Sandra Finley

2011-04-06 How Senate can provide input to selection of next president

 Knowledge Base  No Responses »
Apr 062011
 

From: Calver, Sandra
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Items for Senate Executive Committee consideration

Sent on behalf of the Chancellor,

Dear Mary Jean,

 Thank you for taking the time to bring forward the items below.  At our recent Senate Executive Committee meeting, members had the opportunity to discuss your suggestions, and a brief summary response follows below.  Please also feel free to approach me at our spring meeting if you have any questions or additional thoughts—I would be interested to know your reaction to the reconfigured meeting space. 

From: Mary Jean Hande     Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 2:52 AM
To: McBain, Norma
Subject: Items for Senate Executive Committee consideration

Thank you Norma,

Please find below my proposed agenda item:

1) Upcoming Presidential Selection

  • I propose that the Senate be advised on how it may provide input into the selection of the next UofS president. 

At the spring meeting, you will see that Nancy Hopkins, Chair of the Board of Governors and Chair of the Presidential Search Committee has assured members of Senate that they will be consulted regarding the University’s strategic needs as they relate to the presidency, which will then inform the search committee’s consideration of candidates.  In addition, a member of Senate will serve on the Presidential Search Committee to represent the Senate.

I would also like to suggest that the University Secretary consider the following two suggestions:

1) Modifications to the Agenda

  • For the October 16, 2010 meeting, I received the agenda less than two weeks prior to the meeting. In order for Senate members to study and comment on agenda items, I suggest that the agenda should be distributed earlier so as to give Senate members more time for review.

To facilitate the transmission of documents for Senate, the Executive agreed to transmit the agenda materials electronically to those members who wish to receive materials in this manner, and thereby bypass the wait time associated with regular mail delivery.  The consensus was, however, that two weeks was an adequate amount of time in which to review the materials and is consistent with the time frame for the receipt of materials by other committees and governing bodies, including the Board of Governors.

  • I would also like to suggest that clear deadlines be posted on the UofS website as to when proposed agenda items must be submitted to the Office of the University Secretary, so that they will be considered by the Senate Executive Committee in ample time prior to drafting the final agenda. As far as I know, there are none to date.

Primarily, items are referred to the Senate Executive Committee by other committees of Senate or by the University Secretary, and therefore it is somewhat unusual to have items submitted from individual Senate members.  Senate Executive generally meets three weeks in advance of Senate to approve the agenda for the meeting and consider any other business, and so that could be considered a general guideline for submission.  Items from individual members could be submitted at any time of the year, and will be held by the University Secretary to bring forward to the Executive’s attention.

2) Meeting Room and/or Space

  • Discussion of the physical layout of the Senate hall during meetings. October 16, 2010 was my first Senate meeting. I was slightly taken aback at the hierarchal and confrontational nature of the meeting. To ensure a participatory environment, I suggest that “meeting-in-the-round” might be an effective way of creating a space in which everyone feels equally respected, represented and “heard”. This might include a discussion of the actual room in which we hold senate meetings or simply the physical arrangement of the seating.

To accommodate this suggestion, which was viewed positively by members, our room set-up for the next meeting will not be a meeting-in-the-round, but will attempt to bring all members closer to the podium to reduce the sense of hierarchy some members may feel is present.  At the same time, we are a formal governing body, and meetings will continue to be conducted formally.

Thanks for your for giving these your consideration,

Mary Jean

Mary Jean, thank you once again for sharing your thoughts and for our engagement as a Senator.  I look forward to seeing you at our spring meeting!

Kind regards,

Vera Pezer, Ph.D.

Chancellor and Chair of Senate

2011-04-05 UPDATED/CORRECTED Canada to forge ahead with genetically modified wheat, Vancouver Sun

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Apr 052011
 

For on-going information on this topic, please go to “Categories” on the sidebar of www.sandrafinley.ca 

  • Genetically Modified
  • Food
  • Corporatocracy or democracy?

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

Many thanks to Eduard for initiating action to correct. 

The article from the Vancouver Sun is about the National Research Council (NRC) “forging ahead with GM wheat”.    Two corrections:

  • See   “Apparently today the NRC issued a statement saying that they are not trying to develop GM wheat.”
  • There is one spokesperson named in the article,  Maureen Fitzhenry.  But she is NOT the spokesperson for the NRC.  Maureen is with the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).   I just hung up the phone from talking with Maureen, to apologize for the mistake.   She was appreciative of the call.  It was an opportunity to provide further input.

Many thanks to Stewart Wells, past President of the NFU and now board member of the CWB, for his input:

From: Stewart Wells
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: Canada to forge ahead with genetically modified wheat

Hi Ed and Sandra, thanks for copying me with the emails.  I have been making some enquiries.

Cathy Holtslander at the NFU office has been trying to track down the reporter that broke the story with no luck.

Apparently today the NRC issued a statement saying that they are not trying to develop GM wheat.

And the comment used from Maureen Fitzhenry was chopped up and incomplete.  Maureen was in no way changing the CWB position which is still the rejection of GM wheat on the basis of market harm.  And Ian White did an interview yesterday with Reuters that re-affirmed the CWB’s old position, but the story has not appeared as yet.

I’m not sure if you saw the article from last week, but the Premier of Western Australia also rejected the introduction of GM wheat on the basis of market harm—that is very good news when our competitors take that stand. 

All for now, Stewart Wells

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

Input from Ken,

I doubt that Maureen Fitzhenry would make those comments.  should you wish to contact her she is at…

Ian White’s letter talks about tolerances and segregation, a major weakness of the CWB position.  Both are impossible.

(Sandra speaking:  that lesson has been learned so well from RR canola and from Triffid flax.  How can they continue the rhetoric?  I agree completely.  Acceptable levels of contamination (tolerance) and segregation are impossible.  More “stupid intelligence”.)

= = = = = =  = = = == = = = ==

Canada to forge ahead with genetically modified wheat, Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Canada+forge+ahead+with+genetically+modified+wheat/4550845/story.html                           

By Tom Spears, Postmedia NewsApril 5, 2011 10:25 AM 

The National Research Council plans to develop genetically modified wheat in Canada — a measure long resisted by the country’s wheat farmers.

The NRC says Canadian wheat farmers are becoming less productive and need to adapt, especially in the face of climate change. It suggests GM wheat as a solution.

In the past week, senior NRC management has been unveiling its long-term strategy to its researchers and other staff. The goal, says a leaked copy of the plan, is to become a “market-driven organization whose primary goal is to develop and deploy technology.”

And it says building better wheat is one of the top goals.

Canada is “losing global market share for our exports,” it says. “Our annual productivity is ranked last against other top producing countries.” As demand rises, “climate change is impacting our agricultural production.”

The document outlines how transgenic wheat could produce new hybrids that will be “a game changer.” (Transgenic organisms have DNA modified through genetic engineering techniques, to create a desirable trait such as resistance to disease.)

But the document warns that a “huge effort” will be necessary to decode all the genetic material in wheat and to learn what traits can be manipulated in the lab.

The Canadian Wheat Board, which represents growers, has opposed GM wheat for years only because it is difficult to sell in Asia and Europe. And it disputes the view of its growers as unproductive. But it does welcome the offer to decode the DNA of wheat.

Spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry said that “mapping the wheat genome is a worthwhile goal that does not necessarily mean GM varieties. It would be good for plant breeding in all senses.”

And she said the board is pleased that the NRC promises to let the marketplace “define the need for and acceptance of the technologies.”

MORE:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Canada+forge+ahead+with+genetically+modified+wheat/4550845/story.html

2011-04-04 How to Raise Your $500. Corporate Tax Cuts Canada, tips on how you can pay your share of Harper’s $6 billion corporate tax cut.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  No Responses »
Apr 042011
 

How to Raise Your $500.  Corporate Tax Cuts Canada, tips on how you can pay your share of Harper’s $6 billion corporate tax cut.  

You have to love this one!  Make sure your friends see it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aXS1w0FNjI

2011-04-02 Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s GMO patents

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 042011
 

Another break-through!   Click on “Genetically Modified” under “Categories” in the right-hand sidebar for the on-going information flow.   You’ll see the “Millions against Monsanto” update, enviro-pig, the role of the Universities and Government, and the corrupting influence on democracy of big corporate money.

By Rady Ananda,  Global Research

“A new invention to poison people … is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v. Lewis, 1817

A landmark lawsuit filed on March 29 in US federal court seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seeds and to prohibit the company from suing those whose crops become genetically contaminated.

The Public Patent Foundation filed suit on behalf of 270,000 people from sixty organic and sustainable businesses and trade associations, including thousands of certified-organic farmers. In Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 11 CIV 2163), PUBPAT details the invalidity of any patent that poisons people and the environment, and that is not useful to society, two hallmarks of US patent law.

“As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint in its opening paragraphs, citing Lowell v. Lewis.

The suit points to studies citing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.

Plaintiffs condemn Monsanto for prohibiting independent research on its transgenic seeds and for its successful lobby efforts to ban GM food labeling. Many raise the specter of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

The suit also confronts the propaganda that transgenic seeds improve yield and reduce pesticide use, citing reports on failure to yield and increased pesticide use. The complaint mentions a 2010 lawsuit by West Virginia after several studies contradicted yield results claimed in Monsanto’s ads. And, it notes the growth in glyphosate-resistant superweeds.

“Thus, since the harm of transgenic seed is known, and the promises of transgenic seed’s benefits are false, transgenic seed is not useful for society.”

This means, should the court agree, that all transgenic seeds fail the test of patent law. The suit has the potential to reverse patent approval on all biotech seeds, impacting BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow, and Syngenta, and others. Genetic contamination of natural plants occurs where GM seeds are grown, no matter who developed them. Ingesting food which has had its DNA mucked with is dangerous, regardless of who does the mucking.

What makes Monsanto different is its US seed monopoly. Well documented by market authorities, Plaintiffs point out that, “Over 85-90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto’s patented genes.”

Through its monopoly, Monsanto has spiked the cost of seeds. In the past decade, corn seed prices increased 135% and soybean prices 108%, the suit asserts. As recently as 1997, soybean farmers spent only 4-8% of their income on seeds, “while in 2009, farmers who planted transgenic soybeans spent 16.4 percent of their income on seeds.”

Monsanto has also used its dominant position to limit competition from other herbicide producers, as well, the suit alleges.

Listing 23 US patents by Monsanto, Plaintiffs also accuse the firm of “double patenting” thus strengthening its monopoly over the entire field of transgenic seeds:

“Although the United States patent system allows improvements on existing inventions, it does not permit a party to extend its monopoly over a field of invention by receiving a patent that expires later than and is not patentably distinct from a patent it already owns….

“Monsanto began applying for patents on glyphosate tolerance in the mid 1980s. Its first patents on the trait were granted in 1990 and are now expired. After pursuing its earliest patents on glyphosate resistance, Monsanto continued to seek and receive patents on Roundup Ready technology for over two decades….

“In acquiring the transgenic seed patents, Monsanto unjustly extended its period of patent exclusivity by duplicating its ownership of a field of invention already covered by other Monsanto patents.”

The suit then concludes, “Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are thus invalid for violating the prohibition against double patenting.”

Genetic Contamination

Here’s the mother of all arguments, which makes the most sense to the lay public. How dare Monsanto sue farmers damaged by genetic contamination of their crops? That’s like a pugilist suing for damage to his hand after he punches an unwilling victim.

“Plaintiffs cannot be held to have infringed any Monsanto transgenic seed patent if Plaintiffs become contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed through no intentional act of their own.”

Monsanto admits that its product contaminates natural crops. That must be why it recently altered its Technology Stewardship Agreement to transfer liability for its products to the farmers who buy them.

The suit logically asserts that genetic contamination amounts to trespass on the property of those who do not want GE seeds, causing them substantial economic harm.

We saw that when Bayer’s transgenic seeds contaminated a third of the US rice supply, causing the European Union to close its market to US rice. Bayer has faced 6,000 lawsuits due to that contamination and market closure. On top of lawsuits already lost or settled, last month, Bayer lost a $137 million lawsuit by Riceland Foods. The new suit notes that, “The worldwide total economic loss due to the [2006 GM rice] contamination event was estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion.”

Impact on the Biotech Food Industry

The suit argues that because “contamination is reasonably foreseeable,” Monsanto thus loses its patent rights whenever it sells its GM seeds. This wouldn’t stop it from selling the seed, but it would allow farmers to save seeds from transgenic crops. No company can stay in business without repeat customers, especially ones that spend millions on research and development. And, because transgenic contamination is not limited to Monsanto’s seeds, all biotech seed companies would likewise face dissolution of their intellectual property rights.

Other harm from biotechnology does not stop with Monsanto’s seeds or chemicals, either. To protect the world from the biotech food industry, which extends to animals, patenting life itself should be banned. This lawsuit might take us closer to a return of that legal standard, prior to the 2001 High Court decision in J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International. In that case, Oyez explains:

“Farm Advantage filed a patent invalidity counterclaim, arguing that sexually reproducing plants, such as Pioneer’s corn plants, are not patentable subject matter within section 101. Farm Advantage maintained that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) set forth the exclusive statutory means for protecting plant life.”

The court disagreed, and thus allowed patents on sexually reproducing life forms, which extends to animals. Of note, the decision was written by ethically-challenged Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney. Thomas also refused to recuse himself from a 2010 case involving Monsanto. (Geertson Seed v Monsanto involved contamination of natural alfalfa.)

Among the plaintiffs in the PUBPAT suit is Navdanya International, headed by Dr. Vandana Shiva who has long fought biopiracy. Genetic patents “have unleashed an epidemic of the piracy of nature’s creativity and millennia of indigenous innovation,” Shiva wrote at Navdanya.

The new lawsuit couldn’t come a moment too soon, given the USDA’s recent decision to allow rice modified with human genes by Ventria Bioscience. Such approval begs the question: At what point is the line into cannibalism crossed? Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have produced several hundred “pharma crops” – food that contains vaccines against a variety of diseases. The FDA and USDA would have us ignore that this scheme fails to consider appropriate dosage specific to a person’s age, weight and medical condition, the very foundation of pharmaceutical science.

The biotech industry is out of control, and poses a significant danger to humans and the environment. PUBPAT’s lawsuit marks a significant step toward restoring a safe, sane and consensual food supply.

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24103

2011-04-04 Promotional video: creative genius to destroy the minds of young army recruits.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Apr 042011
 

Video:  “Realistic” training for war.   This passes as normal and desirable.   After this training, these young people will never again be “Normal”.

Humor is the cure for distress!  What a great Promo video to Help convince the Canadian public – – YEEE-ES!   We NEED F-35 stealth bombers!!

              <http://tinyurl.com/2e5pmme>

It is the people at the heads of nations who are doing this.  Brain-washing violence.  It is aberrant behaviour. 

It is wonderful that people today are traveling.   When you know “the other” you come to understand that they are like us, with the same desires for their families.  If we cannot stop the mentality displayed in this video, here in “the West”, how can we expect other people in other parts of the world to stop their violence?  Violence begets violence.    NOBODY, except tax-payers, makes this possible. 

Thank Goodness we are in the process of throwing off our “cowardice and servility”.   Send this to someone who isn’t in our networks. 

Thanks to Denis:

I have heard talk about 29 Palms and the realistic training conducted there, but this is the first video that I have ever seen showing what the guys actually go through. Most Marines and soldiers go to 29 palms before going to Iraq or Afghanistan.  I wonder if our Canadian soldiers get the same training.

(INSERT:  see the Canada First Defence Strategy, June 2008.  We now have “inter-operability” with the Americans.)

Training-in-advance beats on-the-job-training where you could lose your life getting trained.   

(INSERT:  Some young men who are returned wish they HAD lost their life.  It would be better than what they are left with after the experience.) 

_________________________________________________

Combat Training at the USMC 29 Palms training facility, San Diego

               At 29 Palms, upwards of 900 actors at a time are used,
some of whom are Afghan Americans. Training IEDs are used and wounds are
graphically simulated. There are even actors with amputated limbs who
portray injured Marines. The training is extremely realistic.              When completed, the training facility will have in excess
of 1,200 buildings and will be larger than 29 Palms itself. It’s quite
different from when training consisted of crawling under barb-wire with
machine gun fire overhead and thrusting a bayonet into a make-believe
enemy.              WARNING: The scenes are quite graphic.              <http://tinyurl.com/2e5pmme>

2011-04-30 REAL issues! We need to deal with them!

 Climate, Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Green Party, Nuclear  No Responses »
Apr 042011
 

If you believe  . . .   that it is important to find solutions to issues listed below,  please consider voting  Green,  and if you live in Saskatoon-Humboldt,  my name is Sandra Finley!

Hi John, 

I am excited – – there is an excellent chance that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, will be elected!  History-in-the-making!  And maybe environmental sanity to go with it.

The threat to democracy has mobilized people to vote.

34% more Canadians voted in the advance polls than before.  People are having fun being part of the movement!

 I can do my part by tabling the real issues.   But it is not the usual way of doing “politics”! 

I am campaigning on important issues, as I see them (below).  

 It is a test of whether, as a community, we are ready to move out of adolescence into maturity.  Mature people take responsibility.  They do their best with the tools available to them.  (We tend to offer reassurances – security and comfort –  to children.) 

Maturity is also about losing our fear.    Working with each other is empowering;  it is a way of losing our fear.  

We are in the middle of a huge wave-of-change in the way we collectively see ourselves and our connections to the rest of the world.  It is a challenging but also wonderful time to be alive, the most exciting in my life-time. 

As you know, I run an activist email network.  I believe in putting words into action. 

 /Sandra

Important issues: 

From my election brochure 

•             Corporatocracy or True Democracy? Move corporations out of Government and Universities. 

•             “Small” nuclear reactors are still reactors. I am in solidarity with the people of Japan (Fukishima). We do our part to stop the nuclear industry. After Fukishima, the world is “no” on nuclear. The Govt of Sask sent $30 million (our money) to the University earmarked for nuclear industry. Conflicts-of-interest ignored. University back-doors for industry. Nuclear reactors for Tar Sands suck up all the money. Token money for Renewable energy and conservation unless we fight for it.

•             The South Saskatchewan River is the most threatened in Canada. Don’t run the well dry. Cattle operations, each with 36,000 cattle? No.  We need a National Water Policy. (INSERT:   Click on   Science says South Sask River is most endangered in Canada) 

•             Census: “guilty” is under appeal.  Not Lockheed Martin (American military) in Canadian census. Smart, ethical economy is not an economy based on war.

•             Learn from George Bush in Saskatoon. Requested arrest. No one is above the law. Bush was not arrested. The leadership of Canada believes no one cares if they break the law. No rule of law means no Democracy. Danger zone. We have to stand up for democracy.

•             We paid down debt.  From $.37 out of every tax dollar down to $.14 for debt servicing.  In last 3 years the  Govt has piled up more than $100 billion in debt.  Nice for bankers and their friends.  Not nice for us.  I want the Green Smart economy.

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

 OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES,   RESPONSES TO EMAILS THAT HAVE COME TO ME IN MY ROLE OF CANDIDATE: 

I am particularly concerned about the first three (the others are important, but the first three affect our survival on this planet.)

2011-04-20  MS, Parkinson’s, Autism, Fibromyalgia, Cancers, Mental unhealth = one disease?   

2011-04-23  Science and logic. Depression is DETERMINANT of heart disease?… Depression and heart disease are both SYMPTOMS of poisoning. You have one, you may have the other.

2011-04-23  ONE disease, different manifestations. Proposal: “Disease” organizations form a coalition against poisons.

2011-04-23  The role of values when it comes to governing ourselves.  Cruelty to animals a case in point. 

2011-04-28  The CBC.  Media in a democracy.

2011-04-29  Policy Questions on Church-State Separation and Science from Educational Charity Centre for Inquiry

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

IMPORTANT ISSUES FROM OUR ON-GOING WORK.  

 Nobody asked about climate change.  The push for nuclear in Saskatchewan is about an energy source to heat up tar so it will flow (tar sands expansion).  It is addressed in: 

2011-04-16 Tax-payers give $30 million (or $47?) to Nuke at U of S, Nancy Hopkins Chairs U Board of Governors, is on Cameco Board, has $1.8 million in Cameco shares, Chairs Search for next President +    (Updates coming.) 

2011-04-22   The Drone-ification of America. (correction: .. of NORTH America)  

Etc.   – please go to the blog  www.sandrafinley.ca .  See “categories” in the right-hand sidebar, or other buttons.

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

There is a good chance that we are witnessing North American history-in-the-making:  the Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, is slightly ahead of incumbent Gary Lunn in the polls.

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

 You can watch a special preview (“May in Your House”—a 30-minute TV special that shares the extraordinary story of Elizabeth and the values that are the core of the Green Party.  This mini-documentary explores the practical, realistic Green Party approaches to real problems faced by Canadians: climate change, jobs, health care, education, pensions, youth unemployment, and more.)

2011-04-03 (Mercer) Rick’s Rant – Vote. How to register with Elections Canada to vote, phone 1-800-463-6868.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Green Party  No Responses »
Apr 032011
 

Three items: 

1.  RICK MERCER   Good one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgwUQTSC3I&feature=channel_video_title

 

2.  HOW TO REGISTER WITH ELECTIONS CANADA TO VOTE.   EASY AS A PHONE CALL TODAY!  1-800-463-6868

(If you are not already registered.)

Federal  Election May 2, 2011  (or vote in advance polls before May 2.) 

STUDENTS CAN VOTE IN ONE OF TWO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS:

You  vote “at home”.  You, the student, make the determination –  where is home?  where are you going to vote?:

  1. “At home” is where you are currently living,  or
  2. “At home”  is where your family lives.

The rule is the same provincially and federally.

ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE:    Canadian Citizen, 18 years old or older on Election day, your home is in the electoral district. 

IN ORDER TO VOTE:    The rule is the same federally and provincially (Sask).

BASICALLY:    

  • You must be on the voters’ list for your polling station.
  • You must take identification with proof of current address when you go to vote. 
  • Take your Voter’s Card if you have one.   It’s not necessary but it can be helpful.
  • ***IMPORTANT:   If you’re not registered in advance, you can always register at the poll when you go to vote. 

WARNING:  If you go this latter route,  know the requirements if you want to avoid difficulties.  See Elections Canada website below. 

TO GET ON the VOTERS’ LIST:   “REGISTRATION” (FEDERAL) and ENUMERATION” (PROVINCIAL)

Basically,  (but there are DETAILS –  see More Information below) 

FEDERAL: 

  • Register now, phone Elections Canada 1-800-463-6868 (can only be done by phone).  EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.  Please help spread the word.

PROVINCIAL:  You get on the list by being “enumerated”. 

WHEN AND WHERE CAN YOU VOTE ?

Three main ways:      

–  ADVANCE POLLS

–  ON ELECTION DAY  at your polling station

–  FEDERAL – referred to as “vote by special voting rules”.   Provincial – referred to as ABSENTEE BALLOT.   

MORE INFORMATION:

ELECTIONS CANADA    www.elections.ca

ELECTIONS SASKATCHEWAN    http://www.elections.sk.ca         

The trouble-free way to vote:  get on the Voters’ List early  and 

receive your Voter’s Card in the mail, as confirmation.   

Thanks!   And vote Green!  

www.greenparty.ca  facebook   twitter         

www.greensask.ca   info@saskgreen.ca  facebook  twitter 

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

3.  THANKS TO JANET, MERCER PLUS QUOTATIONS FOR TODAY: 

MERCER:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgwUQTSC3I&feature=channel_video_title 

Quotations for Today [April 3/11.] 

  • “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” – George Jean Nathan, 1882-1958
  • Tommy Douglas on Fascism: “Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt – it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.”
  • “A politician is required to listen to humbug, talk humbug, condone humbug. The most we can hope for is that we don’t actually believe it.” – Character in P.D. James’ A Taste for Death
  • “Life is a passion of activity, or it is nothing. Genuine democracy rests, not upon an attitude of pleased expectation of receiving, not upon an irresponsible sense of liberty to work one’s will, but upon unflinching self-surrender, unceasing activity in behalf of the common good. Services must be voluntarily rendered, often more strenuous than those exacted by superiors under the old feudal order. For democracy is a stern and lofty creed of willing self-denial, of responsibilities staunchly borne, or it is a chaos and a failure, a stampede of the masses for power or for gain.” – Margaret Sherwood, 1918
  • “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” – Pastor Martin Niemoeller (1892-1964), a Nazi victim who was imprisoned at Sachsenhausen & Dachau
  • “A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.” – Bertrand De Jouvenel
  • “Evil thrives on apathy and cannot exist without it.” – Hannah Arendt
  • “The greatest threat to world peace is American foreign policy.” – from Blowback – The Costs & Consequences of American Empire, by Chalmers Johnson
  • “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” – Thomas Sowell
  • “The modern conservative…is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith quoted in Blessed Unrest – How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being & Why No One Saw it Coming, by Paul Hawken <Pg. 115>
  • “There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem.” – Source unknown
  • Talk – Action = Zero ……… ad in Jan/Feb. 2009 ‘Watershed Sentinel’ magazine http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/
  • “Truth is the only safe ground to stand on.” – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
  • “Each day we are born again to start our life anew.  What we do today is what matters most.” ~ Buddha
  • “Hoard each joyous moment that comes to you.
    No one knows how it will all end.”
     – Háfiz

    Check out my blog
    http://janetsplanet.ca

2011-04-03 But they forget: the air waves are part of The Commons. The broadcasters use the airwaves, because we agree to allow them access. (Why the TV consortium excluded Elizabeth May.)

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Green Party  1 Response »
Apr 032011
 

“Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered.”

Hopefully there will be time today to send an email to Broadcast consortium chairman Troy Reeb.   I am going to love doing it!  He doesn’t seem to understand:

  • The airwaves belong to the public.
  • He and his buddies can broadcast their tripe only by our agreement. 
  • Television has the ability to make a positive contribution to our society.
  • The manner in which the Media Consortium uses the airwaves to line their pockets is a large DISSERVICE to Canadians.
  • They pump out large volumes of violence and sex, appealing to the lowest common denominator.
  • They insert more and more advertising (propaganda) into programming.
  • It’s time for Canadians to do the telling of what will or will not be.

Take back the airwaves.  Boot these guys out.  They don’t seem to understand by whose agreement they are allowed to use the airwaves.

See  2011-03-30  for contact information for the Consortium who think they are our Lords.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-tv-consortium-excluded-elizabeth-may/article1966583/

Why the TV consortium excluded Elizabeth May

STEVE LADURANTAYE

Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Apr. 01, 2011 4:54AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 01, 2011 9:48AM EDT

Broadcast consortium chairman Troy Reeb discusses how the decision was reached to bar Elizabeth May from participating in the televised leaders debates.

How do the negotiations work? How does the consortium set up debates?

The negotiations take place behind closed doors because when you’re negotiating with political parties there has to be some closed-door session to come to an agreement.

What about the criticism that it’s too secretive?

So here’s the reality: The consortium has no legal standing; it does not exist as a legal entity. It is simply an ad hoc gathering of the five major conventional networks in Canada, all of which have substantial news divisions and a substantial interest in covering the political comings and goings.

How did the consortium start?

The real genesis was that there was a time when all the networks and print and radio would put together their own proposals for debates. The parties would have to pick and choose between which outlets they wanted to work with and which set of rules. It just became a mess. It was then agreed the networks would get together because in the end they all knew if one of them hosted a debate, the rest of them would all want to broadcast as well. They would get together, they would work together and defray the substantial costs – they are substantial, and they are borne by us – probably about $200,000 to do a production.

Is that the only cost?

The sacrificed cost of prime-time revenue is a huge hit to all the broadcasters. It’s massive. This is worth pointing out. People will say debate is earlier in the campaign than it has been in other years, but what starts on April 13? The hockey playoffs on CBC. That’s hugely important to them. That’s in negotiation long before political parties are brought in – what time frame works best to not have a huge financial impact on the business.

How do you get on the consortium?

I was not voted into this position. I was just the longest-serving member after the retirement of a colleague at CTV. We bring other delegates, but the requirement for being there is to be the chief editorial decision maker for the network.

How do you decide to keep Elizabeth May out?

It is an editorial decision. The process for coming to a decision on format and participation is no different from what happens around the newsroom table of a newspaper. There’s always a vigorous discussion, oftentimes a really good argument. There was a really vigorous discussion this time as well, but on the Green Party question we very quickly came to unanimity.

But you let her on last time.

That has complicated the PR issue. But the difference, of course, was last time she had a sitting MP.

What about the criticism that you have a public responsibility to let her voice be heard?

We do include her voice. If you look at all of the English newscasts Wednesday night, Elizabeth May was front and centre in all of them. There are other avenues available and the debate is only one of many avenues. As part of our commitment of providing equitable – absolutely not equal –coverage but equitable coverage to the parties, of course we’ll cover the Greens.

But the debate is the big show.

The biggest platform of all for a political leader to debate is not once during a campaign but is on an in-and-out daily basis in the House of Commons. That’s where a political leader engages in the debates of the nation outside a election campaign. Because she has not been able to participate in those debates and has not had a member who has been able to participate in those debates, that weighed heavily on our decision making on whether she should participate.

Do you have the ultimate say, or do you need to trot it back to your executives?

I can’t speak for the colleagues, I keep my president informed as to what is going on. But for us, editorial and the rest of the organization have some separation.

So what about the format of this debate?

Agreed to by four parties. There is a change – should say, the format is changed and tweaked every debate. Different participants, different technology. Tweaked to provide more head-to-head debate time between two individual leaders at given times. I wouldn’t say it’s a concession to one-on-one, it was championed by the consortium and agreed to by parties. There will be less of everyone jumping in, and more opportunity for two leaders to go head to head before everyone jumps in on a given issue.

Rather than starting discussion with one leader giving viewpoint, a question will be offered where two leaders can debate without the other two participating and then opened to broader group. It’ll be done by draw – every leader will face off against the other. We reserve the right to determine which questions to which leaders of course – we are trying to make good television here after all.

If the program is dull, if the program doesn’t deliver insight people won’t watch. Then what is the point of us sacrificing all of that revenue by turning over that air time in what we believe is a public service if the public isn’t being served.

Does this system work?

Some have referred to the non-partisan commission in the U.S. as a model. Well, that’s not non-partisan. I was a White House correspondent for a number of years. It’s bipartisan, done by Republicans and Democrats. Anyone who thinks that model would work in Canada and improve things and increase chances of small parties getting in – that would eliminate the chance.

So, is the door closed for Elizabeth May?

Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered.

2011-04-02 Fully a third of our tax dollars went for nothing more than interest on (servicing) the debt. Stephen Harper has taken us right back there again.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Green Party  No Responses »
Apr 012011
 

It  took three short years for Stephen Harper to add back all the debt, after we spent years paying it down.

– – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – —

I don’t get it John.   I remember the years that Canadians spent digging ourselves out of Government debt.  Fully a third  and more of our tax dollars were for nothing more than paying interest on debt.   Just think of how much money that was, the tax dollars collected from the whole nation, take a third and hand it to the banks.  I pay taxes to contribute to public programmes, not so the wealthy have access to a cash cow.

Preston Manning blew the whistle:  he took on Government debt on a single-issue basis.   Thank goodness.  It’s hard to believe we’ve forgotten so quickly.  We need a whistle-blower again.

Somehow the Conservatives manage to pass off the idea that they’ve managed the economy well.  That’s what I don’t get.  Harper has taken us to an ALL-TIME high debt and here you have this woman blessing him!   He’s been prime minister for only 5 years; the spending has been reckless, with no regard for ability to pay.

THE FACTS ON GOVERNMENT DEBT IN CANADA UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES:

http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=42

After 11 straight years of federal government surpluses and debt reduction, 2008-09 saw the Canadian government return to spending more than it earns – deficit financing.  In 2011 the government will have added back to the debt in just three years, more than the $105 billion it paid off during years of surpluses. Deficits are projected through the year 2014-15.

Deficit spending of the past led to a trillion dollars in interest payments since 1961. This won’t help our economy or the families that have to pay for it.

In 1990, 38 cents out of every dollar sent to Ottawa was used to pay the annual interest on our federal debt.  Today, that is down to 14 cents.  Why would we want to go back?

RE:  At least Harper has a degree in economics – perhaps that is why our country survived this recession better than the entire G8.

The recession was caused by Wall Street – greed and corruption as never before known.   Reference the 2010 film narrated by Matt Damon, “Inside Job”  at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=825 .

One reason Canada fared better is because at the height of the merger and acquisitions era (buy-outs), the activists fought like hell to stop an attempt by Canadian banks to merge.   Thank goodness someone was smart enough to understand the perils of large, consolidated financial institutions.  We citizens prevented SOME of what happened in the U.S.  from happening in Canada, by refusing to let Canadian banks merge.

Another reason that we did better is because we are the “hinterland” in a colonial relationship.  Bluntly said:  we have the natural resources.   Specifically the tar sands.  The manufacturing sector in Ontario has suffered, same as in the US because corporations have gone “offshore” where labour and environmental regulation are not a factor.   The money moved into the tar sands, which largely saved our bacon as far as “economic growth” is concerned.   We are a third world country now, our environmental regulations are “de-regulated”.   The state of the Canadian economy has nothing to do with Harper’s economics degree.   IN SPITE OF the money in the tar sands, he managed to sink us deep into the debt bucket.

The other “economist” besides Stephen Harper that comes to mind is former Saskatchewan Conservative premier Grant Devine.  Another guy who racked up record debt for tax-payers to then pay off.

What I don’t get is that Conservative Governments are applauded for their sound fiscal management – – when the record shows beyond doubt that they are the worst financial managers we’ve had.   Unless, of course, you like paying interest to the banks?   The proportion of our tax dollars that did nothing more than service debt was preposterous then, and it’s becoming the same again.  Premier Brad Wall is doing the same thing as Devine did before him.  Harper is doing that same thing, too.  We could use the voice of Preston Manning again.

A little background on Government accounting for debt.  It might have something to do with why the soaring debt falls below the radar screen:

In the era of business acquisitions and mergers (1980’s-1990’s), corporations took on large debt.    The traditional way of accounting for debt, “full disclosure”, was bad for investor relations.  So they changed the accounting rules to downplay the debt.   Which I only learned about because one year (it was in the first half of the 1990’s) I noticed on Budget Day that Government of Saskatchewan debt did not appear in the pie graph of Government expenditures, in the newspaper.  I went to the Deputy Minister of Finance to ask what was going on?  The Government not showing this significant expenditure?   Citizens are supposed to know where their money is going.

What did the Deputy Minister say?  The accounting rules were changed for the Government, too, not only corporations.   The Government had debt that it would like to make less obvious because debt servicing charges were running at a third of government expenditures.   Looks pretty bad on a pie chart.    It’s like waving a red flag in voters’ faces.   They changed the definition of “Programme spending” to exclude the cost of servicing the debt.    Money we spend on servicing debt is not available for programme spending (water, healthcare, highways, etc.).    Removing it from programme spending is VERY misleading to citizens.   Would it not be nice if integrity could be restored?    In a corporatocracy, it will not be.

Harper and sound financial management?  , , ,   t makes me mad that we are going back into paying taxes for nothing more than servicing debt;  the wealthy are the beneficiaries.   And the debt is going to escalate because we are getting into war.  The price tag on the F-35 stealth bombers is somewhere between 24 and 30 BILLION dollars.   Spread the word.  Don’t let it happen.  Government debt should be an election issue, along with the F-35’s.

In the email, the sticker “assholes” is being placed on the wrong behinds.   WE ARE actually the silly ones – – we do it to ourselves.   Rally the troops – – we don’t have to be repeatedly silly!   You do not re-elect people who mis-manage the finances.

2011-04-01 You can see why we don’t have a National Water Policy. There’s too much money to be made if it can be privatized (like oil and gas).

 Green Party, Water  1 Response »
Apr 012011
 

The political system is an adversarial one.  You can’t find solutions if you are working against each other.   

Nor will there ever be solutions if the Government is working toward putting the gift of water into corporate hands, the same as has been done with oil and gas, our energy supply.

The Green Party is searching for the Common Ground. 

So, for example on the topic of water, I am asking the other candidates:  can we agree that Canada needs a National Water Policy?   This is a very serious matter for people in Saskatchewan.  

(Town of Biggar, not in my Electoral District – – I believe that the pipeline from the South Sask River was built to take water to Biggar.   I phoned the Biggar Town Ofc to confirm, but it closed at 4:00.  306-948-3317    In my ED, Humboldt people need to be drawn into awareness of the precariousness of their water supply (South Sask River) – – many of them don’t know that their water comes from the River.  And the seriousness of what the Wall Govt is now doing by aggressive expansion of the withdrawls of water from the River.)

The South Sask River is the MOST ENDANGERED RIVER in all of Canada.  If you are a kayaker you will know that the River is wide but shallow.  

  • Please  see 2010-10-20  South Sask River, the scientific reports. ILO’s will run the River dry in the name of “open for business”.  
  • Or, for more comprehensive information that includes the situation with the Colorado River,  under “Categories” in the right-hand side bar, click on “water”. 

The amount of water in the River was at 20% of the 1912 volume just a few years ago.  It is now down to 16% of the 1912 volume.  

There is a clear, steady, downward trendline that ends at zero.  It’s obvious:  we should be doing everything in our power to stabilize the volumes of water in the River.   It is not necessary to repeat what the Americans are doing to the Colorado River! 

What industries do we need to develop?  ONES THAT ARE NOT WATER INTENSIVE.  If we add high-volume water users to the River, we are going to end up fighting over who gets the water.  Usually, it’s the guys with the most money who win, in that scenario.   There is litigation over water rights on every river in the U.S. and a national association of lawyers that do nothing but litigation over water rights.  Can we not take common sense action and avoid tensions?

Canada does not have a National Water Policy.   We need to stop the downward trend-line in the volume of water in the South Sask River.   The science is clear:  we are running the River out of water.   The Provincial Government is adding more water intensive industries to accelerate the process.  (The first of a number of intensive livestock operations in the Outlook area is to have 36,000 cattle alone.) 

If the political parties can establish Common Ground, we can work together.   Can we agree that Canada is in need of a National Water Policy?   If the answer is “yes”, then we can move forward to actually getting one.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries