Only months ago, the recently retired CSEC commissioner, Justice Robert Decary, stated in his final report that he had uncovered records suggesting some of CSEC's spying activities "may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law."

The retired justice said the CSEC records were so unclear or incomplete that he was unable to determine whether the agency had been operating legally.

Decary's predecessor, Justice Charles Gonthier, filed the same complaint about incomplete or missing records in his day, which forced him to report in a similar fashion that he could not determine if CSEC had been breaking the law.Gonthier also alluded to a CSEC operation in 2006 that he suggested may have been illegal.

The head of CSEC at the time, John Adams, recently told CBC News that, as a result of that discovery, "I shut the place down for a while."However, intelligence experts have told CBC News that the oversight problems at CSEC are much deeper than poor record-keeping.

They say successive commissioners have simply lacked both the resources and the legal mandate to conduct meaningful oversight.

The current commissioner, Judge Jean-Pierre Plouffe, operates with a staff of 11, about half of whom actually work on investigations, largely to ensure CSEC isn't abusing its powers by spying on Canadians.
hugh-segal-250-rtris7f

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal: "The notion that a group of 11 might be able to provide proper oversight is more like a prayer than any kind of constructive statement of fact." (Reuters)

But CSEC employs over 2,000 people who covertly collect masses of information recently described as more data per day than all the country's banking transactions combined.

As Segal says, the result is obvious: "When there are thousands of people at CSEC processing millions of messages every day of all kinds, the notion that a group of 11 might be able to provide proper oversight is more like a prayer than any kind of constructive statement of fact."

Not exactly as written

Of course, even if a commissioner did discover something seriously amiss at the electronic eavesdropping agency, there is a chance Canadians would never know.

Here's how the system works: a typical Canadian veneer
Suppose the commissioner's oversight sleuths discover that CSEC is illegally intercepting phone calls and hacking into the computers of certain Canadians.

The oversight commissioner is required to report his discovery in a top secret report to the defence minister.

That happens to be the same minister responsible for CSEC, and from whom the agency gets its government direction.It is also the minister who would be at the centre of any CSEC scandal if news of this breach leaked out.If the minister refuses to expose his own agency's wrongdoing, the oversight commissioner can try to use his annual report to Parliament to do that.

But a funny thing happens on the way to Parliament.

First, CSEC gets to censor the entire report. Then it goes back to the same defence minister.

The minister is required to present the sanitized version of the report to Parliament, but has no obligation to mention it is not exactly as originally written.

Former CSEC chief Adams admits the agency is "very, very biased towards the less the public knows the better."

He points out that in the spying business, opening an agency's operations to full public scrutiny "would be kind of like unilateral disarmament, because if Canadians know everything CSEC can and can't do, then everyone else will too."

But as the leaked Snowden documents continue to force back the curtains at CSEC, Adams says it is time to find a better way to reassure Canadians about what they are doing.

"I think a knowledgeable Canadian is going to be much easier to deal with," he says.

If the public reaction to the Snowden revelations is any indication, Canadians are all ears.

The cowardly government having left town, as it were, in a hail of bullets — one day before the post office announced it is ending home delivery — we are left to marvel at the prospect of a government, and a prime minister, who are quite literally hiding out from the public.

Not only was the House of Commons conveniently shuttered, but neither the minister responsible, Lisa Raitt, nor any Canada Post executives were on hand to answer questions regarding this drastic reduction in public services. But then, in this they were only following the example set by the prime minister, who has for months avoided answering questions about the scandal that is slowly destroying his government.

He does not answer the questions put to him in Parliament — simple questions of fact, on matters he would be in a position to know about, that one would think could be dispatched with a quick yes or no — when he chooses even to pretend to. He does not hold news conferences, in any but the most perfunctory sense. He does not consent to interviews, except under the tightest of conditions, and with the friendliest of interviewers.

He does not, because he dares not: because the story he has been telling — of a conspiracy among virtually everyone around him to dispose of a matter in which he had previously taken a great interest, in a way that he now insists he would have prevented had they not, all of them, lied and kept him in the dark — is not credible. It is indeed an open question whether he will consent to the sort of in-depth year-end interviews that prime ministers traditionally conduct. How can he?

If the Senate scandal has had such legs, then, it is because so much of the behaviour it describes, the secrecy and deception and control from the top, has been everywhere replicated in the government’s handling of the fallout. What began as a secret deal to buy a senator’s silence has progressed through several additional layers of deception: the bogus story about Senator Mike Duffy repaying his own bogus expenses, papered over with a bogus money trail; the tampering with the Deloitte audit; the whitewashing of the Senate committee report; the series of ever more preposterous stories, after the story broke, about what Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright were up to, and whether they were fine, upstanding public servants or misguided patriots or deceitful criminals; the denials of involvement or knowledge, including to the police, by several of the principals, in direct conflict with the known facts; the mysterious mass deletion of emails by Benjamin Perrin, who may or may not have been the prime minister’s lawyer, followed by their even more mysterious discovery; the stonewalling and evasions throughout. I may have missed a stage, but I believe we are now at the coverup of the coverup of the coverup.

But in the days before Parliament rose, as the government frantically attempted to close off every line of inquiry raised by the publication of an RCMP affidavit, what was previously denial and obfuscation reached the level of outright obstruction. Only, whether out of desperation or contempt or sheer cluelessness, they are no longer bothering even to conceal what they are up to.

I refer to the decision by the Tory-controlled Senate internal economy committee to refuse to call as witnesses any of those alleged to have taken part in the audit tampering. The committee — which, after all, had commissioned the audit in the first place — had earlier made a show of investigating the matter, hearing testimony from those responsible for conducting the audit that confirmed, at a minimum, there had indeed been highly improper inquiries made by a senior partner at the firm, Michael Runia.

According to the RCMP affidavit, it was Runia, the auditor of record for the Conservative party’s fundraising arm, whom Senator Irving Gerstein, its chairman, had approached to see if he could discover what the audit would report — one of several avenues that seem to have been pursued to block, influence or even shut down the audit. Yet when the motion was put to call Runia as a witness, the Tory majority voted it down — as, later, did the Tory majority in the Senate at large.

This astonishing performance was followed, in the days after, by the Senate Speaker’s rejection of a Liberal motion of privilege with regard to the documented interference by the Prime Minister’s Office in Senate business; by Senator Gerstein’s ruling, as chair of the Senate Finance committee, that a motion calling upon him to step down while the RCMP investigation continues was out of order; and by the apparent blocking of an opposition motion in the Commons Ethics committee to take up the matter of the disappearing emails.

As ever, we are confronted with the utter inability of our democratic institutions to hold those in power to account. Nor is this confined to the Senate mess. Debates in Parliament are now routinely cut short by “time allocation.” Committees now routinely meet in camera. The Parliamentary Budget Office is reduced to filing access to information requests for the departmental data to which it is statutorily entitled. The list goes on.

Ottawa is increasingly a town in lockdown — as often as not with all-party support. MPs of all parties have resisted having their expenses either audited or disclosed. All parties agreed to a plan to compel Hill staffers to sign lifetime gag orders (though the bad publicity may force a rethink), just as all parties colluded this spring to prevent Mark Warawa and other MPs from speaking their mind in Parliament. The culture of secrecy and control runs deep, and there seems no way to break out of it.

Here’s a ba humbug statistic heading into the holiday season: Employment growth in Canada is at its slowest pace (excluding the recession) in more than a decade.

BMO Capital Markets crunched the numbers this week and came up with what it says “isn’t exactly encouraging” results for job creation in this country.

While 6.9 per cent unemployment is better than earlier this year, only 148,000 jobs have been created between January and November, “the weakest in a non-recession years since 2001,” according to BMO economist Benjamin Reitzes.
He notes employment is up only 1 per cent in November compared to the same time last year, and called the creation of 21,600 jobs last month “unspectacular.”

“This is hardly the stuff of a firm underlying economy,” says Reitzes.

United Steelworkers economist Erin Weir points out that most of the jobs created last month were part time or self-employed Canadians.

“The longer-term trend is still that Canadian employers are creating barely enough jobs to keep pace with population growth,” says Weir.

The Bank of Canada recently pared back its economic growth forecast for this year and next and has stopped talking about hiking the benchmark interest rate, which has been stuck at the same level since September 2010. Instead, it’s taking a wait-and-see approach and some economist say rates could fall further.

That pessimistic view comes despite the latest gross domestic product figures showing Canada’s economy grew at the fastest pace in two years in the third quarter.

While the numbers were seen as encouraging, economists caution the pickup was expected after weak summer, which included the Alberta floods and a construction strike in Quebec.

Still, there are two ways of looking at Canada’s economic growth these days. On one hand, economists see steady improvements, driven in part by a recovering U.S. economy. Others point to lower consumer and business confidence that could curb spending.

TD Bank recently described corporate Canada as being “in a slump,” posting less profit over the past year and a half, which is weighing on economic growth and job creation across the country.

A recent report from Ernst & Young says corporate Canada is also more cautious about doing mergers and acquisitions in today’s economy than its counterparts in the U.S. It says Canadian companies “seem to be waiting for more favourable economic conditions, for the right deal or, in some cases, for someone else to make the first move.” Now where have I seen that before?

However, economists at the Conference Board of Canada are more optimistic about the country’s economic growth, with forecasts above the Bank of Canada. In a recent report, the Conference Board forecast 2.4 per cent economic growth in 2014 and 2.6 per cent in 2014, up from 1.8 per cent in 2013. That compares to the Bank of Canada’s predictions of 1.6 per cent this year and 2.3 per cent in 2014, which were lowered this summer from previous forecasts of 1.8 per cent and 2.7 per cent.

“Better times are in store over the next two years,” the Conference Board said, citing improved outlooks in the U.S. and the global economy. This kind of mixed view won’t do much for job creation. People looking for a new job will likely latch on to the more positive take on Canada’s economy, while those holding jobs they don’t like could use the pessimistic view as an excuse to stay put, for now. The rest is up to Canada’s employers.

The key to understanding Canada Post's latest strategic masterstroke - henceforth, the post office will charge you nearly twice as much to deliver a letter half the way - is to understand the logic of monopoly. Only in a world entirely insulated from competitive reality would the appropriate response to declining demand be ... higher prices and worse service. Or more commonly known as 'shooting oneself in the foot'

But then, this has been the post office's strategy all along. My research tells me for the last 40-odd years Canada Post's business plan has amounted to charging more and more for less and less. Long before email or electronic funds transfer or any of the other things the corporation blames for its woes, the post office was using the brief intervals between strikes to cut service.

First Saturday deliveries were discontinued. Then next-day service became day-after-next, redefining at a stroke a half-billion late letters every year as "on time."

At length home delivery was discontinued altogether on rural routes in favour of community mailboxes - an innovation to which urban customers are now to be introduced. The price of a stamp, meanwhile, is to jump to a dollar - two and a half times, after inflation, what it cost in 1981, when it still made house calls. The day is not far off when, for $5, the post office will refuse to deliver your letter at all. Such is the logic of monopoly.

And yet all the while it was withdrawing service from wider and wider swaths of the country the corporation was insisting on maintaining its "exclusive privilege" in first-class mail - under the Canada Post Corporation Act, it is illegal for anyone but the post office to deliver a letter for less than three times the price of a stamp - on the grounds that it would otherwise be unable to provide universal service.

As loopy as that sounds, it still has its adherents. That, too, is the logic of monopoly: The less the service, the more attached people become to what remains. Alreadyrural customers are lecturing their urban cousins on the delights of community mailboxes. ("You get to meet your neighbours!") For without anything to compare it to, people cannot imagine how it could be better - though they are easily persuaded it could be worse.

Hence the political debate now shaping up, between the Conservatives, who support the cuts based on the need to "protect the taxpayer" - Canada Post has parlayed its statutory monopoly into projected losses of near $1 billion - while the opposition demands that they be reversed, in the name of protecting consumers. The possibility that the interests of both might be served does not seem to occur to either, because neither can conceive of a world outside the monopoly: a world in which anyone other than Canada Post is allowed to carry the mail.

But that alternative must surely now be inescapable. The question before us is not whether to "save home delivery" or "save Canada Post." That is a false choice, which only the logic of monopoly forces upon us. Step outside its confines, and the question is "who can offer the best service to postal users at the lowest cost?" To which the answer is: Open it up to competition and let's see.

Indeed, step outside Canada, if you dare to compare and you find that is increasingly the norm. Across Europe, under the aegis of the single-market directive, the old state postal monopolies are being cracked open, and have been transformed into dynamic international competitors.

Yet in Canada, we remain inert, seemingly helpless to do anything but watch as Canada Post grinds slowly and expensively to a halt. And as ever, the obstacle remains the "universal" service mandate. Private competitors, it is asserted with utter conviction, would refuse to serve the countryside. They'd undercut Canada Post on urban routes, leaving the post office with the costlier rural routes.

That would certainly be true - if the private carriers were obliged, as Canada Post is now, to charge the same price for a letter anywhere in the country, no matter where it goes or how much it costs to get it there. But this is an absurd restriction, required of no other good or service, public or private. We do not pay the same for a phone call, regardless of duration, distance or time of day. Neither is it expected that the price of a house should be the same in the country as it is in the city. Why should it be so for a letter? Why has it been so?

Because it was useful. Politicians liked it, because it allowed them to subsidize rural constituents out of the prices paid by those in the cities. And the post office liked it, because it helped sustain the case for monopoly. But what was previously merely inefficient and unjust is now intolerable. The "exclusive privilege" has got to go, which means so must the uniform postage rate, and the rest of the logic of monopoly.

The issue, in short, that ought to concern us is not what becomes of Canada Post, but what is the best alternative for the people it serves; not whether Canada Post pulls out of the mail delivery business, but whether others are allowed to get in.

Or will we continue to protect it from competition on a service it refuses to provide?

The Vatican has refused to provide information requested by the United Nations on the alleged sexual abuse of children by priests, nuns or monks.

The Vatican said the cases were the responsibility of the judicial systems of countries where abuse took place.

The UK National Secular Society accused the Vatican of hiding behind legal technicalities.

On his appointment in March, Pope Francis said dealing with sex abuse was vital for the Church's credibility.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child put a wide-ranging questionnaire to the Holy See - the city state's diplomatic entity - last July, asking for detailed information about the particulars of all sexual abuse cases notified to the Vatican since 1995.

The questions included whether priests, nuns and monks guilty of sexual crime were allowed to remain in contact with children, what legal action had been taken against them, whether the Church required clergy to report abuse to secular authorities and whether complainants were silenced.

In its response, the Holy See insisted that it was "separate and distinct" from the Roman Catholic Church, and that it was not its practice to disclose information about the religious discipline of clergy unless specifically requested to by the authorities in the country where they were serving.

It stressed that it had changed the criteria for choosing priests and revised Church law to ensure clergy were properly disciplined.
'Filth'

The National Secular Society criticized the Holy See's response, insisting that it operated a "firm command and control structure over the worldwide Church".

Vatican officials are due to be questioned about child abuse, among other issues, by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in January.

After taking office, Pope Francis said the Vatican needed "to act decisively as far as cases of sexual abuse are concerned, promoting, above all, measures to protect minors, help for those who have suffered such violence in the past (and) the necessary procedures against those who are guilty".

His predecessor, Benedict XVI, had promised to rid his Church of the "filth" of clerical sex abuse.

Observers said he went further than ever before in tackling the legacy of abuse, though critics said that was not far enough, accusing him of failing to protect children from pedophile priests.

CETA will result in higher drug costs for Canadians
A new CCPA report, by Dr. Joel Lexchin and Marc-André Gagnon, examines the impact of the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) on pharmaceuticals. The authors find that the tentative EU-Canada trade deal will further tilt the balance towards the protection of brand-name drug manufacturers and their profits and away from Canadian consumers—resulting in significantly higher drug costs for Canadians. The study also examines the latest revelations about the tentative trade agreement, and asserts that the CETA will seriously impact the ability of Canadians to afford quality health care.

Key Findings
On a per capita basis, Canadian drug costs are already the second highest in the world, after the United States. Canada also has one of the fastest rising drug costs per capita among OECD countries. This unwelcome situation is partly due to Canada’s industry friendly intellectual property policies, which include a generous pricing system and broad protection of brand-name pharmaceuticals.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the European Union and Canada will further tilt the balance towards the protection of brand-name drug manufacturers and their profits and away from Canadian consumers. Specifically, the agreement will:

Commit Canada to creating a new system of patent term restoration that will delay the entry of generic medicines by up to two years.

Lock in Canada’s current terms of data protection, making it difficult or impossible for future governments to reverse them.

Implement a new right of appeal under the patent linkage system that will create further delays for the entry of generics.

CETA will not affect the intellectual property rights regime in the European Union
—
The changes will only affect Canada.

Statistics Canada released October 2013, new data yesterday on high income trends in Canada with nary a mention of the Atlantic Provinces. From a Canadian comparative perspective, the data told a story that was more striking for most of the rest of the country and in particular, Alberta, Ontario, BC and Quebec where 92% of the top 1% of tax filers are found, with only 3.4% in Atlantic Canada.

The inequality that exists in Atlantic Canada also tells a story that demands illustration.

These data reveal that the Atlantic Provinces are all significantly less equal today than they were in 1982. The trends are troubling, but not surprising.

Are there things that we can be proud of in Atlantic Canada? Sort of. It is true that Atlantic Canada is less unequal than the rest of Canada (meaning the gap between what the 1% receives versus the 90% is the smallest). Moreover, Prince Edward Island has seen the smallest increase in the country of the ratio of the top 1% to the bottom 90% of Islanders. It is also true that the bottom 90% in two Atlantic Provinces had the greatest gains in the federation; In both Newfoundland and PEI, the bottom 90% saw an increase in income of 29% between 1982 and 2010. It is also true that the increases in income for the top 1% for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 33% and 38% respectively, were some of the smallest increases for the top 1% in the country.

But, let’s not be too complacent. PEI might have the smallest gap increase, but the average income of the top 1% is still 8 times that of the bottom 90% of Islanders –the ratio was 7.6 times in 1982. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick saw modest income gains of 16% and 19% respectively for the bottom 90% of tax filers, while the top 1% in each province enjoyed an increase about twice as much. We are not without extreme inequality either.

In Nova Scotia, the bottom 90% of Haligonians have seen a real income increase of only $3,500 since 1982. The top 1% of tax filers in that city saw their incomes rise by an average of $99,500 over the same period. In 1982, the average tax filer in the top 1% received 8.3 times as much as their bottom 90% counterpart. Now, the 1% tax filer makes about 10.5 times as much, similar to the rest of the province.

Other Atlantic Canadian cities have followed suit. Over this period, the average St. John’s (Newfoundland and Labrador) tax filer in the top 1% saw their income increase by 60%, while their counterpart in the bottom 90% only received an increase just over one-third the size at 23%. Similarly, the 15% earnings-increase enjoyed by the average bottom 90% of Saint John, New Brunswick’s tax filers is dwarfed by the average top 1% increase of 72%; that’s almost five times greater! Saint John’s top 1% tax filers have an average income that is 12 times higher than the 90%.

Clearly the top 1% of tax filers in Atlantic Canada has made massive strides in income, leaving the average Atlantic Canadian earner behind. For instance, in 1982, the average income of the top 1% in Newfoundland and Labrador was 8 times the bottom 90% average. Now, that number is closer to 10 times. That means that in just 30 years, Newfoundland and Labrador’s top earners have increased their real incomes by two entire extra average incomes. Assuming you’re an average bottom 90% earner, consider how your family’s quality of life would change if your income were tripled.

Part of the story emphasized by Statistics Canada was that women made significant gains across the country. In Atlantic Canada, women now make up 20% of the top 1% of tax filers versus 9% in 1982.

Is this really a good news story? Not exactly. While it is certainly positive that women are being afforded the opportunity to occupy the ranks of the wealthy, this does not mitigate the deleterious effects of inequality. Women in the top 1%, like the men in that group, benefit from an economic system that has clear gender biases. Whether or not a CEO is a woman, the low-wage workers she employs will still predominantly be women, thus ultimately reinforcing the gender wage-gap. In 2010, the average earnings of women in Atlantic Canada were 73% of men’s earnings (for full-time full-year workers).

Concentrating power in the hands of a few, whether those hands belong to men or women, has a negative impact on our democracy and our society as a whole. Economic resources bestow power on those who have control over them, and impose despair on those who don’t.

To be in the 1% in Atlantic Canada you need to have an income of at least $151,900 with an average income of $259,300. The average income of the bottom 90% of tax filers in contrast is $26,700. The average income of the bottom 50% is $13,600 and accounted for 19% of region’s total income. The 1% accounts for 7% of the region’s total income.

Such egregious income inequality is bad for all Atlantic Canadians. Oxfam’s recent report on inequality summarizes its many negative facets; It is economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive, environmentally destructive, unethical and unnecessary. Oxfam even noted that it has become a mainstream economic issue: “the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013. The IMF and the Economist agree.” Inequality has been recognized as a problem the world over.

Further, research links economic inequality to negative social indicators. There are marked correlations between inequality and such phenomena as mental illness, life expectancy, drug use, obesity, teenage pregnancy, high school dropout rates, violent crime, youth crime, and imprisonment rates.

That means we should all pay attention to inequalities. Income inequality is closely linked to gender, race and other power imbalances, and it has increased while taxation has become less fair, social programs have been neglected and the power of organized labour has eroded.

A significant amount of research has considered what makes other societies more equal.

Those societies that are the most equal have higher rates of unionization. Unions not only build the middle class by promoting good-paying, stable jobs. They also advocate for pro-worker policies for the non-unionized, like minimum wages, health and safety standards and employees’ rights.

The more equal societies also have a range of public services that ensure a better quality of life for everyone. A public and universal, good quality system of early learning and child care is one example of a significant gap across Atlantic Canada.

The story told by StatsCan’s recent inequality data is not a good one. It is a story of public policy being twisted to support the interests of a wealthy minority. It is a story of the rich not contributing their fair share, of important public programs being dissolved and of the hard-working families that contribute so much being valued too little.

The upshot is we have the capacity to change where this story will go next. With the recent Occupy movement, Quebec student strikes and Idle No More, as well as Common Causes, Canadians are clearly showing that an unequal society is not an ideal society. The story of austerity economics is that it exacerbates, not fixes, inequality.

Instead of trying to grow our way to prosperity by incubating the 1%, governments need to make smart decisions that benefit the bottom 90%. We need a progressive tax system, where the wealthiest pay their fair share. With these funds, we can build strong social programs, so everyone is afforded a good quality of life and the opportunity to thrive. We need laws that promote unionization along with strengthened labour standards for all workers. Strong pay equity legislation is required for both the public and private sectors. This is how we curb inequality and change the story of Atlantic Canada to one about mutual prosperity.

OTTAWA - Insurance executives say homeowners will never have access to comprehensive flood insurance in Canada unless there are new maps of flood-prone areas that take climate change into account. Cry babies I say.

That's the finding of a study that surveyed senior executives at 13 Canadian insurance firms on extreme flooding, which devastated parts of southern Alberta and Toronto this year and is becoming more frequent across the country.

Affected homeowners are often surprised to learn their policies, while covering sewage backups, do not pay for damage from water entering basement windows from swollen rivers and streams.

Canada is the only G8 country where this so-called overland flood insurance is simply not available in the private sector.

"Most insurers agreed that existing flood maps are inaccurate, outdated and inadequate for insurance purposes," says the study by two experts at the University of Waterloo, Ont.

"This data gap poses a clear threat to the viability of flood insurance."

In an advance copy of the report by academics Blair Feltmate and Jason Thistlewaite, to be released Monday. Their research was paid for by the Co-operators Group Ltd., a large insurance firm.

The insurance industry is sharply focused on flooding, which in the last 15 years has become their biggest payout area. That's because of extreme weather events that the executives agree are linked to climate change.

"The big cost now ... is flooding basements, by a country mile," said Feltmate. "So it's really high on their radar screen."

Canada has seen 289 flood disasters since 1900, the largest such category, more than the number of hail, wildfire and winter storm disasters combined in the same period.

Floods are expensive. The southern Alberta floods last summer are estimated to have cost private insurers $2.25 billion, even though damage to residences was generally not covered. In 2011, floods in Manitoba and Quebec also racked up millions in payouts. How did they get these figures and from where?

The federal and provincial governments are also exposed to huge costs under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, which pay a disproportionate amount for overland flooding compared with storm, hail and wildfire disasters, which are often already covered under private policies.

Existing sewage-backup coverage is also hurting private insurers' bottom lines because climate change results in more torrential downpours that overwhelm aging municipal infrastructure and can't be absorbed by an ever-more-paved urban landscape.

Feltmate cites the example of a Toronto neighbourhood, south of the Downsview airport, where a large percentage of basements were flooded three times since May this year.

Executives would consider offering overland-flood insurance, says the survey, but can't begin to draft policies or set premium levels until proper maps accurately identify the new risks arising from a warming planet. That is their new risk for premium increases to cover of course.

"We need new flood-plain maps that take into account not the historical weather but the weather that can be expected going forward," said Feltmate.

The study says existing maps are badly out of date, and focus on historical hazards for land-use planning rather than potential risks in the decades to come.

The federal Public Safety Department acknowledged the cartographic gap recently by ordering a new study that will survey flood-mapping in six countries, including the United States.

The report, due next March, will also assess the state of flood mapping in Canada and estimate the costs to meet any new national standard.

The department notes that a previous federal program to generate floodplain maps was killed in the mid-1990s, and little has been done since.

Feltmate says the next phase of his research is a year-long survey of mayors, town councillors, premiers and others who will have to become part of Canada's flood solutions.

The study, also supported by Co-operators, will consult as well with bank executives, who Feltmate says are only dimly aware of the threat that increased flooding poses to their mortgage business.

That's because mortgages are contingent on a homeowner obtaining insurance, and many insurance companies may begin to steer clear of properties prone to frequent basement flooding, such as in the Downsview neighbourhood.

"The banks have a much greater stake in this game than they currently realize," said Feltmate. The banks of course offer house/home insurances?.

They call it a game I personally call it a 'rip off' but shareholders will be well pleased.. another Canadian monopoly in action.

The Friday before a long weekend is probably not the best time to hold a rally, but a rally to build support for the big three telecom carriers in their war against Verizon’s possible entry into Canada? That was truly a bad call.

And yet, as I write these words, members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union and the Canadian Auto Workers (now called Unifor) are getting ready to set up in the middle of downtown Toronto. “No to Verizon!” the poster reads, with an ‘X’ crossed out over the U.S. telecom giant’s name as though it were a ballot. This comes just a few days after Verizon reportedly began trying to buy out its longtime partner Vodofone’s stake in its wireless operation.

This is a $130 billion transaction which some analysts believe may diminish the chances of the company entering Canada and bidding in the forthcoming wireless spectrum auction after all. Though of course no one knows anything for sure, it’s worth thinking about what a Verizon-free Canada would mean, and what we’ve learned so far:

Incumbents are one of the most powerful political parties in Canada:
Forget the Conservatives and their Liberal attack ads. The “Fair for Canada” campaign brought together major carriers to exercise their influence at an unprecedented scale and seemingly relentless vigor. If they can work this hard to coordinate their public relations efforts, why couldn’t they do more to satisfy Canadians’ desires for better pricing and network coverage?

Industry Canada needs a backup plan:
As much as you could admire Minister James Moore’s tough-guy stance against the pressure from Bell, Telus and Rogers, it’s clear that the government’s hopes have been nearly as high as some consumers. Having failed to create a viable fourth national player following previous auctions, the possibility of Verizon coming in represented a chance to save face. Time to start thinking about how to empower the regional carriers and local competition if another foreign juggernaut fails to show interest in our spectrum auction.

Expectations have been irrevocably raised:
Had the Verizon issue never developed, most everyday Canadians would probably never have taken notice of the next spectrum auction, or wondered whether anyone would rise up to replace the financially struggled incumbent alternatives we briefly enjoyed with Public Mobile, Mobilicity and Wind Mobile. The Fair for Canada campaign, meanwhile, suggests that consumers would be far better off with market that continues to be dominated by the established oligarchs. Should Verizon fail to appear, they’ll need to prove it.

We’ll know in due time whether the notion of entering Canada was just a “bargaining” chip Verizon was using with Vodofone, as some have described it. What this summer proved, however, is that everyone from the incumbents to Industry Canada are gambling over the future of quality wireless service across Canada. With or without Verizon, those are still important stakes sitting on the table.

Canada's national "Child Day"
Canada's national "Child Day" is held November 20th each year as enacted in Bill C-371, otherwise known as the Child Day Act, by the Parliament of Canada in 1993.
It commemorates the United Nations adoption of two landmark documents concerned with the human rights of all children and youths.
On "Child Day", Canadians honour our children and The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of The Child on November 20th, 1959, and the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on November 20th, 1989.

The Convention spells out the basic human rights to which children (under the age of 18) everywhere are entitled.

The purpose of Child Day is to promote awareness about the Convention to Canadians .

It is also a day to support Canadian children's rights by voicing your concerns about Canadian children's rights violations to the politicians of Canada and to educate our children about their rights and responsibilities.
The Child Day Act - 1993 - The Parliament of Canada

1993, c. 18 [Assented to May 6, 1993]
An Act respecting a national child day
Preamble

WHEREAS on November 20, 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly;
AND WHEREAS the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is desirable to promote in Canada an awareness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Child Day Act.
2. Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the 20th day of November, being the day in the year 1989 when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly, shall be known as "Child Day".

The responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial governments to publicize the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
Convention Article 42 states:
States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike.
The governments do next to nothing to fulfill their obligations.
In December 2004, the Senate of Canada Standing Committee on Human Rights finally commended hearings on how to implement the Convention in Canada 15 years after the U.N. ratification of the Convention.

On February 7, 2005, Rita Karakas, CEO of Save the Children Canada, a child-rights organization stated:

"In honour of National Child Day this year, we commissioned an Ipsos-Reid survey of 1,000 adult Canadians on their knowledge of children's rights in Canada and how they rated the Canadian government and governments on their performance in children's rights duties. Regretfully, the respondents failed to demonstrate significant knowledge of children's rights, and those who failed the test also failed the people who were held accountable. They felt that the federal government was not doing its duty in children's rights. "

Rita Karakas, CEO of Save the Children Canada, a child-rights organization stated in the Toronto Star, Nov. 20, 2004

"....yet most Canadians do not know a great deal about the issues facing children. In fact, this was verified in the results of a new national survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted Nov. 9 to 11, by Save the Children Canada and Ipsos-Reid. The poll quizzed Canadians on their knowledge of basic children's issues for National Child Day. Unfortunately, the average score was 33 per cent.

How many children live in poverty? Only half of Canadians surveyed knew that 14 per cent or one in six Canadian children live below the poverty line. In fact, Canada has the world's second highest rate of child poverty among industrialized countries, second only to the United States."

What the Government of Canada wants you to believe about Canada on Canada's national "Child Day"

From the Government of Canada website in 2004
This years theme, "A Canada Fit for Children", celebrates Canada's commitment to children. On May 10, 2004, the publication A Canada Fit for Children was released to show how Canada is moving forward with its commitments made on May 10, 2002 at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children. It highlights the Canadian governments agenda and National Plan of Action for children in Canada.

Celebrate Canada's national "Child Day" this year by showing how Canada is fit for children!
The truth
Since the report of The Special Joint Committee on Custody and Access was submitted to the Parliament of Canada, over 1 million children in Canada have been are being deprived of a relationship with 1 parent in violation of a family law court order or separation agreement and in contravention of the child's right to a relationship with both their biological parents as provided for in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of The Child. Parental alienation among Canadian children is rampant.

The Special Joint Committee on Custody and Access, a joint committee of members from both the House of Commons and the Senate held country wide hearings in 1998. Their report "For the sake of the Children" has been virtually ignored by the Liberal government. No meaningful change to family law ever been introduced to Parliament since the report of the Special Joint Committee was submitted to parliament.

Over 3.2 million Canadians are denied their birthright
Over 3.2 million Canadians are denied their birthright, their correct identification on their birth records. The Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding children's identity rights has not been properly implemented or in some provinces never been implemented. See our section on children's identity rights
ALL members of the House of Commons agreed in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. It still hasn't happened.

Child poverty in Canada has increased in many provinces / territories. Food banks use has increased significantly. In 2006, 400,000 more children are living in poverty than in 1989. see our section on child poverty. By 2008, Quebec reduced poverty to about 10% of the population and has made significant inroads into child poverty. At a level of 5%, child poverty is considered to be eradicated.

What are rights?

The rights of children and youth are outlined in United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This document was adopted by the United Nations on November 20, 1989, which is why this date was later chosen to celebrate National Child Day.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child outlines responsibilities of governments, families, and caregivers, as well as the rights of the child. All children and youth have inherent rights, which can be defined as those basic things that are necessary to live and grow with dignity as human beings. For example, children have rights to a supportive family, to provision of adequate food, clothes, housing, and education, to protection from all forms of harm, and to participation.

WHY IS FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ADVOCATED IN LEARNING ABOUT RIGHTS?

Family involvement is advocated because children and youth can benefit when responsible adults, such as parents and legal guardians or teachers, both encourage and support the active participation of young people. The Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasizes the importance of adults in providing appropriate direction and guidance that assists children and youth in exercising their rights, in keeping with the child's developing capacities to do so.

WHAT DOES THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD SAY ABOUT PARENTAL RIGHTS?

The Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the significance of parental authority and guidance of their children, and emphasizes respect for parents and their rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that education should promote children's development of respect for parents as well as their values and cultures, while preparing them for responsible citizenship.

Also, the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the importance of families, who are primarily responsible for the upbringing and appropriate socialization of their children. Accordingly, governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents and caregivers, when providing direction and guidance to their children and youth to exercise their rights.

Pope Francis.. a wise man?

During his well-publicized Brazilian visit what particularly caught the headlines was a notably non-judgmental remark about homosexuality.

He also said gays should be “integrated” not marginalised. Though the generous tone (as with his remarks about women’s service to the church) was new, he stressed that church teaching is unaltered. Yet this is more subtle than outsiders sometimes appreciate. The catechism deplores homosexual acts, terming them “objectively disordered”, but it also forthrightly condemns all signs of discrimination against homosexuals, saying they “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.

The intriguing aspect of his remark, however, was the question that prompted it: about Monsignor Battista Ricca, appointed by Pope Francis in June to perhaps the most sensitive job in the Vatican, the Prelate of the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), popularly known as the Vatican bank. He will be the pope’s eyes and ears in an outfit that has besmirched the image of the papacy, and which Poope Francis seems set on overhauling. He has since named one commission to scrutinise the IOR and another to look at the overall management of the Vatican’s finances.

Now many wonder if Pope Francis was set up—perhaps deliberately misinformed about his choice. Shortly before he left Rome L’Espresso, a newsweekly, reported that Monsignor Ricca’s time as a Vatican diplomat in Uruguay had been beset by scandal. It said he had arrived with a gay lover whom he had housed and employed; that he had been beaten up in a gay bar, and caught in the middle of the night with a young male prostitute. Though strongly denied, the claims would, if true, deal a blow to Pope Francis’s plans for reform of the curial administration.

In February La Repubblica, (a daily sister publication) reported that Vatican investigators had identified a network of gay prelates, some of whom were being blackmailed. Details of this “gay lobby” are supposedly in a dossier on the “Vatileaks” affair, prepared by three cardinals on Benedict’s orders. Vatileaks involved the leaking by the papal butler of secret correspondence purportedly revealing scandalous maladministration.

All this adds significance to Pope Francis’s remarks: “We must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby.” Lobbies were bad, he said. “But if a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge that person?”

One worldly interpretation of the Pope's remarks on the plane is that he is trying to diminish the impact of any further revelations in the Vatileaks affair.

A more dramatic version is that, as he seems to have already hinted, he is preparing to strike against a homosexual network in the Vatican and wants his motives to be clear: that it is not the sexual orientation, or even behaviour, of its members that he condemns, but the formation of interest groups in an organisation that is meant to have only one interest, and one earthly boss. of its members that he condemns, but the formation of interest groups in an organisation that is meant to have only one interest, and one earthly boss.

HALIFAX - Newly released figures show Nova Scotia's net debt grew to a record $14 billion in the most recent fiscal year, but the province's finance minister insisted Wednesday there's no cause for alarm as the province prepares for an election.

Maureen MacDonald, speaking about the government's financial statements for the 2012-13 fiscal year, said it was important to consider that while the debt grew by $571 million, the province's debt-to-GDP ratio declined.

The ratio, considered a key indicator of economic health, peaked at 49.1 per cent in 2000-01 when the debt was $12.1 billion, a Finance official said. As of March 31, the figure had dropped to 36.7 per cent — down slightly since the NDP assumed power in 2009.

Still, MacDonald acknowledged that 2012-13 was a tough year for the province, which was still feeling the effects of a prolonged global economic downturn and the sudden closure of three mills in the labour-intensive forestry industry.

"Last year was a horrible year for finance ministers from coast to coast," she told a news conference in Halifax. "The recovery was not as robust as people assumed."

The fiscal statements released Wednesday confirmed that bleak assessment, revealing that the deficit carried in last year's budget was much bigger than originally forecast.

MacDonald said the province will officially record a $302.5-million deficit for the last fiscal year, a $91.3-million jump when compared with the original prediction made in the April 2012 budget.

As for the growing debt, MacDonald said every province has had to turn to deficit financing to stimulate their sputtering economies.

Nova Scotia's fiscal statements also say the province took in $38 million less in revenue than it expected in 2012. With the province's economy still stuck in low gear, revenue from personal income taxes dipped by $53 million.

The latest numbers are important because they stand in stark contrast to the rosy forecasts included in MacDonald's latest budget, tabled in April.

That $9.5-billion fiscal plan included a predicted $16.4 million surplus, largely based on the assumption that the province's economy will improve to the point it will churn an additional $181.6 million in income tax revenue.

"We have a number of really positive economic development opportunities coming to the province," MacDonald said, citing the $25-billion federal shipbuilding contract for the Irving Shipyard in Halifax and the anticipated startup of the Deep Panuke offshore gas production platform.

"That's not just me saying that. That is economists in many major financial institutions and third-party, arm's-length bodies. They have said that our assumptions are reasonable."

Liberal finance critic Diana Whalen had another word to describe the assumptions: "bogus."

"I don't think Nova Scotians are going to believe the picture they're painting," she said. "We are very close to the next election and what the minister said today is that she wants people to believe that everything is rosy. And I don't believe Nova Scotians feel that."

Whalen said the government's own figures suggest this fiscal year will see declining employment and shrinking retail sales, and she zeroed in on the debt and deficit figures.

She said the government's predictions in its April budget, which suggested the 2012-13 deficit could actually be $356.4 million, was a blatant attempt to make a growing deficit look smaller.

"To me, that manipulates people," she said. "I don't think Nova Scotians are that gullible ... (The government) is on track for an election and a narrative that they like, which I don't believe Nova Scotians will fall for."

Premier Darrell Dexter, whose New Democrats were elected to govern with a majority four years ago, must call an election before June of 2014.

Progressive Conservative Leader Jamie Baillie said the growing debt means the government is leaving a huge bill for future generations.

"All Nova Scotians know that it's our children who will end up paying that debt," he said. "That is the NDP record."

Like Whalen, Baillie said the NDP's latest budget forecast don't reflect reality, noting that the government's own figures suggest meagre economic growth in 2013-14.

If the reports are to be believed, U.S. wireless giant Verizon is gunning for Canada with a $700 million bid for local startup Wind Mobile and similar takeover discussions with Mobilicity, another new entrant.

While none of the principals are talking publicly, The Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. company is looking to take advantage of the Canadian government’s desire for four wireless carriers. Verizon coming in and taking over the smaller, distressed carriers would actually fulfill Ottawa’s dream of having an additional, well-resourced player in a market that sorely needs more competition. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills in the world – an average of $60.79 per month - according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Wireless Matrix.

Bay Street analysts have been questioning the logic of a Canadian venture by Verizon ever since rumours started circulating a few weeks ago. Most estimates expect the company will need to spend between $1 billion and $2 billion to become competitive, not just through acquiring smaller players but also by buying necessary wireless licenses in next year’s spectrum auction.

Verizon would also have to spend to expand its network and acquire customers. Wind and Mobilicity are believed to have fewer than 900,000 customers between them, a far cry from the seven to nine million held by each of Rogers, Bell and Telus. Many are wondering whether Verizon really wants to go to all that trouble just to snag an equal share of Canada’s $19 billion wireless market. That would represent a proverbial drop in the bucket for a company that reported $76 billion in revenue alone in 2012.

Consumer to benefit?

The better question for consumers, though, is whether Verizon’s presence would do anything to budge those sky-high bills. For one thing, the company has some technological hurdles to clear. They’re mind-numbingly dull to anyone but a very small group of wireless spectrum aficionados, but they’re important nonetheless.

Both Wind and Moblicity are currently using a chunk of spectrum known as Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), which runs on microwave frequencies mainly in the 1700 Megahertz band. Verizon, meanwhile, is using spectrum in the 700 MHz range to provide fourth-generation Long-Term Evolution services to Americans. As it stands, those two are incompatible, so customers of the Canadian companies can’t roam onto Verizon’s network or vice-versa, unless their phones are specially made to do so.

There’s good news in that department, on two fronts. Firstly, Verizon has been buying up AWS spectrum in the United States and is incorporating it into its LTE network. Up to 5,000 of its U.S. cell towers will be equipped with AWS by the end of this year, meaning that existing Wind and Mobilicity customers would theoretically be able to roam when down south.

Secondly, the next Canadian spectrum auction – now scheduled for January – will be selling off licenses for the 700 MHz band, or the same frequency that Verizon is mainly using for LTE in the United States. Assuming the carrier bids aggressively for those licenses, any future Canadian network would likely be doubly compatible with what it has down south.

Another problem is that wireless carriers so far haven’t really been offering voice calls – pretty much the core function of a cellphone – over LTE networks, opting instead to split those off onto older networks. Again, that’s an issue Verizon is fixing starting next year, meaning that both calls and data will be going over a singular LTE network. That also aligns with Canada.

All told, experts don’t believe there will be any technological compatibility issues for Verizon customers crossing the border in either direction.

“I cannot imagine there will be any changes,” says Amir Keyvan Khandani, the Canada Research Chair in Wireless Systems at the University of Waterloo. “There might be small modifications to the equipment, if any.”

That could – and probably will – be a major selling point for Verizon service on both sides of the border, but probably more so in Canada. Americans currently enjoy no domestic roaming charges – it costs the same for someone in New York to call across the street as it does to California. The company would in the unique position of offering a single North American package, which could inevitably force Bell, Rogers and Telus to slash or eliminate roaming and long-distance charges.

“That’s likely,” Khandani says.

Can Verizon compete?

The question then is just how competitive will Verizon want to be? In the United States, where it is the market leader with 98 million customers, the company is very much the defender. Critics say the U.S. market is as uncompetitive, if not more so, than Canada’s, with carriers using technological incompatibilities as ways to keep customers locked up.

If a subscriber who buys an iPhone from Verizon, for example, wants to switch to another carrier such as AT&T, they currently have to buy a new phone. Although those two carriers technically operate on the same 700 MHz spectrum, they use differing blocks of it. Critics such as the Rural Cellular Association say they’re doing this on purpose to keep customers locked up, while the carriers say it’s merely a reality of the differing spectrum.

Whichever the case, Verizon is likely to want any Canadian network to be as compatible with rivals’ as possible. Some observers and analysts believe the company will offer more of the high-bill status quo in Canada, but the reality is it will be entering the market in a challenger position. It’s more likely to do whatever it can to attract customers quickly to justify the big expenditure of entry, which will include offering compatible phones and networks as well as lower prices.

UN World Drug Report

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says the use of traditional drugs such as heroin and cocaine is globally stable.
But new synthetic substances are being constantly spread via the internet, the office's latest World Drug Report says.
It stresses that these seemingly legal drugs can have deadly effects.
These "new psychoactive substances" (NPS) have not been tested for safety and pose "unforeseen public health challenges", the report notes.
"Sold openly, including via the internet, NPS... can be far more dangerous than traditional drugs.

"Street names, such as spice, meow meow and bath salts mislead young people into believing that they are indulging in low-risk fun," the report adds.
Lucrative market New substances are being identified all the time and the authorities are struggling to keep up, according to the UNODC.

"While law enforcement lags behind, criminals have been quick to tap into this lucrative market," the report says.

It focuses on drugs that appear to originate in Asia but are marketed globally online.
The biggest market is the US, where use of these substances among youth "appears to be more than twice as widespread as in the European Union", it says.
Within the EU, Britain is a particularly receptive market, the UNODC says, with almost 700,000 Britons aged between 15 and 24 having experimented with legal highs.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported earlier this year that it had detected 73 new substances last year, compared with 49 in 2011.

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.

The majority of people who live Nova Scotia 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.

After trying to and researching church property assessment figures for our Halifax Nova Scotia area which includes the city and surrounding municipalities with a population of about 1.0 million, the loss of revenue to the communities becomes apparent. The tax exempt assessed value of churches in the areas totals $000,000,000! The average residential mill rate for the group is 7.309. This represents foregone tax revenue of $0,000,000. If we do rough calculations to include the whole country we conclude that the religious loop-holes are getting away without paying taxes of about $160,000,000 in Canada. We 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.


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 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? 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. This also include the 100's of bureaucrats in Canada growing each month 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 like Hitler Youth, with no opportunity to question the validity of the tenets they are required to embrace. 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 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. A recent example is 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?

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 or urine. However, real scientists are never invited to closely scrutinze 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 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. Taslima Nasreen is under death threat by Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh. Her crime is one of blasphemy for having said that the Koran should be revised in regard to the status of women. 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? If you are an Islamic Jihad Suicide Bomber, will you really get to "sit on the right-hand side of God and enjoy the attention of 72 nymphs." (according to Sheik Abdallah Shami, spiritual leader). 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 their 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?

Should God Be Removed From The Constitution?

Apparently the NDP Federal leadership has banished Svend Robinson to the back-benches as "punishment" for presenting a Petition to remove "supremacy of God" phrase from the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is very disappointing that members of a free society would take this attitude. Unfortunately, most people seldom read the religious books that they claim to adhere to and therefore don't realize the damage that religious belief has caused to our free country.

Christianity 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.