Sandra Finley

2013-06-28 Ecuador suspends preferential trade with US over Snowden affair

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Jun 282013
 

http://www.freshplaza.com/article/110799/Ecuador-suspends-preferential-trade-with-US-over-Snowden-affair#SlideFrame_1

Author: Ben  Littler
Copyright: www.freshplaza.com

Move will see tariffs introduced on agricultural exports
Ecuador suspends preferential trade with US over Snowden affair

Ecuador has made the surprising announcement that it is giving up its preferential trade agreement with the United States, a move which could have serious repercussions for agricultural industry. The shock news comes in the wake of the ongoing Edward Snowden affair.

The former CIA agent, turned whistle-blower, is though to be seeking asylum from Ecuador. The country is gaining something of a reputation for sheltering those involved in the leaking of government secrets and is currently housing Wikileaks’ Julian Assange in its London Embassy.

Ecuador’s Minister of Communications, Fernando Alcarado, announced the decision, saying, the country “unilaterally and irrevocably renounces…trade preferences.” He described the decision as a demonstration of Ecuador’s commitment to its values and a sign that it would not allow foreign powers to influence national sovereignty via the exertion of commercial pressure.

Ecuador, he said, “doesn’t accept…threats from anybody and it doesn’t trade its principles or give them up for commercial interests, no matter how important.”

Ecuador’s left wing president, Raffael Correa, has sought to calm concerns on the domestic front over the move, stating that the suspension of preferential trade, which will see the introduction of tariffs on exports, including broccoli and bananas, would have limited impact.

Other have been quick to disagree, pointing out that the relatively straightforward trade processes with the US have turned certain Ecuadorian enterprises into major international industries. Romiro Crespo, of Quito based Analytical Investments, said, “If commerce is restricted there’s going to be unemployment…this does not penalise the government, it penalises the people.”

Just how effective a gesture this proves to be remains to be seen of course and, currently, the prospect of Snowden, who is trapped in international limbo at Moscow airport, making it to Ecuador and one of its embassies is very small, his passport having been revoked by the US authorities.

 

 

2013-06-21 FBI Calls Destruction of GMO Sugar Beets in Oregon ‘Economic Sabotage’

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health  No Responses »
Jun 222013
 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-fbi-calls-destruction-gmo-sugar-beets-oregon-economic-sabotage

Written By:  Sayer Ji, Founder

In a breaking development, the FBI confirms that 1,500 GM Sugar Beet plants were destroyed this month in Oregon, in what they are calling an act of “Economic Sabotage.”

When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer’s fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with ‘biopollution,’ who does the law side with? Historically, Monsanto. Also, it’s not called ‘economic sabotage’ but rather ‘copyright infringement,’ and the victim not the aggressor is threatened with economic ruin.

When Monsanto’s unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop’s export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is “safe.”

Given the unfair rules of the game, no wonder some folks in Oregon, having been treated much like feudal peasants lately, are taking things quite literally into their own hands.

So, when the FBI investigates the destruction of genetically modified sugar beets from two fields in Southern Oregon’s Jackson County this month, the act is immediately labeled “economic sabotage,” presumably against the multinational corporation who owned the plants.

How fitting an FBI description, considering that Monsanto already planted these ‘evil seeds’ of doubt by suggesting their unapproved GM wheat in Oregon was a result of sabotage, and not negligence (or intentional contamination) on their part.

According to the Spokesman Review, “The agency [FBI] said in a statement Thursday that about 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed on June 8, and more than 5,000 plants were destroyed on a different plot three nights later.”

The article went on to explain that the plants were owned by the Swiss-based
biotech company Sygenta, and that the FBI spokewoman, Beth Anne Steele, would not comment on the manner in which the crops were destroyed “…because we don’t want to encourage copycats.”  However, an article published on OregonLive.com demystified the FBI’s account, quoting Paul Minehart, head of corporate communications in North America for Syngenta: “It doesn’t look like a vehicle was used. It looks like people entered the field and destroyed the plants by hand.”

When multinational corporations like Monsanto have already succeeded in genetically modifying the political system, splicing in their ex-executives and ex-lawyers into positions of great power within the government [see image (BELOW)], how can folks rely on these Monsanto, Dow and Sygenta-influenced regulatory agencies, and the enforcement arms within their control, to make decisions in the interest of their health or basic civil rights?

Some resort to pulling up, burning and otherwise destroying the plants themselves. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? And if you answer affirmatively to the latter definition, will you yourself be defined as sympathizers to these “economic saboteurs,” or terrorists?

Monsanto Government Collusion

(To see the image,  please go to the URL http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-fbi-calls-destruction-gmo-sugar-beets-oregon-economic-sabotage )

 

MAM bookmark

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health  No Responses »
Jun 222013
 

Click on:   MAM bookmark Jun2013  (copy on card stock, gives 5 per page)

ALSO:  please spread the word to people you know in Saskatchewan.  Many thanks!

Upcoming MAM meetings in west and southwest as follows:

JUNE

23rd                                     Sunday

3:00 pm              LLOYDMINSTER

LOCATION:  Louis Family Restaurant

4311-44th Street (on 54th and Highway 16 – at the Best Western Hotel)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

24th                      Monday

10:00 am            LUSELAND (with people coming from Kerrobert)

Location:  Luseland Museum on Main Street (Grand Ave).

 

2:30 pm           ROSETOWN

Location:  Roosters Coffee Corner, 207 Main St  (Not normally open on Monday. But the proprietor, Lynn, feels MAM is important and wants to open to host us.)

 

7:30 pm            SWIFT CURRENT

Location:  Modern Family Restaurant

49 Central Ave N

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

25th                      Tuesday

2:30 pm            SHAUNAVON

Location:  Historic Shaunavon Hotel, 189 Centre St,  (south end of town)

 

7:00 pm            ASSINIBOIA

Location:   Nash’s Restaurant & Lounge

401A 1st Avenue West

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

26th                      Wednesday

10:00 am            GRAVELBOURG

Location:  Café Paris, on Main Street.  (Toos, the owner of the Café is a terrific advocate for our community.)

 

2:30 pm            MOOSE JAW

Location:    Moose Jaw Public Library, Herb Taylor Room

461 Langdon Crescent

Directions:  From the corner of Main Street and Athabasca Street East, go one block east on Athabasca Street. The library is in Crescent Park, kitty corner to a stone church and across the street from the funeral home. The entrance faces west.

6:00 pm            REGINA

Location:  Atlantis Coffee House

1992 Hamilton St, corner with Victoria

Allies for MAM, don’t you think?! Monsanto rBGH: video, Fox news reporters fired. (Health Canada whistleblower scientists were also fired eventually.)

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health  No Responses »
Jun 202013
 

Older but important stories.

5 professionals (below), all doing their jobs, fired because they raised questions about Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone.

We followed the shattering attacks on four other scientists: Ignacio Chapela, Tyrone Hayes, John Losey and then Arpad Pusztai who also suffered greatly at the hands of Monsanto.  See 2004-01-11 Biotech critics at risk, San Francisco Chronicle. Scientists attacked. Corruption of science by corporate interests.

We’ve discussed organic farmers whose families received visits by the RCMP, sent by Monsanto – – intimidation tactics.  The list of aggrieved persons is very long.

(Click on the category “Genetically Modified” and scroll through the thumbnail sketches to get a sense.  I did that.  And am now thinking . .  hmmm  ..  if contacted, there are large organizations (the American Rice Growers, just one example) who have a big reason to become active in the March Against Monsanto.  . . .  We have work to do!)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –  – –

BACK TO “THE 5”:

John writes:  An interesting video that I stumbled upon. Good to know at least the officials in Canada are doing their job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0&feature=youtu.be

Monsanto & Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES REPORTERS.   Uploaded on Sep 10, 2008

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

My reply to John:

Excellent video!  (Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, reporters fired by Fox News)

(1)    BUT!   Re your statement:  Good to know at least the officials in Canada are doing their job.

The irony is that two of the three were eventually fired, too!  Citizens lobbied hard on behalf of the scientists, but to no avail.  It is another sad story.

Shiv Chopra, one of the Canadian whistleblowers, appears briefly in the youtube you sent  (preceding link).  I have been in contact with him on and off over the years and read the book that Shiv eventually wrote about his experience in Health Canada.

The firing of the Canadian whistleblowers is at:  2004-07-20 Monsanto’s attempted bribery, Firing of Health Canada scientists  

 (INSERT:  CORRECTING THE RECORD:

John’s statement about the Canadian whistleblowers gives credit to Health Canada which is not deserved.  I emailed Jane Akre (see the youtube: she was fired by Fox News).  Does she know that the Canadian officials were eventually fired?   Jane replied:  no, she did not know.  I contacted Shiv. Correspondence with Jane is in progress.)

(2)   The video is more powerful – but it’s interesting to read the written version we circulated:   see 1998-04-02  Monsanto and Fox TV Unite to Suppress Journalists’ Free Speech on Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST)

= = = = = = = = =

SO!  there’s a beginning to the stories of people and organizations who have been harmed by Monsanto.   Allies, don’t ya think?!   IF you have a phone package, maybe you would like to contact some organizations?!

(Next big global day: Oct 12, 2013 – Thanksgiving Saturday if you’re Canadian!)

MAM: The effects of industrialized agriculture on “place”. A view from the ground. PLUS

 Economy / Political Economy, Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jun 192013
 

CONTENTS  

  • Marianne Williamson has a strong message for women (#6).  It’s actually what Tami Canal is doing (#1).
  • MAM is March Against Monsanto.

 

1.       TAMI CANAL, THE FOUNDER OF MAM.  A MOTHER OF YOUNG CHILDREN, FIRST-TIME ACTIVIST.

2.       WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMEONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN MAM?  (a MAMA!)

3.       URBAN AND RURAL MAMA’S, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. 

4.       GIFT from a rural (male!) MAMA:  The effects of industrialized agriculture on “place”. A view from the ground.

A  local person describes the same process at work in Canada as George Monbiot describes in  Corporate Carve-Up of Africa.   (land and resources in Africa / land and resources in Canada). 

Canadians should wake up.  . . .

5.  MAM: Mystery solved!

WHY, in B.C. are there so many SMALLER communities (e.g. Comox, Terrace, Castlegar) that have MAM’s set up?  Raoul Bedi provides the answer …  BC is on a roll now with municipal GMO bans  

6.  AND NOW!  Marianne Williamson talks to the MAMA’s!   I think this is important.

Stand Up, Speak Out!: Marianne Williamson at TEDx Traverse City

7.  SASKATCHEWAN MAM MEETINGS NEXT WEEK.  PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD (Lloydminster, Luseland/Kerrobert, Rosetown, Swift Current, Shaunavon, Assiniboia, Gravelbourg, Moose Jaw)

See lower part of March Against Monsanto (MAM): Saskatchewan challenges Ontario!

= = = = = = = = = = = =  = = =  = = =

1.       TAMI CANAL, THE FOUNDER OF MAM.  A MOTHER OF YOUNG CHILDREN, FIRST-TIME ACTIVIST.

Wikipedia: March Against Monsanto

“ . . .  formed by Tami Monroe Canal, a “stay-at-home mom” from Farmington, Utah. A first-time activist, Canal credits her “motherly inclinations”, saying that where the health of her children is concerned, it “didn’t take much” for her to get involved.[7][8] The movement was spurred by Canal’s frustration over the failure of California proposition 37 which would have required companies to label genetically engineered food. Canal first promoted the concept via Facebook on Feb 28th, 2013, with a statement that read: “For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism…Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.”[4] By May 21st, the Facebook page had attracted 85,000 members.[9] Canal worked with activists Emilie Rensink and Nick Bernabe utilizing various social media sites to promote the march online. Two days before the group held their protest, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.[4] . . .  More (e.g. the Issues behind MAM):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Against_Monsanto

= = = = = = = = = = = =  = = =  = = =

2.        WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMEONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN MAM?  (a MAMA!)

How about this?  Because so many of the mobilizers are young Mothers and young Women like Tami Canal, someone who is involved in a MAM is a MAMA?!   (Men who want to be MAMA’s are greeted with open arms!)

= = = = = = = = = = = =  = = =  = = =

3.       URBAN AND RURAL MAMA’S, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

  • One agricultural community calls people to “Prevent Cancer NOW”, not to a March Against Monsanto.  Safer.
  • For some urban MAMA’s  it’s more about labelling – “GMO, we have a right to know”.
  • The young mothers who are the drivers behind many of the MAM’s come with a focus on the health consequences for their children, of eating GMO food.

There is an unrepresented perspective.  One I find painful.  And so we have  A gift from a rural MAMA: The effects of industrialized agriculture on “place”.  A view from the ground.

 

2013-06-18 MAM: the effects of industrialized agriculture on “place”. A view from the ground.

 Economy / Political Economy, Food, Genetically Modified, Sustainability, Technology  No Responses »
Jun 182013
 

A  local person describes the same process at work in Canada as George Monbiot describes in  Corporate Carve-Up of Africa.   (land and resources in Africa / land and resources in Canada)

Canadians should wake up.  And we should share information with friends in Africa.

REQUEST:  if anyone knows, or will research to find, the date and how the rules on foreign ownership of land in Saskatchewan were gutted, please let me know.  Thanks.

– – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – –

THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE ON “PLACE”. 

A VIEW FROM THE GROUND.

This south central part of the province is in what is called the brown zone. In and around this area you’ll find the highest concentration of farmland in the province.

The farms are huge and getting bigger every day.

We still have a few smaller farmers in the 50 – 65 age group but they are dropping quickly because of investors from Alberta and beyond, speculating on land. These investors are making offers you can’t refuse.

Saskatchewan has traditionally had cheap farm land compared to Alberta so this is the new frontier. (I call them speculators because they don’t have any connection with the community or the land. It’s all about mining the soil until the price is right to sell again.)

Once an investor gobbles up several sections of land they then contract the farming part to a company from outside the area. (Investors vary from Chinese, Mennonite from Mexico, Alberta, etc.)

The old farm sites are cleared and all the trees pulled out. Where at one time you at least saw the remnants of an old farm yard, today you have open field — a strange feeling.  Big equipment doesn’t like to run around shelterbelts either, so they are pulled up and destroyed to allow for GPS-run farm equipment. Of course the continuous cropping means you don’t really need the shelterbelts anymore since blowing soil is no longer an issue.

Nonetheless it turns the land into a rather stack place. Equipment is amazing. All it takes to seed Saskatchewan is about three weeks of good weather. When my father was seeding his farm (1950s – 60s) it took much longer using small equipment. Corporate farmers will seed more in one day than 10 farmers could in a season 40 years ago. Technology is impressive.

Young farmers are now told that in order to survive you have to get big.

So naturally they will do what is necessary to gobble up the neighbour.

If you don’t, then the other guy will and you’ll be squeezed out. The pressure is intense. Equpment now is running into the millions of dollars. Equipment dealers don’t sell small equipment anymore. You have to farm a lot of land to pay for equipment and survive… it’s a vicious circle.

I interviewed a credit union manager several months ago.

Off camera he told me that the large land investors are problematic. He said they don’t use any services in the community (financial or otherwise) and even haul out the grain they harvest (talk about inefficient efficiency). Several more of these acquisitions and he said they’ll be in trouble. Small towns are still losing population unless you happen to be next to a potash mine or an oil field.

These big farmers and local corporate entities love their chemicals. You simply can’t farm that much land without the heavy use of chemicals. I think in this south central area you would be hard pressed to find any farmer interested in banning Monsanto. Monsanto is their key to successfully mining the soil. We do have organic growers but they simply aren’t a factor right now and they aren’t winning the battle. The conventional big and corporate farmer doesn’t care about what happens to their crops or what they do to produce it. It’s all about cash flow and volume. Farmers use a credit card to buy their chemicals and they accumulate enough points to spend a month in a resort down south every winter. Try taking that from them as they drive around in $100,000 trucks and cars.

As you see the system is not in our favour to march against Monsanto.

Just some of my musings… o

PS – I hope this doesn’t sound too pessimistic. That isn’t my intent.

Like others I hold out hope that eventually common sense will prevail.

Unfortunately it will take a crash before this is corrected and many will be affected by that. It will probably not happen in my lifetime.

MAM: Mystery solved!

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jun 172013
 

RE:  THE CHALLENGE!

Saskatchewan is going to surpass the number of MAM’s in

  • Alberta (6), then
  • B.C. (14) and
  • Ontario (15).

 

WHY, in B.C. are there so many SMALLER communities (e.g. Comox, Terrace, Castlegar) that have Marches Against Monsanto (MAM’s) set up ?

It didn’t make sense.  In other provinces the MAM’s are mostly in the larger urban centres (Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, St John’s).

MYSTERY SOLVED!

Many thanks to Raoul Bedi:

BC is on a roll now with municipal GMO bans and this can and will be replicated . . .

We have a www.ubcm.ca municipal wide vote on September 16, 2013. So far 62 municipalities are on board . . . . I think BC has 170 municipalities…

EXCERPT from one of many very good articles by Raoul  (but I encourage you to go the link, there’s great information):

Food Revolution Summit — Vandana Shiva interviewed by John Robbins

By Raoul Bedi

. . .   The second major development occurred on April 13, 2013, in Sooke on Vancouver island, when AVICC (the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities) voted unanimously to ban GMOs. It had taken almost 10 years for selfless people, like April Reeves and Tony Beck of GEFREEBC, to work for the establishment of 14 municipal bans across BC.  All of a sudden on April 13, at the annual AVICC meeting and vote on joint policy, 51 island municipalities voted in unison, all in one fell swoop, to ban GMO’s in their respective municipalities! This represents an almost exponential increase in numbers.

The next step is to forward the same anti-GMO resolution to the UBCM (The Union of BC Municipalities) for a province-wide vote on September 16, 2013. Citizens of the different municipalities in BC are encouraged to educate their local town mayors and councillors as much as possible about the issues (www.cban.ca or Facebook: GMO free Canada). Let us hope that the federal government begins to take note of this sea tide change in public opinion.

Building on this successful BC model, Alberta local food activists,  Harvest Haven, April Reeves and Wendy Schroeder and others, are working diligently to increase GMO awareness, with the possible end result being the creation of  an equivalent ‘GMO FREE ALBERTA’ advocacy group.  . . . 

2013-06-19 Updated: GPS vs Govt of Sask re Refund of Election Deposits

 Green Party  No Responses »
Jun 172013
 

NOTE:

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

JUNE 17th followed by June 19th UPDATES

Note:    My reaction (below) to the information sent by the Attorney General of Sask to lawyer Peter Rosenthal documents the disingenuous nature of the AG’s communication.   It is abhorrent to me that this is Saskatchewan’s Justice Dept.

 

Peter Rosenthal writes:

Mon 17/06/2013 8:23 AM

Sandra, I wrote again to the Minister. This morning I got the attached response.

Election Dep AG to Rosenthal Jun 2013

– – – – – – – – – –

MY REACTION: 

The AG says wait for the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.

TWO things:

1.    Elections Sask has already recommended to the Govt on April 30th, 2009 that the Elections Act be changed.

If challenged in court, Saskatchewan’s nomination deposit, that is contingent upon the election outcome, would likely be found to violate Charter rights and therefore should be changed. ….   “

2.    The AG says that Elections Sask will present its recommendations “in the spring”.

The letter does not have a date on it.  But the lawyer (Peter) received it today June 17.   The spring 2013 sitting is past.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

DETAIL RE:  Elections Sask has already recommended to the Legislature that the legislation be changed (2009):

2011-07-21 Green Party Sask legal action, Govt of Sask: Refund of Election deposits. Law is unconstitutional. 3 years and no action.

EXCERPT:

ELECTIONS SASKATCHEWAN RECOMMENDATION TO THE SASK LEGISLATURE, APRIL 30, 2009, RE REFUND OF DEPOSITS

From Elections Saskatchewan, cover letter addressed to Saskatchewan Legislature, Speaker Don Toth,  dated April 30, 2009.   The enclosed “Report of the Chief Electoral Officer, Volume III,  Recommendations for Changes to The Elections Act 1996, Twenth-sixth Provincial General Election,  November 7, 2007

Page 34:   “2. Handling and Forfeiture of Deposits [Section 47]

Background:

Currently a Returning Officer shall return a candidate’s deposit if the candidate is elected or if the candidate obtains at least 50% of the number of valid votes cast in favour of the candidate elected.

In Figuera v. Attorney General of Canada (1999), the judge struck down as contrary to section 3 of The Charter, federal legislation that required a candidate for election to Parliament to pay a $500 deposit that was refundable if the candidate received 15% of the vote.

In October 2007, in De Jong v. Attorney General of Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court struck down a provision in the Election Act which required candidates to forfeit their $200 nomination deposits if they receive less than 10% of the vote. The provision was stuck down on the grounds that it violates the right to vote guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Attorney General of Ontario has not appealed the case.

Currently in Alberta the nomination deposit is $500.00. Half of the nomination deposit is refunded to the candidate’s campaign if the candidate is elected or if they receive at least half as many votes as the winning candidate. The other half of the nomination deposit is refunded if the candidate’s campaign financial statement is filed on time. Elections Alberta has recommended that the portion of the nomination deposit that is contingent upon the election outcome be eliminated. Canada, Northwest Territories and Nunavut return the entire candidate’s deposit if the business manager or candidate submits the candidate’s financial return on time.

If challenged in court, Saskatchewan’s nomination deposit, that is contingent upon the election outcome, would likely be found to violate Charter rights and therefore should be changed. ….   ”

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

JUNE 19, 2013  UPDATE

———- Forwarded message ———-

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:47:29 -0400 (EDT)

From: Peter Rosenthal

To: Minister JU <jus.minister@gov.sk.ca>

Cc: “McGovern, Darcy JU”

Subject: RE: constitutional question for Minister of Justice

 

Further re below: I have just been informed that your Chief Electoral Officer said in his report of 2009:

 

If challenged in court, Saskatchewan’s nomination deposit,

that is contingent upon the election outcome, would likely be

found to violate Charter rights and therefore should be changed.

 

In support of that proposition, the Chief Electoral Officer  cited the cases that I referred you to (Figueroa and de Jong) in which I represented applicants who succeeded in striking down corresponding provisions in the Canada and Ontario elections acts.  Why are you waiting for another report before acting?

This would strengthen our case for damages if you fail to amend the statute.

 

Please answer the questions below very soon and please also give me a target date by which you will decide whether or not to amend the statute. My clients are anxious to ensure that the provision is changed before your next election and, given the time that constitutional applications take to be heard, we will have to file an application soon if you do not commit to changing the statute.

 

Thanks.

 

Peter Rosenthal

 

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Peter Rosenthal wrote:

 

> I was able to open the attachment; thanks.

> The letter attached is undated; when was it written?

> It states that the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report will be tabled in

> the spring; does that mean within a week from now?

> May I request that you email me  me a copy of (or a link to) the Chief

> Electoral Officer’s Report when it is tabled?

> Thanks very much.  Sincerely, Peter Rosenthal

>

>

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries