Sandra Finley

2016-06-29 Democracy, the Rule of Law. Victory over StatsCan surveys?

 Rule of Law  5 Responses »
Jun 292016
 

UPDATE:  I rolled-into-one  the arguments to address each point that refutes StatsCan’s claims that specified surveys are mandatory.  And filled in the gaps so the argument is as water-tight (under the Law) as I can make it.   See  2016-07-01  StatsCan Website: Surveys are Mandatory then Voluntary then Mandatory.

See the Comments below.    JPB asks a question re methodology (2016-07-23)  – – I added it to the above comprehensive posting (Mandatory then Voluntary).    /Sandra

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

Should we celebrate?

Canadians have been struggling with StatsCan’s appetite for personal information.  For almost a decade there has been a steady stream of information- seekers arriving on this blog.   The heaviest traffic by far is on  Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?

JoAnne is representative:

I was furious to learn of the nature of personal information that I would be required to provide.   I am inclined towards not doing it but have a letter from Stats Canada saying it is mandatory by law.

The discussion with JoAnne elaborates on the situation and JoAnne’s options in the face of StatsCan’s threats which have no base in Law (surveys are voluntary):    2014-05-26 Census, Surveys & Lockheed Martin. More concise argument? (conversation with JoAnne)

All those years, and all the Canadians who stood their ground, insisting on the Rule of Law – –  I think we might together have finally convinced StatsCan that the Rule of Law WILL BE UPHELD by citizens, if no one else!    (Ref:   Democracy: Significance of the Rule of Law )

This  from a Reddit posting:

I ended up contacting a lawyer and advised Stats Can that we were seeking legal action

Stats Can sent us a letter a couple of weeks later confirming that the Labour Force Survey is voluntary . . .

(See  StatsCan Surveys: Has anyone successfully sued StatsCan for harassment?  from exchange on Reddit)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I cannot find a general statement on the StatsCan website that tells citizens:   surveys are voluntary.

However,  I did find information pages on four different surveys being conducted in 2016 that inform about the Voluntary status, listed below.

I found two surveys being done in 2016 that show “mandatory”.    One of them is the Labour Force Survey (LFS).   BUT,

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 A VICTORY FOR CITIZENS ON THE RULE OF LAW:  SURVEYS SHOW “VOLUNTARY” ON THE STATSCAN WEBSITE
  1. Survey of Household Spending

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/3508

Survey participation:   voluntary

Date modified: 2016-05-13

2.  Longitudinal and International Study of Adults

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/5144

A Statistics Canada interviewer with an official photo ID card will visit your home to carry out the interview. All members of your household aged 15 and older will be selected to participate. Data collection will be conducted by the computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) method.

Survey participation: voluntary

Date modified:   2016-04-28

3.  Households and the Environment Survey (HES)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/3881

Survey participation: voluntary

Date modified:  2016-04-28

4.  Travel Survey of Residents of Canada

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/3810

Survey participation: Voluntary

Date modified: 2016-06-07

PLEASE READ THE COMMENT AND RESPONSE BELOW.   THIS POSTING IS CONTINUED.

2016-06-29 Post-Brexit results: Is governing by referendum democratic? Reply to CBC The Current. (Corporatocracy, Linguistics.)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  1 Response »
Jun 292016
 

The European Union is part of a structure of governance.

Media coverage of Brexit hardly mentions the question of governance.

And yet it is there in the interviews of UK citizens who voted “leave”.

We don’t have a word for the problem that exists in governance.

 

The Governance question does not emerge clearly because citizens do not have a commonly understood word to capture what they are experiencing.

 

ONE   Try this:   I describe what I experience.  The only word I have for it, is “it”.

  • “It” has different smells
  • “It” has different feels
  • “It” has different strengths
  • I am sometimes very aware of it, and sometimes not at all

What am I talking about?  Can you create in your mind an understanding if we don’t have a common word?    Can we have a discussion about “it”?

(“It”  is the wind.  . . .  Now, our discussion can soar!)

TWO   Try this:

  • “It”  means we will have to pay multiple-millions of dollars to corporations if they don’t like laws we pass to protect our resources.
  • “It”  means to Europeans that they will have to open their fields and markets to gmo foods that their laws and wishes prohibit.
  • “It”  feels as though we citizens are powerless.

Is there a common word that describes “it”?    Are there discussions about “it”?   . . .  what is the one word we can all use to immediately conjure what it is you or I are talking about?

Not many media people have adopted the word “Corporatocracy“.  The majority of citizens do not know the word.  Yet it has been in the vernacular for more than a decade.

I just found this excellent article on CounterPunch.

Bernie Sanders vs. the Corporatocracy    by Richard W. Behan

EXCERPT:

Corporatocracy is the power to which Mr. Sanders is speaking. It is defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary as “a society…that is governed or controlled by corporations.”  In such a society public policy is crafted not to advance the general well being of the people, but to protect, enhance, or create profit opportunities for hegemonic corporations.

This is America today: our democracy has been supplanted, transformed by the engines of corporate lobbying and the influence of corporate campaign contributions.

(A backup copy of the full article is at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16837)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
MY NOTE TO CBC, THE CURRENT (June 29, 2016)

RE:   Post-Brexit results: Is governing by referendum democratic?

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-29-2016-1.3657498/post-brexit-results-is-governing-by-referendum-democratic-1.3657625  )

 

I read in The Guardian a page of reasons given by brexiters on why they voted “leave”.   I am not hearing their views reflected by the pundits.

The 20-minute discussion among your experts, “Is governing by referendum democratic?” omitted a crucial factor.

CBC listeners to the rescue!   The lady from Gabriola Island whose letter was read on The Current, immediately following your Panel was dead on. She gave eloquent voice to many brexiters (trade deals that give corporations rights that over-ride citizen rights, governance structures that remove the ability to hold decision-makers to account (NO,  that reason is in The Guardian list – – any chance I could obtain a copy of The Lady from Gabriola’s list?)

It becomes apparent that the question to be answered is:

If democracy has been usurped by some other form of government,

how do citizens go about getting rid of the usurpers?

How do they get some semblance of democracy back?

Brexiters saw an opportunity and they used it.

(UPDATE:  see   2016-07-07 Maude Barlow: Brexit, CETA and the right way to create trade agreements.   Corporatocracy.)

For that the pundits label them as being poorly-informed, guided by their emotions (irrational) and thus incapable.

Defense of Democracy does not carry obvious economic benefits; it does require some kind of intuitive knowledge that democracy is on its way down the drain.

I recommend that the pundits learn and use the word “corporatocracy” which has been in the vernacular at least since 2004.

 

Some may be further interested:

CONTRAST

  • coup d’etat   (by corporate interests) and
  • revolution   (citizens taking back their power).

see   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=634    

 

– – – – – – – –    END OF NOTE TO CBC   – – – – – – –

EXCERPT FROM the preceding URL, CONTRAST which is:   2010-09-13 RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat to Canada, Ottawa Citizen. Never Never Land.

 

RE:   The RCMP have put the risk of a coup d’état on the list of four threats to Canada. OTTAWA CITIZEN, © The Montreal Gazette.

“Military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.” (wikipedia)

I’d say that coup d’états happen when the powers-that-be want more power and control than they already have.  Or, they feel a threat to their power and agenda.

What would threaten them, in today’s world?  . . .  Why did the RCMP list coup état?  . . . Answer one of the questions, you’ve answered both.

Growing dissatisfaction among growing numbers of “peasants” would be a threat to the powers-that-be.   Sufficient dissatisfaction, large enough numbers, intention . . . but that would be called a “revolution”, not a coup d’état.

So let’s see.  The RCMP say the threat of a coup d’état exists.  Earlier,  I and others have said that we have corporatocracy, not democracy in Canada.   Which means that the coup d’état has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE   (“the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”).

What does the RCMP statement mean then?  Does it mean that there is a threat of EVEN MORE coup d’état-ing?

To answer that, put yourself into the shoes of the powers-that-be (the ones doing the coups).  What do THEY see?  . . .   I see coup d’état . . .  they see revolution.   We are viewing the same world, but through a different set of eyes.   A power struggle between us and them.

I was astounded to hear “coup d’etat” used in the media, from the RCMP.  . . .  But why the surprise?  I have been saying that the success of the opposition to the tar sands, the success in protection of water,  etc., threatens the corporate agenda.  That “revolution” threatens the corporate agenda.  When I stop to think, as a population moves toward revolution, yes, that is when coup d’états happen.   The population wakes up to what has been happening, they stop being sheeple, the powers whose interests are threatened must resort to military/police (violence) to impose their will.

In this network we have documented the growing military/police state in Canada.   What is that other than the signs of a coup d’état?   But is that the coup d’état that the RCMP are thinking of?

So is there evidence of dissatisfaction and unrest,  IN LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS to trigger pre-emptive (that’s what it would be), MORE coup état-ing by large corporations working with their quislings?

Another question:  if the RCMP see potential coup d’état, where does that leave THEM?

We’re all in this together.  I think we need to understand the situation and share it.  Otherwise we, as Canadians,  can’t solve it.

Back to Coup d’état / Revolution: LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS?   .. . .  don’t need to address that one.  “They” would see large enough numbers, enabled, empowered and connected by the ability to exchange information by email, the net, and cheap phone technology.

DISSATISFACTION?  . . . .  try George Monbiot’s September 20th article, “THE PROCESS IS DEAD” (below)

This is part of a short series of postings, one of which talks about the movie “Sounds like a Revolution” http://www.soundslikearevolution.com/ .  I recommend the movie.  It is very helpful to understanding today’s political affairs.

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

(2)    RCMP LIST COUP D’ETAT AS THREAT, OTTAWA CITIZEN, September 13, 2010

Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, etc.

RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat 

Considered operational priority. First time such language in planning report, signals emphasis on national security 

By IAN MACLEOD, Postmedia News; Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2010

RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d’etat.

The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP’s plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.

The document then cites four specific security concerns:

– ¦Espionage and sabotage.

– ¦Foreign-influenced criminal activities detrimental to the interests of Canada.

– ¦Terrorism.

– ¦ “Activities aimed at over-throwing, by violence, the Government of Canada.”

RCMP officials were not immediately available Friday to explain the reference, but such language has not appeared in previous RCMP reports.

Over the past year, the Mounties have signalled a renewed emphasis on national security issues that have been pushed aside by law enforcement’s preoccupation with global terrorism since 9/11.

In a major speech last fall, for example, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said while transnational terrorism and “homegrown” radicalization remain big threats, so too are economic espionage by foreign states, transnational organized crime, proliferation issues, illegal migration and other border-security issues.

While hyperbolic, the mention of a coup threat appears to reflect the force’s return to a broader operational approach to guarding national security.

It’s also not the first talk of a government overthrow.

The 1999 book Agent of Influence alleged the U.S. CIA plotted a de facto coup of Lester B. Pearson’s government in the early 1960s.

Canadian author Ian Adams claimed that after the 1963 assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy, CIA counter-intelligence branch head James Jesus Angleton became convinced Pearson was an agent for Russian intelligence and supposedly had information from a Soviet defector backing him up.

“The CIA took great personal offence at Pearson’s independent stands in foreign policy, his grain trades with the Soviet Union, his antiwar positions on Vietnam, and especially his friendly stance on Cuba,” wrote Adams.

To get at Pearson, the CIA set its sights first on Canadian diplomat James Watkins, Canada’s ambassador to Russia in the mid-1950s and a friend of the prime minister.

After 27 days of interrogation by the Mounties, the 62-year-old Watkins’s troubled heart gave out and he died, apparently without supplying the confession the spymasters hoped could bring down the government.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

 

2016-06-24 CETA appears to be on hold, Council of Canadians calls for new study of the deal

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Jun 252016
 

[  http://canadians.org/blog/ceta-appears-be-hold-council-canadians-calls-new-study-deal   ]

 

Will Harper’s free trade deal with the European Union survive Brexit?

 

With the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union, the Council of Canadians is calling on the Trudeau government to support our call for the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to conduct an independent analysis of a Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) minus Great Britain.

 

We believe it is prudent for the Canadian government to delay their signing of the deal (scheduled for October 27) and conduct a new study on this ‘free trade’ deal given both the turn of events yesterday with the Brexit vote and the reality that the Canada-EU feasibility study that provided the rationale for CETA talks is now almost a decade old.

 

The CBC notes, “Canada does far more business with the UK than other EU countries”, “CETA was based on tradeoffs and calculations that included British consumers and businesses — compromises that were sometimes painful and prolonged”, the UK represents about 10 per cent of the beef sector Canada was hoping to gain with the deal, and, after all, the UK is the second largest economy in the EU.

 

In terms of the beef sector, an iPolitics article quotes John Masswhol, director of government and international relations for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, who says each commodity group will have to “re-assess” the value of the deal now, adding “Maybe the value is the same, maybe it isn’t. It’s too early to draw conclusions.”

 

Unfortunately, the CBC reports, “Early Friday morning, [trade minister Chrystia Freeland] spoke to her European Union counterpart, Cecilia Malmstrom, and reiterated that Canada’s commitment to ratifying their ‘gold-plated’ trade deal remains firm.” We believe this is a hasty position for the government to take.

 

That said, the CBC suggests Freeland’s optimism could be “wishful thinking”.

 

Their analysis notes, “The summer agenda in Brussels is now in flux, depending on how quickly the British move to begin divorce proceedings with the European Union.” They also note, “With critical ratification votes ahead, the real problem may be losing the U.K. as Canada’s political ally in Brussels, one that was very helpful generating support for the deal in more reluctant European capitals.”

 

The Canadian Press highlights, “Canada’s envoy to Britain, High Commissioner Gordon Campbell, [said] prior to the referendum that a leave victory could scuttle CETA because the EU would become overwhelmed with negotiating Britain’s departure.” That article also quotes Fen Hampson, a foreign policy expert at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, who says, “I would say CETA is probably dead.” A Toronto Star article quotes Greg Tereposky, a partner at law firm Borden Ladner Gervais who specializes in international trade, who says, “My view on this, and it’s entirely speculation, but we will have CETA go into a holding pattern, at least for the foreseeable future.” And a Radio Canada article quotes Doug Porter, chief economist at the Bank of Montreal, who says, “It may have gone so far that this isn’t going to completely derail it, but the widespread view was the UK was Canada’s biggest supporter and driver for this deal with the European Union and now with them stepping away from the European Union, one does have to wonder about the fate of CETA.”

 

The United Kingdom was reportedly a key ally to Canada in its ongoing effort to get the EU to approve two antimicrobial solutions used to wash beef and pork carcasses. Those approvals have not yet been secured. And the UK was also an ally to Canada in promoting the export of genetically modified crops to Europe.

 

In terms of next steps, CBC adds, “Votes in the European Parliament in Brussels can be unpredictable. Freeland has been open about the need for Canada to keep lobbying to overcome resistance to ratifying in some countries. Her campaign — and she calls it that — may be made longer, or harder, with a Brexit.”

 

The Council of Canadians is prepared to continue to campaign against CETA and to promote trade relations with the UK and the European Union that are based on social and ecological justice.

 

To read about our campaign to stop CETA, please click here:

[  http://canadians.org/ceta   ]

Further reading:     The Brexit vote and CETA

[  http://canadians.org/blog/brexit-vote-and-ceta   ]

 

Brent Patterson’s blog

Political Director of the Council of Canadians

[  http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson   ]

 

 

2015-09013 Another great John Perkins video, “9/11 As Catalyst for 14 Years of US and Global Domination”

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, John Perkins  No Responses »
Jun 222016
 

Thanks to Dianne who writes:

He is a great human.

John Perkins 2015 “9/11 As Catalyst For 14 …

42:06       16,344 views June 22, 2016

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoQo43mquHY

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

Earlier:  2014-02-04    John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, interview. Important contribution to understanding our world.

2006 Book “Sarah’s Key” by Tatiana de Rosnay, The Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup under the Vichy Government (Nazi collaborators), occupied Paris, 1942

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Jun 142016
 

I did not know about the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup  in Paris, 1942.  Many French people were likewise in the dark.

Bless Tatiana de Rosnay for her compelling novel, Sarah’s Key.  She says:

I was . . .  appalled by what I discovered concerning the Vel’ d’ Hiv’ Roundup, especially about what happened to those 4,000 Jewish children, and I knew I had to write about it. I needed to write about it. . . .  writing Sarah’s Key took me to Drancy and Beaune La Rolande, places around Paris which have a dreaded past that cannot be forgotten despite time going by.

The novel was recommended to me (thanks, Ev).

I hope I do not see everything through the lens of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the Censuses and the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.   For 13 years (2003 – 2016) I have hammered on the fragility of democracy, the reason we need to defend to the death, the Charter Right.   Citizens cross over from civility and thoughtfulness for others to barbarity, some in short order.

Tatiana de Rosnay says (Author’s Note at the beginning of  Sarah’s Key):

. . .  It (the novel) is my tribute to the children of the Vel’ d’Hiv’.  The children who never came back.  And the ones who survived to tell.

My Tribute:

The removal and extermination of those children was made possible by detailed census files.  The appalling treatment of them was done by otherwise ordinary people.   From their blood came the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information that we have today in Canada.

Does the Charter Right just wither and slither out through our fingers?   why?  because we are slovenly and ignorant?   . . .

Can’t we understand:   the depravity of the perpetrators and collaborators sixty years ago has not changed  (how about Lockheed Martin, number one Contract Interrogator at American offshore prisons?).   The detailed files on citizens are being constructed  (Lockheed Martin in charge of the “steerage”, Lockheed Martin with its specialty in Surveillance).

The lives of those 4,000 children, their mothers and fathers, were worth something, surely.   But only if we are willing to act on behalf of the legacy of those children.

EXCERPT  from the letter to PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL at bottom of   Official correspondence reveals lack of scrutiny of MI5’s data collection 

There is a connection not mentioned in the article.    You may know it, but  just in case you don’t!

The issue of surveillance enabled by collection of personal data through censuses and continuously on-going surveys is

additional to what is happening through “Security” forces and legislation regarding police powers.

The involvement of Lockheed Martin Corp in the data base at the  UK Office for National Statistics is a vehicle for loss of Privacy of personal information (surveillance), if the UK situation is similar to the Canadian.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B001HNE3NO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Sarah’s Key (2006)      by Tatiana de Rosnay 

Paris, July 1942: Sarah, a ten year-old girl, is brutally arrested with her family by the French police in the Vel’ d’Hiv’ roundup, but not before she locks her younger brother in a cupboard in the family’s apartment, thinking that she will be back within a few hours.

Paris, May 2002: On Vel’ d’Hiv’s 60th anniversary, journalist Julia Jarmond is asked to write an article about this black day in France’s past. Through her contemporary investigation, she stumbles onto a trail of long-hidden family secrets that connect her to Sarah. Julia finds herself compelled to retrace the girl’s ordeal, from that terrible term in the Vel d’Hiv’, to the camps, and beyond. As she probes into Sarah’s past, she begins to question her own place in France, and to reevaluate her marriage and her life.

Tatiana de Rosnay offers us a brilliantly subtle, compelling portrait of France under occupation and reveals the taboos and silence that surround this painful episode.

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

The Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup

With help from Wikipedia

The Vélodrome d’Hiver (Winter Velodrome), colloquially Vel’ d’Hiv, was an indoor bicycle racing cycle track and stadium (velodrome) on rue Nélaton, not far from the Eiffel Tower in Paris. As well as a cycling track, it was used for ice hockey, wrestling, boxing, roller-skating, circuses, bullfighting, spectaculars, and demonstrations. It was the first permanent indoor track in France and the name persisted for other indoor tracks built subsequently.

In July 1942, French police, acting under orders from the German authorities in Occupied Paris, used the velodrome to hold thousands of Jews and others who were victims in a mass arrest. The Jews were held at the velodrome before they were moved to a concentration camp in the Parisian suburbs at Drancy, then to the extermination camp at Auschwitz. The incident became known as the “Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup” (Rafle du Vel’ d’Hiv).

 

The Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup

(French: Rafle du Vélodrome d’Hiver, commonly called the Rafle du Vel’ d’Hiv: “Vel’ d’Hiv Police Roundup / Raid”), was a Nazi directed raid and mass arrest of Jews in Paris by the French police, code named Opération Vent printanier (“Operation Spring Breeze”), on 16 and 17 July 1942. The name “Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup” is derived from the nickname of the Vélodrome d’Hiver (“Winter Velodrome”), a bicycle velodrome and stadium where a majority of the victims were temporarily confined. The roundup was one of several aimed at eradicating the Jewish population in France, both in the occupied zone and in the free zone. According to records of the Préfecture de Police,  13,152  (13 thousand) Jews were arrested,[1] including more than 4,000 children.[2] They were held at the Vélodrome d’Hiver in extremely crowded conditions, almost without water, food and no sanitary facilities, as well as at the Drancy, Pithiviers, and Beaune-la-Rolande internment camps,[2] then shipped in rail cattle cars to Auschwitz for their mass murder. French President Jacques Chirac apologized in 1995 for the complicit role that French policemen and civil servants served in the raid.

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

Excerpts from “A Conversation with Tatiana de Rosnay” (at the end of the book)

How much did you know before you started writing?

… I didn’t know much about what exactly happened.  I was not taught about this event at school during the ’70s.   And it still seemed to be shrouded by some kind of taboo. …

And what did you learn?

… I was moved, appalled by what I discovered concerning the Vel’ d’ Hiv’ Roundup, especially about what happened to those 4,000 Jewish children, and I knew I had to write about it. I needed to write about it. . . .

. . .  Writing Sarah’s Key took me to Drancy and Beaune La Rolande, places around Paris which have a dreaded past that cannot be forgotten despite time going by.  My visits there were poignant and memorable. . . .

Historical Perspective

. . . Early on the morning of July 16, 1942, the French police, acting under orders from the German Gestapo, wrenched over thirteen thousand Jewish men, women, and children from their beds,  Most of the adults were sent directly th the camp at Drancy, while parents with children went to the Ved’ d’ Hiv’.  And it didn’t stop then.  For the next two days the French police canvassed the city with buses, picking up Jews and taking them to the stadium.

Conditions inside the Vel’ d’Hiv’ were horrendous:  it was not, there were no toilet facilities, and there was little food and no place to sleep.  For six days amidst mounting panic, the horrified prisoners endured physical indignity while the French police stood by.

… Each year now a ceremony commemorates the shameful incident.  It was here, in 1995, that President Hacques Chirac, who had just been elected to office, officially acknowledged France’s complicity in the murder and deportation of the Jews of Europe.

Excerpt:  President Jacques Chirac’s 1995 Address

 “These black hours will stain our history for ever and are an injury to our past and our traditions.  Yes, the criminal madness of the occupant was supported by the French, by the French state.  Fifty-three years ago, on 16 July 1942,    450 policemen and gendarmes, French, under the authority of their leaders, obeyed the demands of the Nazis.  That day, in the capital and the Paris region, nearly 10,000  Jewish men, women and children were arrested at home, in the early hours of the morning, and assembled at police stations . . . France, home of the Enlightenment and the Rights of Man, land of welcome and asylum, France committed that day the irreparable.  Breaking its word, it delivered those it protected to their executioners.”

Wealth of Nations to Senate

 Bank of Canada vs Canada Infrastructure Bk, Banksters, Privatization & Trade Deals, COMER  No Responses »
Jun 142016
 

Banksters: Index

From: Adam Smith   Sent: June 12, 2017 5:58 PM

I have emailed every senator my letter about the folly of the infrastructure privatization bank.

Below is the email to the senators, attached is the letter to the PM, Finance Minister, and my MP about the CIB.

(INSERT:  (the attached letter is under password pending consent to post))

Feel free to use whatever you want, copy paste even, no attribution necessary.  Don’t forget to address the emails as properly as possible.

Cheers,

Adam

Subject:   The Honourable (Senator’s name):   Bill C-44, The CIB vs the Bank of Canada…

 

Dear Senator  (Name),

My name is Adam Smith, I’m a Canadian citizen and resident of Ontario who is deeply concerned about the government’s plan for an unnecessary infrastructure privatization bank when we already have the publicly owned Bank of Canada, which in combination with Bill 143, the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, served successfully as our infrastructure bank for many decades.

Attached is a thoroughly researched and fully sourced letter I wrote to MPs, detailing historical and technical reasons why we do not require an infrastructure bank and how the Bank of Canada can easily suit such needs, including alarming information of the private sector conflicts of interest involved in devising this bank, which deviates significantly from the Liberals’ campaign promise to “use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need.”

The Senate has already considered the need to separate this legislation, proving the Senate is indeed the “house of sober second thought” and still has important relevance to our democracy.

I implore the Senate to strike Division 18 of Part 4 from Bill C-44 in its entirety and influence the government to return the Bank of Canada to previous levels of monetary financing and economic activity, instead of creating new burdens of public debt, fees, and taxation.

Thank you for your time,

Adam Smith

(contact info)

 

2016-06-12 Will Liberals defend Charter Values on C-51?

 Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism, Secret Police  1 Response »
Jun 142016
 

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/12/will-liberals-defend-charter-values-on-c-51

By Tom Parkin, Postmedia Network

Note:  I deleted the first part of the article focusing on the Bill C-51 (Secret Police) portion.

. . .   Triangulation is the same strategy that, a year ago, lead Trudeau to support Bill C-51, Harper’s version of homeland security.

As with C-14, many respected constitutional lawyers and rights groups said sections of C-51 violated the Charter. When an uproar over the moral hollowness of Trudeau’s position offended actual liberals, he promised a Liberal government would fix C-51.

Recently, the Minister of Public Security told the Commons he hopes a C-51 fix-it bill will be tabled “before Parliament rises for the summer.” But will the Liberals fix C-51? Or “balance” it? How will we know?

Paul Cavalluzzo – former commission counsel in the Maher Arar inquiry – has done the research on what needs to be fixed to make C-51 Charter-compliant. He’s filed an application asking an Ontario court to strike down several provisions of C-51 because they trample Charter rights. His analysis is a valuable scorecard for any forthcoming Liberal bill.

“Our main concern is the power C-51 attempts to give a judge to authorize a violation of Charter rights and freedoms if CSIS applies for a warrant to break the Charter,” says Cavalluzzo in an interview. “In our view this is totally alien to our constitutional order.” He argues the entire idea needs to be scrapped.

Cavalluzzo is also concerned about C-51 provisions that “criminalize speech.” These efforts result in language “too broad and vague to be an effective check on conduct.” Existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, he argues. C-51’s criminal code sections also need to be scrapped, he argues.

And then there’s oversight. Bill C-51 included new inter-agency information sharing provisions. But existing oversight mechanisms are agency-specific silos. With an increased flow of information between agencies, “the Charter requires cross-government oversight.” Cavalluzzo argues for a broadened, multi-agency, integrated oversight mechanism.

Cavalluzzo lauds the government for promising a parliamentary committee for security oversight – something he believes is needed for broader policy decisions. But argues protecting Canadians’ Charter rights requires another sort of review mechanism “to deal with the day-to-day investigations.”

In any upcoming fix to C-51, Cavalluzzo’s points might be an effective guide to determine if these Liberals are liberals who defend Charter values, or triangulating centrists who leave that dirty work to social democrats.

2016-06-13 Lockheed Martin F-35s, Senate Committee: Former defence minister MacKay regrets failure to buy Canada new fighter jets

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jun 142016
 

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/06/13/mackay-says-he-regrets-failure-to-buy-new-fighter-planes/#.V2A7aunmo3F

 

By Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press

 

OTTAWA — Buying a fighter jet that’s different from the one used by Canada’s closest allies risks disconnecting the country from the global alliances it needs the most, a former Conservative defence minister said Monday.

Peter MacKay told a Senate committee that in his mind, there’s no question the Lockheed-Martin F-35 is the right plane for Canada — from defending the Far North to helping to confront the threat of terrorism around the world.

MacKay’s government tried to purchase that very plane but questions about its costs and capabilities forced a halt to the process — something MacKay said he regrets.

“I’m very much lamenting some of the to-ing and fro-ing that’s going on currently over the purchase of fighter aircraft,” he said.

“Do I regret that we did not make the final purchase of that aircraft? Absolutely. We need it, it’s good for industry, it’s good for interoperability, we need it at Norad.”

During the election campaign, the Liberals said they would not buy the F-35 and would instead open the process up to a competition. However, cabinet is now grappling with how to meet that commitment and Canada’s defence needs at the same time.

“Our government is committed to making sure that we replace the fighters and we will do so and any procurement that takes place with our fighters will benefit Canada and make sure that our industry benefits as well,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Monday.

The Liberals have been arguing there’s a capability gap that must be closed and soon, but MacKay disputed that, noting the money his government invested in keeping the existing planes in the air.

The current fleet of CF-18s are nearing the end of their useful life. Some of the upgrades needed to keep them in the air until 2025 have begun, but others have not. The military has said they need 65 planes to meet their current commitments to Norad, NATO, training programs and whatever else might be in store. There are currently 77 planes in the fleet.

Outside the hearing, MacKay said some of the problems that dogged the F-35 at the early stages of the process have been fixed. It is not just being flown by the Americans, but several other countries, he noted.

“The F-35 is by far the superior aircraft,” he said.

“It is by far the one that brings the most industrial benefits to Canada, it’s proven its value time and time again, they’ve got the bugs out, countries are taking delivery of it now, the cost is coming down.

“Its superiority is proven and we need it and we need it soon, so having a competition — if that’s what they need to justify it, then fine, then keep your word, just do it.”

The former Chretien Liberal government kick-started the process of replacing the CF-18s by agreeing to take part in a multinational development program for the F-35s. The Conservatives took up the process when they formed government in 2006.

David Pratt, who served as a Liberal minister of defence in 2003-04 under former prime minister Paul Martin, told the committee the Conservatives had 10 years but still failed to get the job done.

“We need an open competition in order to ensure that we’re getting the best plane for Canada — now.”

 Older Entries  Newer Entries