FIREMAN'S PRAYER

When I am called to duty, God,
wherever flames may rage,
give me strength to save a life,
whatever be its age.
Help me embrace a little child
before it is too late,
or save an older person from
the horror of that fate.
Enable me to be alert,
and hear the weakest shout,
quickly and efficiently
to put the fire out.
I want to fill my calling,
to give the best in me,
to guard my friend and neighbor,
and protect his property.
And if according to Your will
I must answer death's call,
bless with Your protecting hand,
my family one and all.

~~~~~~

Fireman’s Prayer

A VERY SAD DAY

It is with deep sadness we mourn the death of two of our volunter firefighters who put their lives on the line to protect our community. A fire at a dollar store took these men from us and now a community mourns.

HAPPY ST PATRICKS DAY

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ONTARIO

Scott Reid, Conservative MP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennex and Addington.

I have long been a believer in the importance of entrenching property as a Charter right. That’s why I was happy to conduct a short interview with Mr. Reid this past week on the details of his resolution, and the intended consequences of his legislative efforts.

Canadians with a knowledge of constitutionalism in our country may be surprised to learn that this resolution is even being attempted. Previous efforts at constitutional change have produced divisive results in a nation which seems unable to come to an accord on its own constitution.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Hillier however hope to use a less famous avenue to effect constitutional change: Section 43.

“Unlike the American constitution which has one amending formula,” said Mr. Reid, “Canada has five separate amending formulas… the relevant one (in this case) is Section 43.”

“Section 43 is the process that is used for amending the constitution in so far as it applies to one province… in practice, what you are really doing is amending the constitution of the province (in question).”

Essentially, alterations to the Charter can be made when the legislatures of both a particular province and the federal government concur to that change. The amendment then only effects the particular province in which it was initiated: in this case, Ontario.

Through Mr. Hillier’s motion in the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and Mr. Reid’s mirroring motion in the House of Commons, Ontarians could be the first Canadians endowed with Charter protections for private property.

What, precisely, would this constitutional amendment entail?

The wording of the motion is as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to enshrine property rights for Ontarians, as follows:–

1. The following section is inserted after section 7:

7.1 (1) In Ontario, everyone has the right not to be deprived, by any Act of the Legislative Assembly or by any action taken under authority of an Act of the Legislative Assembly, of the title, use, or enjoyment of real property or of any right attached to real property, or of any improvement made to or upon real property, unless made whole by means of full, just and timely financial compensation.

(2) Subsection (1) refers to any Act of the Legislative Assembly made before or after the coming into force of this section.

2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 2011 (No Expropriation in Ontario without Compensation), and reference to the Constitution Act, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment, 2011 (No Expropriation in Ontario without Compensation).

Legalism aside, I asked Mr. Reid what exactly the consequences of property rights protections would be.

“It is purely to protect landowners from losing part or sometimes all of the value of their land. If the government wants to take title from your land, they are required to offer full compensation.”

“One example relevant for farmers: let’s say in order to protect the province’s water and keep the quality pure, we can’t have nutrient waste running into water courses. You used to run your land right up to the end of a stream, but now you must keep the cattle coming from X metres around the stream. That’s a legitimate objective. But the fence isn’t free, and he (the farmer) now can’t use that land. You suffer two losses, and depending on the shape of the water course… some people have lost a quarter of their land.”

Property rights protections are especially important for Ontario’s farmers. Land ownership in rural areas goes beyond simply the control of property: land is directly tied to household income. Losing grazing area for cattle can significantly hamper the ability of a farming family to put food on the table. Through these resolutions, the Government of Ontario will now be required to offer compensation for that loss of income resulting from new land regulations and expropriations.

I asked Mr. Reid whether or not he intended to see property protections spread to other provinces.

“The short answer is yes. There is a saying from the USA: the states are a laboratory for democracy. Hopefully it will be copied everywhere.”

At the provincial level, the proposed amendment is in for a fight. “Because these are amendments that relate to Ontario… once it is passed in the (Ontario) Legislature, historically Parliament respects the decision,” said Mr. Reid.

“The real fight is in Queen’s Park. The Liberals are against this… a Liberal MPP stood up on the day of the announcement and criticised it. He worried about patent law, but this law clearly deals with real estate. They did a knee jerk reaction because it came from the opposition.”

Despite the battle shaping up in Toronto, feedback has been more positive in the halls of Ottawa.

“(I’ve gotten) good feedback from the colleagues I’ve spoken to in the House. I’ve tended to speak to rural MPs… (this amendment) is vital to their interests.”

Many Canadians would be surprised to learn that constitutional law already uses some aspect of property rights. Achieving Royal Assent on August 10th, 1960, Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights featured property rights in Section 1(a): “enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.” The Supreme Court has in the past been willing to use the precedent of the Bill of Rights in its rulings. I asked Mr. Reid then why he felt a Charter protection was necessary.

“The Bill of Rights is a federal law, quasi-constitutional,” said Mr. Reid, “… The Bill of Rights has no effect on the province of Ontario or on the actions of municipalities, who are frequently the worst abusers of property rights.”

It is only fair that the government compensate those who suffer a loss of land due to their government’s own regulations. Expropriations are the worst abuses of these powers. How fair is it for the government to sweep in and claim your property, without at least paying you fairly for it? I applaud Mr. Reid and Mr. Hillier for their work to empower landowners everywhere. The most important part of these changes is to protect those rural landowners who rely so deeply on land for their livelihoods. No farmer should be deprived of the ability to provide for their families because their government determined the “public good” overrode their ownership. When the necessity of the public good takes hold, landowners at least deserve a just compensation for their losses.

Very soon Ontario will have property rights. Hopefully one day all Canadians will have them too.

The preceding column is syndicated from the National Citizen’s Coalition.

BOOK WORTH READING

By Debbie Vitez-Cambridge Advocate

This is about a book I just read called Deadly Allies : Canada’s Secret War, 1937-1947 by John Bryden, and it was written in 1989.

This book is about Canada’s secret war from 1937 to 1947, but it also kind of extrapolates (I think that’s the right word) up to 1989 a bit.

When I was talking to the librarian about not liking bees, cause I don’t like bees and I thought it would be a good idea to reduce bees, she got me this book to read to learn how to reduce the bees.

And this books talks about what Canada was up to like on:

Canada did not have the bomb, but it was a world leader in bacteriological warfare and very knowledgeable in chemical warfare. [1]

They [, Emlyn Llewelyn Davies and Otto Maass,] had built in Canada an impressive chemical and biological warfare establishment, and for the foreseeable future it was there to stay. [2]



And then the author goes into later on, like during his time when he was writing the book:

. . . the genetic research now being undertaken even in private labs poses dangers far greater than all the deadly organisms developed in the Second World War combined. Mutants similar to the AIDS virus can now be deliberately, or accidentally, created. [3]

When I was reading the book I learned about this dude Sir Frederick Banting.

It talks about this Banting guy in the book:

Nobel laureate, saver of hundreds of thousands of lives through the discovery of insulin, [Sir Frederick] Banting had written what turns out to be the blueprint for bacteriological warfare research for the next two decades. Even within four years, before the war was over, his ideas for infected bullets and shells, the rearing of disease-carrying insects and the aerial spraying of deadly bacteria became weapons of reality. [4]

His co-discoverer of insulin friend Charles Best also went into biological warfare:

Even Charles Best, Banting’s co-discoverer of insulin, became an adviser to the Defence Research on biological warfare after the war. [5]

I got the idea of doing spraying of the bees to reduce their population, like how it talks in The First Global Revolution about reducing the population, from Banting and his aerial spraying idea.

Population control, necessary as it is, must be planned in terms of human well-being. It is of paramount importance that all countries striving for development should design their population policies. These policies have to be based on detailed exploration of the demographic growth prospects in relation to resource availability and development aims, including the standard of living which each country hopes to achieve. Only through informed assessment of such prospects can development planning be realistic. If the public is to respond to population control needs, it must be given sufficient information to understand the dangers of overpopulation for the individual and the benefits that would flow from population growth restraint. Such conditions are necessary if population planning is to be implemented with humanity. [6]

[James] Craigie, [Richard] Hare, [Dudley] Irwin, [Colin] Lucas and [Philip] Greey all offered suggestions on how to dry and revive infectious bacteria, and what should serves as a carrier. Sawdust took the lead over powdered carbon, starch or sand, and within the week [Sir Frederick] Banting was back in Ottawa asking for an airplane for an experiment in aerial dispersal. [7]

Banting sounds kind of like a nut from reading some of his diary in this Deadly Allies book:

. . . [Sir Frederick] Banting scribbled in his diary about killing “3 or 4 million young huns — without mercy — without feeling” and watching the Germans “wriggle & stew in their own juice — even as they with cruel and evil eye would see us of inferior heritage and stock wriggle.” [8]

The idea of spraying bees can happen, cause it gives an example of being able to do aerial spraying in the 1940′s:

If retaliation was ordered, explained Dr. [Tom] King, the plan was to infect the peat and then fly the bomber in a series of hops — Vancouver, Hawaii — to Japan. There it would disperse its deadly cargo. Five years after Banting’s original sawdust experiment on Balsam Lake in Ontario’s cottage country, the weapon he had only imagined had become reality. [9]

So during World War II spraying weird stuff from planes was a reality.

It talks about other examples of spraying like on pages 95 and 96:

[William] Hagan spoke for the animal disease specialists and they put the cattle disease, rinderpest, at the top of the list followed by the sheep sickness, Rift Valley fever. The latter virus dried well and was very infectious to man. It might be spread by releasing infected mice and other small animals, it was suggested, and be confused in man with influenza or dengue fever. It was not deadly but it could be sprayed over a city and might incapacitate the population, or an army, for up to two weeks. [10]

So for the spraying of the bees I was thinking that you can’t just get rid of every bee, cause then you wont have them to pollinate stuff like apples. I don’t like apples, but I’ll just use an apple as an example.

Say you just have one apple to grow. You only need one bee to pollinate that one apple. All the other bees are just wasted space. So you got to use some of the modern sprays to reduce the population of bees to get rid of that wasted space.

. . . the genetic research now being undertaken even in private labs poses dangers far greater than all the deadly organisms developed in the Second World War combined. Mutants similar to the AIDS virus can now be deliberately, or accidentally, created. [11]

You can gets planes to spray stuff to eliminate the immune system of one type of bee so then they’re gone. Then carefully spray another spray to slowly knock off the other bees with something like cancer.

You don’t want to just dump all the spray on the bees cause then you might get rid of all the bees, which will cause problems for you and you don’t want that as Earth Emperor. So keep giving the bees cancer until you just got one bee to pollinate that one apple.

People might complain about it, but I don’t think it’ll happen, cause in The First Global Revolution it says that people get their thoughts from the media. So as long as the media doesn’t say anything about the aerial spraying going on then you’re pretty good.

. . . the media are one of the main agents in forming public opinion and the thinking of individuals. [12]

And in the Deadly Allies book it talks about that people in Canada don’t care. That’s why most Canadian people don’t know about Canada doing the bacterial warfare stuff. So if people don’t know about labs making AIDS then I don’t think they know about the aerial spraying going on above their own heads.

Perhaps the majority of Canadians do not really care. Surely the real disappointment is the fact that the situation has enabled Suffield to keep its secrets all these years. [13]

If people do start looking into the aerial spraying then you just have Freedom of Information Acts around the world, like Canada’s, where people have the right to request documents, but they don’t have the right to actually get the documents.

Unfortunately, Canada’s Freedom of Information Act defeats this principle. Under the avowed aim of giving citizens rights of access to government documents, both current and historic, it gives only the right to request documents, a right which people have always had. It does not give them the right to get them. It even systemizes secrecy. It allows government departments legally to withhold information indefinitely — forever — for specific defined reasons that cannot be challenged because the person seeking the document cannot see its contents and has no way of determining whether the withhold decision is appropriate or not.

. . .

One of the most effective ways of keeping historians from probing awkward corners of the past is to do what has been done in Canada, the United States and Britain: give the national archives of the country responsibility for looking after records that have not been declassified. Since the archives staff has first consult the department concerned before anything can be released, an extra layer of decision-making is automatically imposed on the retrieval of sensitive material. Add to that chronic understaffing and lack of expertise by access staff, and government agencies such as Canada’s Department of National Defence can prolong secrecy without having to take responsibility for it. The same situation exists in the United States. [14]

If people start asking questions about the aerial spraying then you can just lie to them. John Bryden gives a good example on how to lie to people:

Perhaps the most insidious principle of secrecy that operates in all three countries [, Canada, the United States and Britain,] is the requirement that documents received in confidence from other governments not be released without prior approval. With countries as closely allied as Canada, the United States and Britain, that means that the paperwork pertaining to any weapon exchange, or mutual research or defence planning, can remain forever secret if one party or the other forbids release. Theoretically, and perhaps with some probability, that enables the United States to store prohibited weapons in Canada, at Suffield, and then claim with some truth that it has no such weapons stockpiled. Canada, in turn, can also claim it doesn’t have the weapons because the United States owns them. Nixon set out to destroy all biological warfare weapons in 1972. Did that include whatever the United States might have had at Suffield?

. . .

Perhaps Canada has adopted Britain’s logic for claiming, as it still does today, that it has never had any biological weapons or toxins. Britain never had the anthrax because it was made in Canada; Canada never had the anthrax because it was made for Britain. The same probably applies to all that botulinus toxin; perhaps it has never officially existed in Canada because it belonged to someone else. The only way to eliminate this kind of nonsense among nations is by saving all documents, and having a policy of timely disclosure. [15]

If people start complaining about the aerial spraying then you can lie to them by saying that the spray coming out the back of the planes is normal. Or you can say it’s just to help stop man-made global warming, which was just made up by the people in the last book I read called The First Global Revolution.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. [16]

That’s it.

Daniel Kemp

Footnotes:

1. John Bryden, Deadly Allies : Canada’s Secret War, 1937-1947 (Toronto : McClelland and Stewart, c1989

YES TO POT, NO TO DEBT CLOCK

Yes to pot, no to Debt Clock? Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Posted: 09 Mar 2011 01:49 PM PST

Dear Supporter:

Which of these things is NOT allowed on Parliament Hill – smoking drugs or the CTF’s National Debt Clock?
You guessed it. The bureaucrats in the Department of Canadian Heritage have banned the CTF’s National Debt Clock from Parliament Hill when it arrives in Ottawa on March 17th. Bureaucrats called it a “prop” and cited fears of leaks from the generator.

Yet, every April 20th thousands flock to the hill to smoke marijuana. In 2006, a Christian youth group held a rally with a giant video screen suspended by a crane. Even coffins were paraded around on Parliament Hill.

But not the National Debt Clock.

The truth is, bureaucrats and many politicians don’t want to see the clock and hear the message that Canadians want spending controlled and the federal budget balanced.

And we’re not about to let them off the hook.

E-mail the Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore, and ask him to tell his bureaucrats to allow the National Debt Clock on the Hill.

When we asked the Prime Minister’s Office for help getting permission, they said NO as well.

E-mail Prime Minister Harper and ask him to allow the National Debt Clock on the Hill.

Finally, send an e-mail to Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff asking for his help to get the Debt Clock on the Hill.

Let’s get this clock on the Hill where every MP can see it and hear the message. Thanks for your support.

–Courtenay, Shannon, Troy and the rest of the team

PS: When we drafted the budget for the debt clock tour, we budgeted for gasoline prices to average $1.05/litre. With the recent unrest in the middle-east, gas prices have spiked, forcing us to dig up some more dollars to cover the costs. Can you chip in a few bucks to help us get the clock to Halifax? If you’re unable to chip in a donation at this time, please join the CTF at no cost to receive issue and Action Updates.