http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/19-4
‘Risks of tar sands oil and the threats of dangerous climate change have only become clearer’
– Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
Please go to the link. Thanks!
Jun 202013
Sandra Finley
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. . . .
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.
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.
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. . . .
Jun 172013
NOTE:
- Links to BACKGROUND and preceding email thread (June), see: 2013-06-16 Update Green Party Sask (GPS) vs Govt of Sask: Refund of Election deposits. Law is unconstitutional
- For “Next” developments, click on “Green Party” under the Categories in right-hand sidebar.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
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):
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
>
>
Jun 162013
NOTE: There are updates beyond this. Click on “Green Party” under categories. In particular, see (2014-04-14) Yeeeay! End of six-year battle, unconstitutionality of Election Deposits
Refund of Election Deposits:
- December 18, 2007: First letter from Green Party to Saskatchewan Attorney General. See 2011-07-21 Green Party Sask legal action, Govt of Sask: Refund of Election deposits. Law is unconstitutional. 3 years and no action.
- September 21, 2012: Lawyer Peter Rosenthal writes the Attorney General of Saskatchewan on behalf of the GPS.
Rosenthal to AG Sask Election Deposits 2012
The following email thread records the effort to obtain a substantive reply from the Attorney General (Sask), Gordon Wyant.
———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:35:42 -0600
From: “McGovern, Darcy JU”
To: Peter Rosenthal
Cc: “Cherkewich, Dawn JU”
Subject: RE: constitutional question for Minister of Justice
Dear Mr. Rosenthal:
Thank you for your e-mail on behalf of your client, the Green Party of Canada. I have asked for instructions from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General with respect to your inquiry and I am advised that he will be responding to you directly with respect to this matter.
Darcy McGovern
Director, Legislative Services
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail (and any attachment) was intended for a specific recipient. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. Any privilege that exists is not waived.
If you are not the intended recipient:
* do not copy it, distribute it to another person or use it for any other purpose; and
* please delete it and advise me by return e-mail or telephone.
Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Peter Rosenthal
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:05 AM
To: Cherkewich, Dawn JU
Cc: McGovern, Darcy JU
Subject: RE: consitutional question for Mnister of Justice
Dear Mr. McGovern,
As per below, I am writing to you with respect to the emails and faxes I sent concerning the deposit provisions of your elections act. The response I got suggests that my request will be considered but implies that there is no urgency since there will not be an election for a couple of years.
On the other hand, court proceedings take time. The Green Party doe not wish to face another election with what they regard as the unconstitutional provisions in place.
Is there a realistic possibility that you will amend the act without the necessity of court proceedings?
Can you give me an idea of when you will seriously consider the request that you amend the elections act?
I would greatly appreciate your early reply. Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
Peter Rosenthal
Barrister
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Cherkewich, Dawn JU wrote:
> Hello Mr. Rosenthal,
> Attached is a copy of the response letter from the Ministry of Justice. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Darcy McGovern, Director, Public Law, Ministry of Justice, at Darcy.McGovern AT gov.sk.ca.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dawn M. Cherkewich
> Senior Assistant to the
> Honourable Gordon S. Wyant, Q.C.
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Peter Rosenthal
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 6:47 AM
> To: Cherkewich, Dawn JU
> Subject: consitutional question for Mnister of Justice
>
> Hi,
> You kindly acknowledged receipt of the attached fax on September 24, 2012.
> Do you have any idea when I might get a substantive response? I’d appreciate any information. Thanks very much.
>
> Peter Rosenthal
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Peter Rosenthal
> To: minister.justice@gov.sk.ca
> Subject: consitutional question for Mnister of Justice
>
> Hi,
> Attached please find a fax (including cover sheets) that I faxed to the Minister of Justice yesterday. I am also emailing this copy, as I want to make sure that it gets to the attention of someone in the Ministry who will properly consider it.
> I would greatly appreciate your early acknowledgment of receipt of this.
> Thanks very much. Sincerely,
> Peter Rosenthal
> Barrister and solicitor
Jun 152013
There are 45 facebook groups in Canada on the official March Against Monsanto (MAM) blog.
Ontario has the most, 15.
BUT! Saskatchewan (2 groups) is on the move! We will report back to you as soon as SASKATCHEWAN has more MAM groups that any other province. It won`t take us long!
We challenge you (Ontario) to maintain your lead!
At June 15, 2013 ( http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/blog-page.html):
NUMBER OF MAM GROUPS:
- Alberta (6)
- B.C. (14)
- Manitoba (1)
- New Brunswick (1)
- Newfoundland & Labrador (2)
- Nova Scotia (1)
- Ontario (15)
- Quebec (3)
- Saskatchewan (2)
- Yukon Territories (0)
- Northwest Territories (0)
- Nunavut (0)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
FOR SASKATCHEWAN (No peeking, if you`re not from Sask!)
Tell all your friends! Here is what is known:
MAM organizing meetings (9 new ones!) as follows, with more to come.
Don`t wait for MAM to come to you.
If there isn`t one in your community, it`s easy to set one up!
The official MAM blog:
Event and Media Resources for 5/25/13. Find Local Info and Content and Add Info and Content Here
Or contact one of the MAM facebook groups, Or myself (sabest1 AT sasktel.net), Or anyone else – – there`s lots of help.
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
Jun 152013
Insights into society and human behaviour.
When time permits I will transcribe some of this.
http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/06/11/joni-mitchell-portrait-of-an-artist/
(If I wait long enough, maybe someone ELSE will transcribe it and I can just plunk it in here!)
Oh DEAR! http://www.thestarphoenix.com/travel/Mitchell+pull+collection+from+city/8530348/story.html Mitchell may pull collection from city, Singer tired of waiting
By Charles Hamilton, The StarPhoenix June 15, 2013
Jun 142013
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/14/g8-tax-evasion-stephen-harper_n_3437802.html
The amount of money hidden from Canada’s tax collector has reached a record $170 billion, by one estimate, but critics of the Harper government say the prime minister is doing nothing about tax evasion — and is even blocking international efforts at combating the problem.
Offshore tax havens will be one of the major subjects of the upcoming G8 conference in Northern Ireland, where British Prime Minister David Cameron is spearheading an effort for an international tax evasion agreement.
The proposed deal would allow governments to share “beneficial ownership information” about suspected tax cheats — information that can reveal who the real owners are of offshore accounts and dummy corporations.
“Harper is worried about exposing private Canadian tax affairs and fears complications arising from Canada’s federal structure,” The Guardian reported on Thursday.
France, Germany and Italy are reportedly backing the plan, but Canada is not the only G8 member to have doubts about it. Russia is reportedly objecting to the measure, and U.S. President Barack Obama’s position is unclear. (Obama is also under political pressure to back a deal.)
The U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Italy (Link no longer valid) have already signed on to a pilot project to share information related to potential tax evasion.
The Harper government is also reportedly (Link no longer valid) resisting efforts for a deal that would see countries set up tax information exchanges to better track tax cheats across borders, Postmedia News reports.
The proposal would see governments collect data on income from foreign sources, and then report that back to the foreign country in question, so that tax records could be compared.
Harper’s communications director, Andrew MacDougall, said the government is “broadly supportive” of Cameron’s agenda.
“We do support more action,” he said, as quoted at Postmedia.
The opposition NDP criticized the government this week for “becoming an international obstacle to tackling tax havens.”
NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar accused the Harper government of “choos[ing] to protect those who use international tax havens to evade paying their taxes.”
The move “fits a pattern of behavior from a Conservative government that has repeatedly undermined efforts to reach a multilateral consensus on important issues facing the world,” he added, as quoted at iPolitics.
“Instead of focusing on exposing tax havens and catching tax cheats, the Conservatives have slashed the Canada Revenue Agency’s investigative resources and staff,” NDP National Revenue critic Murray Rankin said in a statement.
The Harper government eliminated hundreds of jobs and slashed $250 million from the budget of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) over the next few years as part of its most recent budget.
A series of investigative reports from the CBC this week alleged that the CRA missed out on an opportunity to pursue Canadians listed in the world’s biggest leak of tax cheat data, and has been artificially inflating its numbers on prosecution of people using offshore tax havens.
A (Link no longer valid) leak of tax data last April reportedly included the names of 450 Canadians using offshore tax havens, but months before the leak the CRA was given the opportunity to obtain the names, sources told the CBC. The CRA refused because of a policy not to pay for information.
According to activist group Canadians for Tax Fairness, offshore tax havens are costing Canada some $7.8 billion in revenue annually, money that has to be made up for with higher tax rates for those who do pay.
Canadians for Tax Fairness has partnered with Oxfam Canada and Avaaz.org to pressure Harper to sign on to the tax proposals.
“These two measures are key to lifting the veil of secrecy that allows wealthy individuals and corporate tax evaders and criminal organizations to hide their wealth offshore,” the group said in a statement this week.
A study last year estimated that there is between $21 trillion and $32 trillion stashed away in offshore tax havens.
Jun 132013
2013-05-30 Prisciak to Laliberte
Copies of Formal Charges by Law Society against Froese and Hesje (May 13, 2013)
Cover letter:
