit),  there is push-back from corporate and government players, those who want the money.  They fight to maintain the power and control they have over Water, whether to sell it, pollute it as a cost-saving measure, or exploit it in other ways.

 

Democratic government is replaced by corporate or fascist government.

 

Steadily worsening systemic problems, corporatist values

Lead to

Mobilization of citizens, non-violent resistance.

Outcomes?

The Montebello experience

2012-05-19 TO: MP Blake Richards re his private member’s bill to make it a crime to wear a mask at protests. Remember Montebello, it was the police who wore the masks.

 

The G-20 experience in Toronto and so on.

 

The CORRUPTION has to be addressed head-on.  Without success on that front,  the situation can only continue to deteriorate.    I recommend to you the information in:   2020-09-23 Part of conversation re Nuclear Issue & the Throne Speech (Small Modular Reactions – SMR’s)

     (http:/sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=25259)

 

Please do whatever turns your crank:  forward the information, sign up to the Government’s invitation, speak up,  use whatever opportunities present themselves.  The protection of water from poisons and pollutants, from private/corporate takeover, from quislings, from “for-profit” exploitation, from ignorance, is essential.

 

QUESTION:  Can Water issues be used to help understand the difference between terms like Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Terrorist?

 

these are political terms, they are not legal or technical terms, they are used and abused in the media and used interchangeably.

 

It’s difficult to precisely define the words because of the variety of scenarios.

That does not prevent some observations, musings:

 

  • “Revolution”  is not always the overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. BUT!  properly used, it is that.

 

  • In some situations the term used revolves around whether Corporate America, equally Corporate Canada, has financial or strategic investments in the country, and whether those interests are threatened.

 

  • A pejorative is required to describe the party that is the threat.  The Government and media need us to know who are the “Bad Guys”.  We are the “Good Guys”.

 

  • Do I agree that a word for what happened in Washington was “insurrection”?  Yes.  Was it Revolution in the Arab Spring? Yes.  But there is confusion over which words to use, and inconsistent use of words.

 

  • Terms perceived to be more pejorative are for the “Bad Guys”, even if they’re doing the same thing as the “Good Guys”.

 

More:  2016-07-08   Democracy overtaken by Corporatocracy = coup d’état. Citizens fight to regain democracy = Revolution (insurgency) . Corporatocracy fights to hold on = counter insurgency.    (http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=16943)

 

Cheers!

/Sandra

 

 

Feb 112021
 

The Unlikeliest Pandemic Success Story

How did a tiny, poor nation manage to suffer only one death from the coronavirus?

Story by Madeline Drexler

FEBRUARY 10, 2021

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/coronavirus-pandemic-bhutan/617976/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210210&silverid-ref=MzQzOTU3ODQ3MzAyS0

 

On january 7, a 34-year-old man who had been admitted to a hospital in Bhutan’s capital, Thimphu, with preexisting liver and kidney problems died of COVID-19. His was the country’s first death from the coronavirus. Not the first death that day, that week, or that month: the very first coronavirus death since the pandemic began.

How is this possible? Since the novel coronavirus was first identified more than a year ago, health systems in rich and poor countries have approached collapse, economies worldwide have been devastated, millions of lives have been lost. How has Bhutan—a tiny, poor nation best known for its guiding policy of Gross National Happiness, which balances economic development with environmental conservation and cultural values—managed such a feat? And what can we in the United States, which has so tragically mismanaged the crisis, learn from its success?

In fact, what can the U.S. and other wealthy countries learn from the array of resource-starved counterparts that have better weathered the coronavirus pandemic, even if those nations haven’t achieved Bhutan’s impressive statistics? Countries such as Vietnam, which has so far logged only 35 deaths, Rwanda, with 226, Senegal, with 700, and plenty of others have negotiated the crisis far more smoothly than have Europe and North America.

These nations offer plenty of lessons, from the importance of attentive leadership, the need to ensure that people have enough provisions and financial means to follow public-health guidance, and the shared understanding that individuals and communities must sacrifice to protect the well-being of all: elements that have been sorely lacking in the U.S.

America has “the world’s best medical-rescue system—we have unbelievable ICUs,” Asaf Bitton, executive director of Ariadne Labs, a Boston-based center for health-systems innovation, told me. But, he said, we have neglected a public-health focus on prevention, which socially cohesive low- and middle-income countries have no choice but to adopt, because a runaway epidemic would quickly overwhelm them.

“People say the COVID disaster in America has been about a denial of science. But what we couldn’t agree on is the social compact we would need to make painful choices together in unity, for the collective good,” Bitton added. “I don’t know whether, right now in the U.S., we can have easy or effective conversations about a common good. But we need to start.”

Over the course of three reporting trips to Bhutan since 2012, a word I heard innumerable times was resilience. It alluded to the fact that Bhutan has never been colonized, and to its people’s ability to bear hardships and make sacrifices. Resilience, I came to learn, is core to the national identity.

That mattered when the coronavirus began spreading early last year. At the time, Bhutan looked like a ripe target. It had only 337 physicians for a population of around 760,000—less than half the World Health Organization’s recommended ratio of doctors to people—and only one of these physicians had advanced training in critical care. It had barely 3,000 health workers, and one PCR machine to test viral samples. It was on the United Nations’ list of least developed countries, with a per capita GDP of $3,412. And while its northern frontier with China had been closed for decades, it shared a porous 435-mile border with India, which now has the world’s second-highest number of recorded cases and fourth-highest number of reported deaths.

Yet from the first note of alarm, Bhutan moved swiftly and astutely, its actions firmly rooted in the latest science.

On December 31, 2019, China first reported to the WHO a pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause. By January 11, Bhutan had started drafting its National Preparedness and Response Plan, and on January 15, it began screening for symptoms of respiratory ailments and was using infrared fever scanning at its international airport and other points of entry.

 

Around midnight on March 6, Bhutan confirmed its first case of COVID-19: a 76-year-old American tourist. Six hours and 18 minutes later, some 300 possible contacts, and contacts of contacts, had been traced and quarantined. “It must have been a record,” Minister of Health Dechen Wangmo—a plain-spoken Yale-educated epidemiologist—told the national newspaper Kuensel, with evident pride. Airlifted to the U.S., the patient was expected to die, but survived. According to an account in The Washington Post, his doctors in Maryland told him, “Whatever they tried in Bhutan probably saved your life.”

In March, the Bhutanese government also started issuing clear, concise daily updates and sharing helpline numbers. It barred tourists, closed schools and public institutions, shut gyms and movie theaters, began flexible working hours, and relentlessly called for face masks, hand hygiene, and physical distancing. On March 11, the WHO tardily deemed COVID-19 a pandemic. Five days later, Bhutan instituted mandatory quarantine for all Bhutanese with possible exposure to the virus—including the thousands of expatriates who boarded chartered planes back to their homeland—and underwrote every aspect, such as free accommodation and meals in tourist-level hotels. It isolated all positive cases, even those who were asymptomatic, in medical facilities, so early symptoms could be treated immediately, and provided psychological counseling for those in quarantine and isolation.

Bhutan then went further. At the end of March, health officials extended the mandatory quarantine from 14 to 21 days—a full week longer than what the WHO was (and still is) recommending. The rationale: A 14-day quarantine leaves about an 11 percent chance that, after being released, a person could still be incubating the infection and eventually become contagious. Bhutan’s extensive testing regimen for people in quarantine, Wangmo added at a press conference, was “a gold standard.”

 

While President Donald Trump was railing against coronavirus surveillance, Bhutan launched a huge testing and tracing program, and created a contact-tracing app. Last fall, the health ministry rolled out a prevention initiative called “Our Gyenkhu”—“Our Responsibility”—featuring influencers such as actors, visual artists, bloggers, and sports personalities. When, in August, a 27-year-old woman became the first Bhutanese in the country to test positive for COVID-19 outside of quarantine, a three-week national lockdown followed, with the government ramping up testing and tracing even more, and delivering food, medicine, and other essentials to every household in the land. In December, when a flu clinic in Thimphu turned up the first case of community transmission since the summer, the nation again entered strict lockdown—and again, a full-throttle campaign prevailed against the virus, which has been all but snuffed out for the time being.

In tandem with this rigorous public-health response came swells of civic compassion from every level of society. In April, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck launched a relief fund that has so far handed out $19 million in financial assistance to more than 34,000 Bhutanese whose livelihoods have been hurt by the pandemic, a program extended until at least the end of March. The government created a country-wide registry for vulnerable citizens, and has sent care packages containing hand sanitizer, vitamins, and other items to more than 51,000 Bhutanese over the age of 60. The Queen Mother gave a frank address to the nation, calling on the authorities to ensure services for sexual and reproductive health, maternal, newborn, and child health care, and services for gender-based violence, which she deemed “essential.” Thousands of people signed up to leave their homes and families for extended periods of time to join the national corps of orange-uniformed volunteers known as DeSuung. Bhutan’s monastic community—highly influential in a Buddhist and still largely traditional culture—not only pointedly reinforced public-health messaging but also prayed daily for the well-being of all people during the crisis, not just the Bhutanese.

Government officials modeled the same altruism. During the country’s summer lockdown, Wangmo, the health minister, slept in ministry facilities for weeks, away from her young son. Prime Minister Lotay Tshering, a highly respected physician who continued to perform surgeries on Saturdays during most of the crisis, slept every night during the lockdown on a window seat in his office—a photo in the newspaper The Bhutanese showed his makeshift bed’s rumpled blankets and an ironing board standing nearby. Members of Parliament gave up a month’s salary for the response effort; hoteliers offered their properties as free quarantine facilities; farmers donated crops. When lights in the Ministry of Health’s offices burned all night, locals brought hot milk tea and homemade ema datshi—scorching chilies and cheese, the national dish.

“I have complained about ‘small-society syndrome’ and how suffocating it can get. But I believe it is this very closeness that has kept us together,” Namgay Zam, a prominent journalist in Bhutan, told me. “I don’t think any other country can say that leaders and ordinary people enjoy such mutual trust. This is the main reason for Bhutan’s success.”

While bhutan might be culturally unique, its experience offers several lessons for affluent nations.

First, hope that you are lucky and your country’s leaders are thoroughly engaged. Bhutan had trusted, smart, and hands-on direction from its king, whose moral authority carries great weight. He explicitly told government leaders that even one death from COVID-19 would be too much for a small nation that regards itself as a family, pressed officials for detailed plans covering every possible pandemic scenario, and made multiple trips to the front lines, encouraging health workers, volunteers, and others. His crucial role also sidetracked any political gamesmanship; in Bhutan, the opposition in Parliament joined forces with the ruling party.

Second, invest in preparedness. Bhutan set up a health emergency operations center and a WHO emergency operations center in 2018, and had also invested in medical camp kit tents, initially thinking they would be deployed in disaster-relief zones; the tents were repurposed to screen and treat patients with respiratory symptoms. In 2019, the country upgraded its Royal Centre for Disease Control lab, equipping it to handle not only new and deadly influenza viruses on the horizon, but also SARS-CoV-2. Most presciently, in November 2019, the WHO and Bhutan’s health ministry staged a simulation at the country’s international airport. The scenario: a passenger arriving from abroad with a suspected infection caused by a new strain of coronavirus. All these measures reflect what Bitton sees as a dynamic, system-wide self-awareness. “You could call it humility; you could call it curiosity,” he said. “It’s this idea of, wow, we have a lot to learn.”

Third, act fast and buy time. “The countries that responded early and before the virus got entrenched—in particular, before it got to the vulnerable populations—seem to all have done better,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. Bhutan’s system of community-based primary care had sowed the concept of prevention, and its free universal health care and testing meant that logistics and supply chains were already in place.

Fourth, draw on existing strengths. When Bhutan added five more PCR machines to its testing stock, up from just one, it needed people to collect samples from the field and operate the devices. So it shifted technicians from livestock-health and food-safety programs, and trained university students. When it became clear that one ICU physician was not enough, it instructed other doctors and nurses in clinical management of respiratory infections and WHO protocols. “This is the lesson from Bhutan,” Rui Paulo de Jesus, its WHO country representative, told me. “Utilize the resources you have.”

Finally, make it possible for people to actually follow public-health guidance by providing economic and social support to those who need to quarantine or isolate. Nuzzo calls these “wraparound services.” But Tenzing Lamsang, an investigative journalist and editor of The Bhutanese, believes the term doesn’t do justice to Bhutan’s deeper policy impulses. “Bhutan’s approach as a Buddhist country, a country that values Gross National Happiness, is different from a typical technocratic approach,” he told me, noting that its pandemic plan covered “all aspects of well-being.”

Other countries illustrate many of these approaches. Senegal acted early, barring international arrivals and imposing regional travel restrictions, enforcing curfews and business closures, and launching an economic and social resilience program to make up for lost income among the poor; after barely skirting the 2014–16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it also bolstered staffing for an emergency operations center and conducted mock drills. Rwanda blanketed the country with random testing and contact tracing, relying on the same lab technologies used for tracking HIV cases. Vietnam declared an epidemic on February 1, 2020, and deployed its provincial governments to swiftly detect infections, close nonessential businesses, enforce social distancing, and monitor border crossings.

There are certainly plenty of caveats around the idea of trying to replicate Bhutan’s values or transplant its strategies. As Nuzzo pointed out, political systems vary significantly, and one nation’s assumptions might not thrive on alien terrain. Moreover, coronavirus transmission can take wild turns. And until Bhutanese are vaccinated, the kingdom will need to play a flawless game of containment. “As Buddhists,” a Kuensel editorial in September reflected, “we learn that this reality changes every moment.”

For now, though, Bhutan has helped define pandemic resilience. “What I learned from Bhutan is that the health sector alone cannot do much to protect people’s health,” de Jesus told me. Lamsang agreed. Pandemic resilience, he said, came from “things that we don’t count normally, like your social capital and the willingness of society to come together for the common good.”

It is tempting to dismiss Bhutan or other small, communitarian countries as irrelevant models for the United States. To be sure, Bhutan is no paradise. It has its share of quarantine dodgers and anti-vaxxers, “maskholes” and “covidiots,” all duly called out on social media. And like every other nation, when this crisis is over, it will have to reckon with long-standing problems—issues including youth unemployment and the effects of climate change.

But its victory, at least so far, in staving off the worst of the pandemic might give Bhutan the confidence and drive it needs to tackle these other challenges—and on its own terms. After all, that’s another aspect of resilience: moving forward when the crisis has passed.

MADELINE DREXLER is a Boston-based journalist and a visiting scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. She is the author of Emerging Epidemics: The Menace of New Infections and has written extensively in recent years about Bhutan.

Feb 062021
 

Honourable Chrystia Freeland and Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,

RE:  Request for “Pre-budget” input

“Same old” won’t work.

Your request for input is a component of a Communications Strategy.

As long as you persist with the teachings of the MBA and other “business” strategies,  you are undermining democracy.

 

When you inhale your own gas, and that of those fed the same diet, you come to think that it smells pretty sweet.

Rest assured,  the rest of us are not so enthralled.

It is a high sign of disrespect for our intelligence that you proffer, yet again,  a request for “input” as something other than what it is:  Communications Strategy from the legions of Communications Consultants you employ.  Because of the Intent and the way it is therefore delivered, it is not democratic process.

I’ve seen this show way too many times in Canada.  I know the outcome, short term and long term.

An enlarging mass of others are tuning in.  I think you know that.  But you do not like to know it, because of the implications for the vested interests.  When critical mass comes about,  the Canadian ideals of “Peace, Order, and Good Governance” go out the window.  (Well, the latter has already gone out the window, IMHO.)

Levels of corruption is the measure by which “good governance” is judged. (SNC Lavalin, Wee – – does not matter which party is in power,  it is systemic and it’s in the Canadian bureaucracy; also others of our “democratic” institutions.)

Firmly-entrenched Financial and “Influential” interests are back-seat drivers to Government.  They are REAL beneficiaries.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Finley

Jan 242021
 

QUESTION:  Can Water issues be used to help understand the difference between terms like Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Up-rising?

these are political terms, they are not legal or technical terms, they are used and abused in the media and used interchangeably . 

I don’t think the meanings/distinctions are clear.

  • In some situations the term used revolves around whether Corporate America (Corporate Canada) has financial or strategic investments in the country, and whether those interests are threatened.
  • WHO? needs to be overthrown – –  or the opposite, to protect “our” financial interests – –  in the country?  . . . Is it the Government or the People in the Streets?
  • WHO? defines for our Government and media who the “Bad Guys” and “Good Guys” are.  Terms perceived to be more pejorative are for the “Bad Guys”.  (Terms like “environmentalist”, “advocate”, “activist”, “protestor” become “Bad Guys” worthy of RCMP Surveillance, Police and tear gas when they threaten the rule of the Corporatocracy and its minions.

__________________________________________________________________________

  Water networks involving thousands of people across Canada have worked to restore protection for Water for decades.

4 points at the bottom speak to the obstacles to success, why the water won’t be protected. 

________________________________________________________________________________

When decades of needed and legitimate citizen effort run parallel to steadily worsening systemic problems,

the land has been sown and steadily fertilized for Revolution by citizens.  (Protection of Water is far from the only issue.)

We conclude that the Government has abdicated its assigned role  to protect that upon which we all, humans and other life forms, are dependent for health and ultimately for survival.

The Government has also abdicated its assigned role of guarding our ideal of “peace, order, and good governance” in Canada.  Or so it seems to me.

Eventually, the natives realize, in spite of the rhetoric, which way the money is flowing (the ever-widening income gap);  the water is not being protected.

We talk and we get restless (ref:  common sense).  We Protest, we Occupy and we Idle No More.  For how long?

When/if citizen action looks like it might result in actual protection of Water (e.g. stop the export-for-profit),  there is push-back from corporate and government players, those who want the money, “the economic development”).  They fight to maintain the power and control they have over Water, whether to sell it, pollute it as a cost-saving measure, or exploit it in other ways.

Democratic government is replaced by corporate or fascist government.

Steadily worsening systemic problems, corporatist values

Lead to

Mobilization of citizens, non-violent resistance.

Outcomes?

The Montebello experience

The G-20 experience in Toronto  . . .

There is a nuanced line between Revolution and InsurgencyInsurrection is  defined as an act or instance of rising in revolt,  rebellion or resistance against  civil authority or an established government.

Sometimes, words have different meanings and emotional content, depending on where they originated.

We know “Revolution” as what happened in France, and in the United States.

But Canada was loyal to the British Commonwealth.  We upheld the Colonial Power that the American Revolution was against.  I would bet that the word “revolution” does not carry the same emotional content for Canadians as for Americans.

AND THEN,  if you look at French Canada and English Canada:  as example,  St Jean Baptiste Day is scarcely known in English Canada.  Whereas, the emotional content of the word in Quebec is fiery.  Obviously,  the “We” that upheld the Colonial Power during the American Revolution does not include the Quebecois.  A few, sure.

There was active fighting and funding by Canadians, on the side of the Americans.  And anti-Government emigration to the US from Canada.

On the other hand, over time, American textbooks, media and immigration have transported American sentiments into Canada.  Canadians end up with the confusion created by the same word, from different origins.  Is it a Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Up-rising . . . or what?

(Another example:  the word “table” in the context of meetings has opposite meaning in The USA and The UK.  Canada has large influence from both places. Canadians use the same word, but do not usually know that it can mean two different things, depending on which culture you were most influenced by.  Hence confusion over “to table …”.)

FURTHER: 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

CANADA WATER AGENCY

4 points speak to the obstacles to success,

why water should be, but won’t be protected. 

 

  1. HEALTH and WATER QUALITY are inextricably connected.

True PREVENTION of disease is the goal.  Early identification is not the same as prevention.  Prevention comes with REMOVAL OF CAUSE.

The strong Laws & Regs to keep poisonous pollutants out of Canadian water supplies are a thing of the past;  over time they have been gutted.  To serve economic interests.

  1. Establish informed expectations about any proposed Canada Water Agency.
  • Typically, the economic interests in water, trump the need to protect it, at our peril.
  • Typically, “agencies” of Government in Canada are a way to loosen democratic oversight and control.  There is far less transparency and accountability.
  • Typically,  “agencies” are run by un-elected officials who have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) or equivalent.  They have been TRAINED & CREDENTIALED, in a specious mindset.
  1. The Federal Govt has well-resourced and funded programmes to expand the export of water from Canada.  Water export is seen as a tool of economic development.  Lots of money to be made.  Even if export-for-profit and government revenue were desirable,  water export creates VERY FEW jobs.  It moves water out of “the commons” into the private sector.  Quislings sell out the public interest.
  1. Just before Christmas, the CME Group, the New York-based market operator that takes its name from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, began trading water futures.For the first time, Wall Street traders are now able to take a stake in the future value of water, the way they have with other agricultural and mineral commodities. So far, the water contracts being bought and sold are limited to five water districts in drought-prone California, representing a tiny fraction of the water actually used in the state. But the idea of water as something to be bought and sold by Wall Street speculators does not necessarily sit well with those who study the economics of this resource in Canada. “I find it quite disturbing,” said Jim Warren, Regina-based scholar and author of Defying Palliser: Stories of Resilience from the Driest Region of the Canadian Prairies. “I mean it’s upsetting, especially since, you know, the world will be watching and others will be thinking it’s the way to go.” Read more analysis of water trading:  http://newsletters.cbc.ca/c/1F7Ks4WF0FDfJgom1noffLIuG