Life in Canada

Weapons-grade uranium that for years has been transported north into Canada from the United States is now being quietly returned over the same roads in a more radioactive and potentially dangerous form.

The two biggest threats posed by the transport of the material are the catastrophe that could result from an accident or spill, and the interest that terrorist organizations may have in stealing it for use in weapons of mass destruction.

A confidential federal memo obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act says at least one payload of spent, U.S.-origin, highly enriched uranium fuel has already been moved stateside under an agreement signed last year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama.

The deal was part of a broader international project by the Obama administration to consolidate highly enriched uranium at fewer, more secure sites around the world. The U.S. government says it wants to convert the uranium into a form that cannot be used to build nuclear weapons.

For the past two decades, the United States has been sending Canada highly enriched uranium to run the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River, Ont., which remains one of the world’s top suppliers of nuclear isotopes.

On its trip north from the United States, it is in the form that is most desired by terrorists, said Norm Rubin, the director of nuclear research at Energy Probe, a public policy research institute. “It is totally stealable and bomb-useable on its way up.”

When it has served its purpose, the new agreement requires it to be returned to the United States.

“In the reactor it turns nasty. But nasty is better that nice, in a way because you don’t have to worry as much about thieves stealing the nasty stuff that will kill them immediately as you do about the stuff that you can carry in your hands,” Mr. Rubin said.

On the other hand, he said, there are likely to be terrorist groups that would still want it to make it into “dirty bombs” where the radioactivity, and not the explosion, would do the damage.

And any mishap on the highway with such highly radioactive material could have disastrous results, Mr. Rubin said.

The government says there has never been a significant transport accident involving nuclear materials anywhere in the world, and that such shipments occur regularly in Canada. But Mr. Rubin said that is not true. While Canada has been unscathed, he said, around the world “there have been lost and busted bombs, truck crashes, fires, etc.”

Canada maintains a large inventory of the highly enriched material and the continued shipments back to the United States are scheduled to take place until 2018. They are protected by intense security protocol, which means specifics such as routes, transportation method, quantities and schedules remain top-secret.

Claude Gravelle, the Natural Resources critic for the federal New Democrats, said it’s wrong to leave Canadians in the dark about the hazardous materials that are being transported in and around their communities.

“I can understand that it’s security,” Mr. Gravelle said, “but still they should have some public consultation.”

Requests for comment from the federal government went unanswered Tuesday.

A ministerial memorandum, classified as “Secret” that was obtained by The Canadian Press says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission considers it unnecessary to hold public sessions that would allow citizens to ask questions and comment on the shipments.

That same memorandum, dated Feb. 25, 2011, points out that recent hearings for another nuclear-shipment case generated intense public and media interest. The controversy has stalled the project to ship 16 generators from a Bruce Power nuclear plant through the Great Lakes, up the St. Lawrence River and on to Europe.

Canada - health care system?

The number of doctors – there are nearly 70,000 – and their salaries are both at all-time highs. More Canadians have a family doctor than in years past, proof that progress has been made. But access to them is among the worst in the world. How can that be?

Only half (its worse in the Maritime region) of Canadians are able to see their doctors the same day they become sick. Queues for specialists are especially worrisome, with 41 per cent of patients waiting two months or more, according to The Commonwealth Fund’s study of 11 countries.

Canadians shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking poor access is the inevitable consequence of a publicly-funded health care system. Patients in the Netherlands and Germany have rapid access to specialists, much like Americans where private care prevails. Our system is simply not efficient.

New research shows that the average family physician in Canada billed the public purse $239,000, while the average specialist billed $341,000. Alberta leads the way with the most generous compensation in Canada, according to 2010 figures.

The Ontario government has already signaled it wants doctors to accept a two-year pay freeze when their contract comes up in March, something that is likely to have strong public support.

The next question is about the service patients are receiving for the almost $19-billion a year they spend on physicians.

The privilege of being doctors who have a monopoly on providing medical care carries with it an ethical, social responsibility. That should include making patients the centre of care; there are many ways to achieve that.

More physicians should have advance access scheduling, where slots are kept open for sick patients. Demand for doctor services could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary follow-up visits or handling minor issues by e-mail or telephone. Physicians could blitz backlogs by working extra hours or hiring help.

Triage systems – especially for surgery – could save patients and surgeons unnecessary visits and whittle down backlogs. Patients wait months to see a surgeon only to learn they are not eligible for an operation. Having other health professionals triage patients early on would get them the right care at the quickest time, an initiative in which governments could assist.

Canadians have paid top dollar to buy change in the health-care system. They have bought more doctors, but they haven’t yet got a more efficient system.

Canadian apathy will always end up with this result?

Those who thought the Harper government would ease up a bit after winning a majority were wrong. Noblesse oblige is out, or, rather, was never in. If anything, the Harper government is more bullying, scornful of dissent, intent on controlling every utterance, contemptuous of the media and determined to carry on political war at all times and by all means.
More related to this story

The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.

This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.

The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.

This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.

In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.

Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.

Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.

Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.

At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.

Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.

We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.

Those who thought the Harper government would ease up a bit after winning a majority were wrong. Noblesse oblige is out, or, rather, was never in. If anything, the Harper government is more bullying, scornful of dissent, intent on controlling every utterance, contemptuous of the media and determined to carry on political war at all times and by all means.
More related to this story

It hurts dancing to supply management’s tune
Remember the Reformers? They’re still here
At last, a cure for government procurement

Photos
His master's voice

The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.

This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.

The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.

This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.

In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.

Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.

Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.

Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.

At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.

Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.

We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.

The God Business:
Questioning Tax Exemptions – The Church - update
All over Canada, in every small community, huge sums of money are being denied to residents through the tax exemptions given to major businesses. This is money which could be used to build playgrounds and parks, provide nursing homes for the elderly, youth recreation programs for teenagers, community centers for the use of all, libraries, health clinics, hospitals, animal shelters, fire halls, water treatment plants, road repairs, schools - all things that are vital to the fabric of civilization. Unfortunately, all these things are expensive and difficult for the average tax payer to support. In this time of fiscal restraint, when all our social and medical programs are being threatened, we must seriously look at why some segments of our communities are exempt from contributing their fair share.

I was trying ( and I am still trying )to find information on the total or individual tax exemptions of the Churches of Nova Scotia..any churches would do, but in particular the Roman Catholic Church.I found some old figures on the net of old data relating to the city of Vancouver. I use this information for demonstration purposes only.

The majority of people who live here are hard-working, middle-income citizens, who struggle to keep some earnings for recreation after all necessities are paid. Is it really fair to ask these people to subsidize major land holders in their community, particularly when these land holders represent big business firms which are considerably more wealthy than the taxpayers who now support them.

This research via Google searching on of Church property assessment figures came up with information for the Greater Vancouver, B.C. which includes the city and 11 surrounding municipalities with a population of then about 1.3 million, the loss of revenue to the communities becomes apparent. The tax exempt assessed value of churches in the 12 areas totals $854,738,500! The average residential mill rate for the group is 7.309. This represents foregone tax revenue of $6,247,280. If we do rough calculations to include the whole country we conclude that the religious loopholes are getting away without paying taxes of about $160,000,000 in Canada. These figure may be slightly inaccurate but I wonder why cash- starved local governments don't jump at the chance to ask the churches to participate in the community instead of riding free.

SOME break down numbers.
**********************************
RICHMOND
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $118,833,800
1994 population 139,435
DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,773,500
1994 population 81,980
CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $4,279,000
1994 population 40,717
WEST VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $10,536,800
1994 population 41,461
NEW WESTMINSTER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,039,000
1994 population 47,736
VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $420,105,800
1994 population 508,814

And where does the money from donations to these businesses go? Because these organizations are not required to post accurate financial statements, few contributors realize that their money often goes to purchase stocks, bonds and other property which all become tax exempt as well. Taxpayers are constantly complaining that we should be taxing the big corporations to give relief to the average Joe. Perhaps they just don't realize that churches ARE the big corporations.

We live in a 'democracy' and people are free to adhere to any belief system they fancy. In all fairness to the various citizens who inhabit this country, they should not be forced to surreptitiously support a religion they do not believe in or may even find abhorrent. If you are a Christian, do you really want your money going to support a Christ-killing synagogue? Or perhaps a pedophile priests defense. If you are Jewish, do you want to contribute to the mosques of terrorist infidels? If you are a rational person, do you want good money wasted on promulgating superstitious nonsense?

Canadian citizens can no longer afford to carry free-loaders. For those people who find the idea of taxing religions repugnant, then perhaps they would concede if churches were required to put back into their community an amount equal to their tax assessment. As things stand, it is very doubtful that any church is putting as much into the community as it receives in benefit from being part of that community. As an alternative to taxation, churches could receive recognition for the things they give for use of the general public, providing it is presented without the accompanying propaganda. For example, if a playground was built with the tax assessment money from the local Catholic church, then a little plaque could be erected saying "Donated by St. Mary's Church in lieu of taxes for the year 1996".

This is not an indictment against religion in particular. Religion is a personal and private matter. It should also be one of free choice. This is an indictment of desperately needed money being withheld from communities. It is an indictment against money being given to businesses and organizations without knowledge or consent of donors. More than ever, citizens need honesty, integrity and accountability from organizations within their communities.

Reasons Why Churches Should No Longer Be Tax Exempt?

1. In a true democracy, children would receive a liberal education in the wide variety of religious doctrines available. Then, when they reach the age of consent, these young adults would be able to make an informed choice whether to accept the ideology of any religion in particular. Currently, children are indoctrinated with no opportunity to question the validity of the tenets they are required to embrace.

I ask would the majority of parents be willing to accept a curriculum which included the study of the major religions, leaving other parents with the right to educate their children, after school hours, in the privately supported church of their choice? Is there any reason why various religions would find it unacceptable for their children to obtain a liberal and complete education?

2. Religions often tend to promote hatred against minorities. The most common example is the persecution of homosexuals on religious grounds. Scientists have now uncovered the genetic link to homosexuality. People are born with a specific eye color. Likewise, people are born with a specific sexual orientation. Who has control over the way they are born? God only knows! It is cruel to continue perpetrate hatred against a fragment of the population who have no control over the desires they were born with. Do you know if your donations are being used to perpetuate hatred?

3. Some religious organizations receive taxpayers' money to use terrorist tactics to enforce their will on democratic citizens. An example was the Right To Life Society which openly condones the shootings at abortionist clinics. If you find that harassment and victimization of Canadian citizens is repulsive, then you should be outraged that such organizations receive government and charitable funding. In the United States, families of shooting victims, as well as victims of harassment and stalking, are now proceeding with major lawsuits against organizations which promote hatred and crimes of hate. Would you like to see millions of your dollars being lost because you unknowingly contributed to the terrorist activities of these religious groups?

4. Do you know where the money you donate is being spent? Are you getting the most value for your dollar? Is it spent on things that you believe in? Perhaps you feel that your money should go to help the hungry at a soup kitchen, or go towards a shelter for the homeless. How do you know for sure that it isn't being spent to invest in luxury condos and holiday resorts for the wealthy? Perhaps it is going to purchase weapons to support a holy war, or subversive terrorist activities. Unless you can see a proper financial statement from your church, you have no idea where your money is going.

5. Common law has clearly established that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose. Ask the native Indians just how charitable the purpose of the missionaries was. Natives lived on this land for thousands of years without cutting down a rainforest, or causing the pollution of a stream. Perhaps their pagan gods were much more benevolent than the Christian one they were forced to adopt? It is time to take a serious look at the value of these old accepted laws. Who do they really benefit?

6. It is correct to assume that most parents love their daughters and want the best for them. Why would they choose to support institutions in which women are excluded from positions of importance, where the female body is considered shameful, where the pains of childbirth are punishment for original sin and where women are depicted as wanton temptresses who incite men's desires? Isn't this an assault to the self-esteem of any young girl.?

Some religions are still debating if women have souls. Genital mutilations are done today as a faith ritual. A Muslim man may not pray if he has touched a woman and not washed first. St. Augustine was quoted as saying; "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." Would everyone in your community want to support a philosophy where men get all the excuses for immoral behavior and women get all the blame? Except for Homosexual behavior now that's another issue

7. Mankind's history on earth has always been violent>. Many parents consider violence to be pornographic. And yet, every holy book is filled with cruel atrocities, hatred, genocide, murder of whole civilizations, women, children and families. Little mercy or understanding is demonstrated for non-believers of a particular doctrine. The books reinforce the primitive "Might is Right" philosophy, with relatively little compassion for women, children or animals. Those who are physically weaker and unable to communicate their needs are in the most need of protection; however the written word ignores these pleas. Furthermore, holy books are filled with pornography, rape, sodomy, incest, adultery and many things that make for unsavory reading for young members of the community.

The two African countries of Rwanda and Burundi are the most Christianized of all the African nations. Unfortunately, birthrates are the highest in Africa because family planning and birth control are outlawed. Schools and hospitals are run by nuns. This has resulted in overcrowding, misery, tribal hatreds and environmental degradation, as well as the most horrendous slaughter and massacre of human beings. The birth control issue is highly hypocritical because the Catholic Church has owned shares in the major birth control producing company, Instituto Farmecologico Sereno, (as exposed in David Yallop's book, In God's Name. )

Almost every religion has a vengeful and cruel god who destroys entire nations on a whim. The holy books have been used as excuses to perform hideous acts against other human beings in the name of heresy and blasphemy. Psychotherapist, Dr. Albert Ellis, has suggested that a cruel and bloody god produces cruel and bloody followers. There seems to be much evidence to support this idea just by reading today's newspapers.

Conversely, hardened criminals can find immediate forgiveness (and possibly early release from prison) by proclaiming their new-found belief. Con men and religious hucksters, who have bilked people out of millions of dollars, can then go forth and confess their sins. Of course, their victims are supposed to be religious enough to forgive the sinner who fleeced them, and so the shell game continues.
Out of respect for non-believers who find many holy books totally offensive, bloody, racist, sexist and pornographic, wouldn't it make more sense to expose their children to these books, when they are old enough to study these concepts objectively?

8. Religious thinking is opposed to free inquiry and scientific investigation. It suppresses a child's natural curiosity and fills them with nightmares of hell and punishment if they dare question things that defy logic or make no sense. The dark ages set the progress of science and medicine back hundreds of years. As late as October, 1992, the Pope forgave Galileo, a seventeenth century scientist, for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.
Religious teachers condemn such ancient books as Homer's Iliad as being false and unproven, but they ignore the fact that Henry and Sophia Schliemann discovered the actual city of Troy in the late 1800's, using only Homer's exact words. Anyone can read the historic account of this discovery by Schliemann himself in Troja: Results Of The Latest Research, 1884, or the biographical account by Irving Stone called The Greek Treasure, 1975. To date, any discovery of Noah's Ark, using the Bible, has proven to be a hoax. This doesn't confirm one way or the other about the existence of Noah's Ark. It just confirms that some ancient manuscripts have proven to be far more accurate than the Bible.

Unfortunately, many religious teachers prey on the gullibility of their followers. A prime example was the television documentary on the discovery of Noah's Ark, which later was proven to be a hoax. In fact, Richard A. Fox won an award for his magazine article that analyzed the program and questioned the authenticity of the story. The article was entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark': An Archaeological Quest?" It appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of Free Inquiry. Any librarian should be able to get a copy. His article was also given national attention in Time magazine. This point is raised only because so many people think that Noah's Ark has actually been discovered and therefore this proves that there really was a Noah who put a gazillion animals into a small boat and managed to survive, in spite of the logical impossibility of this myth.

Religious advocates encourage fantastic thinking and discourage logical investigation. A most recent example is the celebration of holy statues drinking milk. This "miracle" occurs because the statues are made of a porous material. They would just as easily absorb chicken blood etc.. However, real scientists are never invited to closely scrutinize modern miracles. Unfortunately, Creation scientists, who are often called in to examine these phenomena, are not recognized as real scientists by the academic community because their methods fall short of scientific standards.
Whether you believe that the Universe has a purpose or not, do you feel comfortable with your money supporting some Middle Age ideas?

9. Many religions promote cruel and barbaric punishments against outside observers of the faith and even their own followers. These people ask only for some change to bring their religion's doctrines into the modern world. Of course, the western world is well aware of poor Salman Rushdie, who is under sentence of death for "blaspheming the Prophet."

Sheik Ahmed Deehat, a Muslim scholar from South Africa, when visiting Canada proclaimed, "According to the rules of the Holy Koran, the Holy Bible tells us anyone who blasphemes must be stoned to death. Those are the laws as given by God to the Christians and the Jews". (Ottawa Citizen, July 16, 1994) As late as 1994, Reverend Anthony Kennedy was quoted; "I would burn the bloody bitches....Let these bloody women go off and form their own politically correct church and religion. I would shoot the bastards if I was allowed, because a woman can't represent Christ."
No matter what religion you choose to follow, do you want money allocated to these extremist views? For those of you who hold these views, then you are entitled to contribute to your religion accordingly. Others should be free not to.

10. Sadly, religion cannot keep its promises to its followers. Who really knows if you will get to heaven faster if you send your pension to the televangelist? These assurances would constitute fraud or false advertising in the modern world. Religions tend to prey on fears of the sick and elderly, society's most vulnerable. In all fairness to these people, they deserve to see how their hard-earned pennies are spent.

A full accounting would not be unreasonable.

Nothing will stop people from believing what they want to believe; and they have every right to their beliefs. They should not have the right to inflict their expenses on others. This report does not deny the comfort that some people receive by participating in the faith of their choice. I am sure that religion is seen as valuable to its many adherents. However, it is time to examine the old tradition of tax exemption for an ideology that isn't applicable to everyone in a community. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

We are facing severe fiscal restraint.
Social, health and education programs are in crisis. Tax payers are bled dry. Would it be unreasonable to expect religious corporations to present auditor's reports to their parishioners? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing what decisions the directors and officers of your church are making with your money? Is there any reason why we shouldn't consider a referendum so taxpayers can decide if they wish to continue to support tax exemptions to churches? Isn't it time for honesty and accountability from all members of the community?

Christianity- a definition base

Christianity can be said to be or is based on a book that depicts racism, brutality, massacre and homophobia. In fact, Christians worship a God who promotes these activities. Do you know how many times their God has commanded his "chosen ones" to exterminate entire tribes and nations? Inquisitions, persecutions and witch hunts were all done in the name of godly devotion.

Religions were created to empower special groups of people. Most of the world's current strife can be traced to religious origins. Furthermore, most religions promulgate the myth of male superiority, with the brunt of problems and blame falling on female shoulders. Isn't it time that we freed ourselves of the shackles of primitive barbarity and stepped into the twenty-first century?

When has the bombing of a public or private building ever been traced to a humanistic or atheistic organization? When has the assassination of an abortion doctor ever been traced to a religious skeptic? If Canada is truly free, then all citizens should remain free to reject or accept religion.

To be forced to accept a God as part of their Human Rights Charter denies the very freedom our society is based on. I believe in God by choice

I am searching for info relating to Nova Scotia Halifax..wont be long before I get it.

One strike, two arbitration rulings, four rejected tentative contracts and unprecedented government intervention added up to extreme frustration for both Air Canada and its unionized employees in 2011.

It's a theme that is likely to continue for the airline in the new year Until Harper's bully boys batter them down to obey. Workers entered negotiations with high hopes of recovering some of the sacrifices they made since the airline filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003. The country's largest carrier was seeking to further reduce its cost structure by potentially launching a discount carrier and tackling its long-term pension obligations.

But neither side can claim victory, conceded the heads of the two Air Canada unions who were on the front lines in disputes this year. "We've been to hell and back," said Ken Lewenza, head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, which represented the only Air Canada employees who were allowed to strike this year. "It wasn't a total victory but bargaining today isn't a total victory for our members, it's about finding compromises that our members can accept."

Under the threat of back-to-work legislation, the union's 3,800 customer service agents approved a new collective agreement after striking for three days in June. They also agreed to send the pension dispute to binding arbitration. The ruling, which Air Canada originally planned to fight in court, sets the stage to resolve the contentious matter for other employees. New hires will receive lower starting pay and have a hybrid pension system of both defined benefit and defined contributions.

The Montreal-based company (TSX:AC-B.TO - News) wanted all new workers shifted to defined contribution plans, where retirement payments aren't fixed. Lewenza said the airline was headed for confrontation with its workers because its demands reflected a non-union workplace and a desire to "get us to the lowest point of operational cost." The head of the union representing Air Canada's 6,800 flight attendants said workers are demoralized after an imposed contract failed to rectify past financial losses. "I think they took their frustrations out on everybody — on the government, on the company and to some degree on the union," Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said from Toronto.

Coalesced by their use of social media, workers twice rejected tentative agreements recommended by union negotiators. Moist's reputation itself was tarnished after he couldn't deliver on a promise to Labour Minister Lisa Raitt that the second deal would be ratified. he should not have promised on something that was not in his control. The minister responded to an October strike deadline by referring the flight attendants' dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, allegedly over health and safety concerns during a work stoppage.

The lead arbitrator subsequently imposed the last deal rejected by flight attendants. Raitt said she acted to protect the "fragile Canadian economy" from the disruption of a strike. Does Mr Harper know its s fragile Canadian Economy' according to him and his finance Guru who had never balanced a budget yet..we are doing so well..??

The move not only grounded a planned strike, but likely ended the chance of any potential work stoppages by other Air Canada unions. Even if the threat of strikes appears to have diminished, Air Canada faces months of difficult contract talks before it can realize labour peace. Pilots are in the midst of conciliation and machinists are proceeding with direct talks. The head of the pilots association said he hopes a deal can be wrapped up early in the new year and avoid a mid-February potential strike deadline.

Capt. Paul Strachan said the key will be for the airline to allow pilots to be full participants in its strategic vision. "In so far as that's lacking, I think the corporation will find it very difficult to deal with us because we're not going to sign a blank cheque." Anger over the first tentative deal prompted the recall of some top union leaders. "I think there were some showstoppers in the first one that really sunk it," he said, adding that he expects the latest effort to be more focused. Federal intervention in the affairs of the airline ignited a firestorm of opposition from those who accused the government of trampling on free collective bargaining. The minister's action may have averted disruption for the public, but it also prevented the airline from pressing workers to accept the fundamental changes it sought, said George Smith, a fellow at Queen's University.

With no risk of losing a day's pay to strike, workers could comfortably reject tentative agreements knowing that arbitrators are loathe to award either side any groundbreaking gains. "You just punt it to an arbitrator... so it's just like a snowball going downhill, it becomes an avalanche," he said. No matter how challenging 2011 was, it wasn't the most difficult period in Air Canada's storied history of labour relations. A protracted battle over privatization in the late 1980s prompted strikes by three of its four unions. Those disruptions were damaging but workers eventually got on board and allowed the wounds of battle to heal, said Smith, who is a former director of employee relations at Air Canada. "At least privatization was a focused end-game... right now it's not clear what the end game is." CUPE wasn't alone in failing to have tentative agreements ratified by members. Pilots and flight dispatchers also had their deals rejected. That spawned some sympathy towards Air Canada. "While there's always been a history of labour management conflict, I think what's been unprecedented this year has been the seeming disconnect between union leadership and the membership," said Chris Murray of PI Financial Corp.

He's among the industry observers who said the carrier had little choice but to seek substantive cost savings. Its unfunded pension liability exceeds $2.1 billion and it faces a precarious financial position. Intense competition, higher fuel costs, the high Canadian dollar and the challenges of an economic slowdown continue to pressure the airline. It has already cut $530 million in costs and is working on additional savings as it trims its $4.6 billion debt before the 2014 arrival of its first Boeing 787 aircraft. "It's not a simple business to run but I think they've done a good job on working on their cost profile and making the company a little bit more resilient," said Murray. He expects 2012 will continue to be challenging, especially if the economy remains shaky. One of the airline's most controversial proposals this round is the creation of a low-cost carrier. It's an idea that's gaining interest from other legacy carriers looking to reduce costs. Air Canada declined requests for an interview, but CEO Calin Rovinescu has said that reducing costs on leisure routes is needed to take on rivals such as WestJet (TSX:WJA.TO - News), Transat (TSX:TRZ-B.TO - News) and Sunwing and help the carrier deliver sustainable profits. In a letter to employees, Rovinescu called the decision by American Airlines to seek bankruptcy protection "sobering" news for the industry. "It underscores both how broken the legacy airline model is and the necessity of changing with the times, recognizing today's new realities," he said in the note obtained by The Canadian Press. Without specifically mentioning the low-cost carrier, he said Air Canada cannot relent on tackling its legacy structural inefficiencies and developing greater flexibility. "We must be open to new ways of doing business, we must control our costs and we must work together if we are to succeed." Talks with pilots could determine whether the idea will ever get off the ground. Many workers fear low wages will infiltrate the mainline airline. Flight attendants ducked the issue entirely but Moist said it could resurface in 2012 even if it's "not on the front burner right now." Ian Lee, a professor of strategic management at Carleton University said adopting a low-cost strategy must be part of Air Canada's long-term solution. "This industry is going through a wrenching structural change and some of the airlines will survive and some of them will not and whether Air Canada is one of those survivors we don't know yet," he said.