Petition to Justin Trudeau, The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, Catherine McKenna, Rodger Cuzner, Lloyd Hines, Alfie MacLeod, Alana Paon, Premier Stephen McNeil
Re-open the Louisbourg-Gabarus Road
A closed seven kilometer section of the Louisbourg Gabarus Road has hindered economic development along the south east coast of Cape Breton. Why spend over 30 million dollars on a new road when this 7 kilometer section could be opened for a much cheaper price? Having it opened would help this area reap tourism benefits as well as have the different levels of government save valuable tax payers dollars by going with a cheaper alternative while still stimulating growth. Closed in the mid-1960s after being open for centuries, it was always hoped that it would be reopened one day. A 2008 study indicated that it would "generate considerable economic impact" along the Fleur-de-Lis Trail. Go to https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/e53aae18-8696-4a99-84d4-464b16eff02b to see a copy of the study. As part of the study, a survey of approximately 1,700 tourists was conducted, with about 60 per cent indicating they would travel the Fleur-de-Lis Trail if it was completed between Gabarus and Louisbourg. That would mean more people travelling through Richmond County, through Gabarus and Louisbourg, and along the Marconi Trail into Glace Bay. The number would be upwards of 200 thousand people if weight is given to the 60 percent figure. When the study was carried out visitation to the fortress stood at 95 thousand. In 2014 it was at 66 thousand. In 2000 it was 137 thousand. So between 2000 and 2014 there was over a 50 percent drop in numbers. A number of businesses have also shut their doors since 2008. If the road is reopened an influx of people would help these shuttered doors reopen. And again generating revenue. As decision makers you have an important decision to make. You each have some or complete power to make this happen. Let it be on your watch that the green light was given to reopen a road that should never have been closed and right a 50 year old wrong.
Petition to UMPIRES
CHEATING CHINESE UMPIRES
*Thaihot China Open 2016 | Badminton R16 M1-WD | Mat/Tak vs Huang/Li*Chinese Umpire named "CAI FENGJIE" was unfaithful several times during the match.He was forcibly trying to get the Chinese pair to win.At one point he didn't allow the Japanese pair to challenge, even though they called for it right away.PLEASE GET HIM FIRED, HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE RULES!*He is getting paid to cheat, please stop this madness.BWF NEEDS TO take disciplinary actions against this judge. That was a disgusting display of incompetence, bias and nationalism. 1. The refusal of the rightful challenge of the Japanese (for a shuttle confirmed to be in). 2. The granting of every single request of the Chinese to change the shuttle despite the disagreement of the Japanese server. 3. Chinese time-wasting tactics and endless request to mop the court, all of this is unacceptable and has no place in a Premier Superseries Tournament. Evidence of Cheating/Unfaithfulness in Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiL9-ofibGo48:081:03:511:06:281:26:06Gillian Clark (Commentator) EVEN makes the following statement at 1:10:20"The tournament referee is supposed to make sure that the court officials are from nations other than the nations from which the players come from, to ensure neutrality"
Petition to Justin Trudeau, MaryAnn Mihychuk, Jean-Yves Duclos
Extend Maternity/Parental Leave for Canadians to 18 months
While campaigning in 2015 the Liberal Party and their leader, current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, campaigned on the Liberal's promise to many young families to increase the maternity/parental leave from 12 months to 18 months. Many parents voted Liberal just for that reason and are now planning to hold the new government to their promise! For many moms who are now on mat leave, the change can't come too soon! Here is a link to the Liberal's promise: https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/more-flexibility-for-parents/ Justin Trudeau promised that: "We will introduce more flexible parental benefits that will: allow parents to receive benefits in smaller blocks of time over a period of up to 18 months; and make it possible for parents to take a longer leave – up to 18 months when combined with maternity beneﬁts – at a lower beneﬁt level" Daycare situation in the province of Ontario and Canada as a whole goes from dire to not ideal. An estimated 20% of our daycare spots are licensed, prices sky-rocket and availability is scarce. Some cities drive young families out just because there is no realistic early childcare solution for their children. Even when a spot is available, the daycare will only accept toddlers from 18 months. Why, then, does our maternity leave end at 12 months? How are the average Canadian young parents expected to go back to work? Who will care for their child? It makes no sense. Extending maternity/parental leave to 18 month will allow parents to care for their children until they are ready to go to daycare. It will allow for families to survive during this difficult financial period of having a child. It will encourage people to have more children and it will make for better communities and better policy! "Mr. Prime Minister, please do what you promised and make it easier for us to have children without having to lose our jobs!"
Petition to Alberta Government
Stop Exporting Our Jobs Through Workshare (Outsourcing)
Workshare is the exporting our high skilled jobs in the oil and gas sector to “High Value Cost Centers” overseas. In the midst of a vexing downturn, the highly capable and trained workforce is being walloped further by large Engineering firms’ decision to workshare to reduce cost and be more competitive. I understand a corporation's executive team only feel responsibility to themselves and will always act on that basis. But we have regulations governing everything from childcare, to smoking, to bike riding. If regulation is what is required to ensure executives keep Canadian jobs in Canada, then so be it. If there is another solution, I am all for it. I think of Ralph Klein and the way he would explain the Alberta Advantage. He argued for competitive royalties that would attract investment and projects and in turn would create jobs here in Alberta. This made a lot of sense to many at the time. However these ideals are no longer applicable in our current environment. Companies operating in Alberta and specifically the big 5 Engineering Firms who employ thousands of high skilled and educated Albertans are increasingly moving work to be completed overseas. These companies are driven by competition, demanding clients, and a sacred view of capitalism. The bottom line seems to be the one and only consideration. The more of that bottom line they get the better, regardless of what that means for anyone else. They are great advocates for themselves, but who advocates for us. Increasingly we are hearing of “workshare” as the new norm, and guaranteed 75% engineering overseas. Entire multibillion dollar Alberta projects that would have normally been designed procured and constructed in Alberta now being awarded to a South Korean firm (Suncor Fort Hills). This is great news for South Korea but what does it mean for us. We are the middle class, we pay the lion’s share of taxes and create countless spin off jobs that stimulate the economy. We are educated here, we have taken student loans and have paid them back, we have mortgages and are raising families here, we are fully invested in the Canadian dream. What happens when the vast majority of us are gone? Are we more expensive, and less competitive than some developing nations? Yes we are. But then again, what about the Alberta Advantage? Was the Alberta Advantage considered when we were determining how competitive we are? Oil companies get a deal here to create jobs here. If this is simply an out of date understanding, then perhaps it should be mandated. Culturally we will never be as competitive as the third world because we don’t live in the same dire circumstances. We live in one of the greatest countries on Earth, Canada, where we can enjoy our lives and still engage in meaningful work. We can have better a work/life balance because we are Canadian. Culturally and not just on paper, we believe in equality, equity, and have the highest regards for human rights. These are our values regardless of what the holy grail of capitalism says our values should be. If companies can get a deal on royalties because we want to be competitive and then those same companies turn around and get the cheapest engineering overseas because they can, then that seems like having your cake and eating it too. Ultimately, it’s not fair to Alberta or its people. In the beginning it was the foreign worker program. We somehow decided that we should import skilled foreign workers rather than train our own university graduates. In 2004 so many engineering students could not find meaningful engineering work. Yet in 2006 most of the engineering offices were filled with foreign engineering “specialists”. Because of Canada’s strong immigration traditions of inclusivity we accepted this and it seemed to work. I see those foreign workers as Albertans now they are part of our community, but every now and again I think of Alberta engineering graduates and where they end up. I also wonder what the future will hold for our community’s children. By sending our work overseas we are losing valuable skills and training that is pivotal to our workforce and future. I do believe in market forces, adaptability and reinvention. However we do need checks and balances to help us adapt to globalization and the new world realities. There are those who believe the world is not fair and emphatically state this at every opportunity. I assert we have a moral duty to make life as fair as we can. On this issue of exporting our jobs, I believe we can and must do better. Please consider my words in moving forward with your plans. I wish you and us the best of luck in our uncertain future. Respectfully, Anonymous Engineer
Petition to Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau
Let’s use our publicly-owned Bank of Canada to its full potential as per the Act of 1938
One of the most important legal cases in Canadian history is slowly inching its way towards trial. Launched in 2011 by the Toronto-based Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada (BoC) to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending. Here's what the BoC case is all about...it clearly explains in point 18 of the "Business and Powers of the Bank": The Bank may (j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government’s estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan; See "Business and Powers of the Bank" in link below http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-2/FullText.html Voici ce qu'est le dossier de la Banque du Canada; expliqué clairement au point 18 dans le lien plus bas. Voir section intitulée « Opérations de la banque » : La Banque peut j) consentir des prêts au gouvernement du Canada ou d’une province, à condition que, d’une part, le montant non remboursé des prêts ne dépasse, à aucun moment, une certaine fraction des recettes estimatives du gouvernement en cause pour l’exercice en cours — un tiers dans le cas du Canada, un quart dans celui d’une province — et que, d’autre part, les prêts soient remboursés avant la fin du premier trimestre de l’exercice suivant; Voir « Opérations de la banque » dans le lien suivant : http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/B-2/TexteComplet.html When asked after the October procedural hearing why Canadians should care about the case, Galati quickly responded: “Because they’re paying $30 or $40 billion a year in useless interest. Since ‘74, more than a trillion to fraudsters, that’s why they should care.” (COMER says the figures are closer to $60 billion per year, and $2 trillion since 1974.) The end result has turned our citizens into debt-slaves, this has lead us all into neo-liberal policies and the all too familiar term “austerity”, read on to understand the end-game unless we wake-up soon! Neo-liberal policies and its austerity measures can only work if a nation is indebted to private interests. The issuance of interest-free loans by the publicaly-owned BoC as was the case in Canada from 1938 & 1974 solved this problem, no debt to private interests therefore no need for these public crushing policies. Neo-liberalism is a tool for private interests to grab state owned assets (on the cheap) which results into further impoverishment of the citizens of that country..., it is a scam in slow motion, pure and simple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuMntvVwwWM In essence, the “money-gods” of this world want monopolies and that is the end result of capitalism. IF YOU HAVE EVER PLAYED THE GAME “MONOPOLY”, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE WINNER. It is a form of feudalism when pushed to the end. They use governments to create barriers to entry where they see competition and push for freedom once monopolies are achieved. The fact that we are imposed “austerity” and in turn theft of our collective sovereignty should outrage us all, our governments no longer answer to us the people of this country. For more details on neo-liberalism, please see the following link http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 http://comer.org/ For those interested, here’s the official petition launched by Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada that is (in my opinion) being deliberately muddied by our government. https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-337 Information about this case is available in the following link. Search for court number T-2010-11. http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_queries_e.php?stype=court&select_court=T
Petition to Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau, Minister of International Trade, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne,, the Parliament of Canada
This petition seeks to achieve the removal of sovereignty-deleting ISDS from NAFTA.
Petition Re NAFTA and ISDS To: Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau, Minister of International Trade, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, The Parliament of Canada, and the rest of the Government of Canada Whereas The new President of the United States of America has stated his intention to open the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for complete renegotiation; and Whereas Negotiations for NAFTA and for other so-called free trade agreements have been and continue to be conducted in secret by government trade negotiators with the exception that representatives of international corporations with interest in the effects of international trade are permitted access to these negotiators and to contribute to treaty development while: wholly domestic Canadian businesses with an interest in how international trade may affect their own local business operations, organizations concerned about environmental issues and how international trade may impact the Canadian and worldwide environment, labour organizations with concerns about how international trade may affect working Canadians, Canadian agricultural organizations with concerns about Canadians’ capacity to feed ourselves while also trading internationally, organizations attentive to health and safety issues and concerned with the effect of international trade on those issues, and others with interest in the effect of international trade on Canadian society are all prohibited the same access to Canada’s government trade negotiators; and Whereas NAFTA contains provision for Investor/State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) through the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (ICSID); and Whereas ISDS permits international corporations to sue Canada by tribunal outside of any national judiciary to overturn new law enacted out of our sovereign right to govern ourselves; and Whereas ISDS suits get decided in secret trials without recourse to appeal, utter anathema to a free and democratic society, never open and public; and Whereas The evil of ISDS lies in its capacity to defeat the sovereign right of nations, Canada included, to govern themselves by granting international corporations with investments in Canadian business the right to sue Canadian federal, provincial, and local governments in these SECRET TRIALS outside of the Canadian judicial system if new environmental, labour, health and safety, business practice, etc. law impinges on their investment; and Whereas These secret ISDS trials exist in one direction only – international corporations may sue nations, Canada included, but nations may not sue international corporations – ISDS raises international corporations from their proper status as subjects of nations and welcome guests within Canada to superiors of nations; and Whereas Decisions by ISDS tribunals are based soley on the impact new Canadian law may have upon a complainant corporation’s investment, with all other factors (environmental, labour, health and safety, business practice regulation, etc.) government must consider when drafting law, regarded as irrelevant to each case; and Whereas Decisions by ISDS tribunals are based upon neither existing statutes of any kind nor active precedents, implying that Canadian governments cannot know, when preparing new law, if our actions may be subject to attack under ISDS and, thus, may feel need to clear any new law with international corporate boards of directors if Canada wishes to preclude attack by ISDS suits; and Whereas The above four conditions transform international corporations from subjects of nations or welcome guests within Canada to, in effect, non-territorial kingdoms and reinforces the current dangerous trend corrupting Capitalism toward Capital Feudalism by which: Capital replaces land as the feu; International banking replaces the Church as the external power; Non-territorial international corporations replace kingdoms as the fundamental holders of the feu; Corporate CEOs replace kings as the authorities by which the feu gets distributed and to whom loyal attachment must return; Major corporate internal divisions and subsidiaries replace baronies, earldoms, dukedoms, counties, etc. as subordinate holders of the feu; Corporate vice presidents, very senior managers, and subsidiary CEOs replace the various Lords of the Realm; Corporate managers and highly skilled technical professionals replace knights; Contractors replace the freeman peasantry; and Ordinary common working people are reduced to the new serfs; All while the role of sovereign nations and democratic decision making diminishes into insignificance, reducing Canada and participating nations to resource and labour colonies of international corporations; and Whereas As a consequence of our participation in NAFTA, Canada is already the developed nation most frequently attacked with ISDS suits, with one immediately recent case in point, an ISDS judgment against the province of Ontario; and Whereas NAFTA is widely considered to be a template and precedent for many other so-called free trade agreements in which Canada currently participates or are under negotiation with Canada’s participation; Therefore We the undersigned Canadians, prepared, “O Canada, We stand on guard for thee,” do petition you to: Require that The sovereignty-deleting Investor/State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) through the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (ICSID) provision be wholly removed from a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Require that In place of ISDS, a renegotiated NAFTA provide that Canadian operations of international corporations which find themselves at issue with our governments at any level should bring the matter to an open and public Canadian court within the Canadian judicial system for decision under Canadian law in the same way as wholly domestic Canadian corporations and Canadian citizens must do; Require that Alternatively, in place of ISDS, a renegotiated NAFTA provide that, if an issue exceeds the competence of Canadian courts, an international corporation should openly and publicly request its home nation government (by home nation, we do not mean that nation within which an international corporation is chartered or locates its corporate head office; we mean that nation in which the plurality of the corporation's equity capital ownership resides) to pursue the matter in an open and public international court on a sovereign nation versus sovereign nation basis that clearly holds international corporations as subjects of sovereign nations and not as equals with, nor as masters of, sovereign nations; Require that In line with this government’s commitment to be fully open to Canadians, the renegotiation occur openly for public scrutiny; and Require that Representatives of: wholly domestic Canadian businesses with an interest in how international trade may affect their own local business operations, organizations concerned about environmental issues and how international trade may impact the Canadian and worldwide environment, labour organizations with concerns about how international trade may affect working Canadians, Canadian agricultural organizations with concerns about Canadians’ capacity to feed ourselves while also trading internationally, organizations attentive to health and safety issues and concerned with the effect of international trade on those issues, and others with interest in the effect of international trade on Canadian society have the same access and opportunity to contribute to a renegotiated NAFTA as do representatives of international corporations. Therefore also We Canadians who love our sovereign, “True north, strong and free,” do petition you to: Commit to Seek to remove ISDS from all other so-called free trade agreements to which Canada is party, as those agreements come up for renewal, Refuse to Sign or ratify so-called free trade agreements currently under negotiation as long as they contain ISDS, Refuse to Participate in any new so-called free trade negotiations if parties to those negotiations intend to include ISDS. Thank you for your attention. (Translation by Google Translate) Pétition sur l'ALÉNA et l'ISDSÀ: Le premier ministre, le très honorable Justin P. J. Trudeau,Ministre du Commerce international, l'honorable François-Philippe Champagne,Le Parlement du Canada, etLe reste du gouvernement du CanadaAttendu que Le nouveau Président des États-Unis d'Amérique a déclaré son intention d'ouvrir l'Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA) pour une renégociation complète; etAttendu que les négociations de l'ALENA et d'autres accords dits de libre-échange ont été et continuent d'être menées en secret par les négociateurs commerciaux du gouvernement, à l'exception des représentants des sociétés internationales qui s'intéressent aux effets du commerce international. Contribuer au développement des traités tout en: Des entreprises canadiennes entièrement canadiennes qui s'intéressent à la façon dont le commerce international peut affecter leurs propres activités commerciales locales, Les organisations préoccupées par les questions environnementales et la façon dont le commerce international peut avoir un impact sur l'environnement canadien et mondial, Les organisations syndicales s'inquiétant de la façon dont le commerce international peut affecter les travailleurs canadiens, Les organisations agricoles canadiennes s'inquiètent de la capacité des Canadiens à se nourrir tout en faisant du commerce international, Organisations qui prennent en compte les questions de santé et de sécurité et s'intéressent aux effets du commerce international sur ces questions, et D'autres intéressés par l'effet du commerce international sur la société canadienne Sont tous interdits le même accès aux négociateurs commerciaux du gouvernement du Canada; etAttendu que l'ALENA contient des dispositions relatives au règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (ISDS) par l'intermédiaire du Centre international pour le règlement des différends investisseurs (CIRDI); etAttendu que l'ISDS permet aux sociétés internationales de poursuivre le Canada par un tribunal hors de tout système judiciaire national pour renverser une nouvelle loi découlant de notre droit souverain de nous gouverner; etAttendu que les procès d'ISDS sont décidés dans des procès secrets sans recours à l'appel, anathème total à une société libre et démocratique, jamais ouverte et publique; etConsidérant que le mal de l'ISDS réside dans sa capacité à vaincre le droit souverain des nations, le Canada inclus, de se gouverner en accordant aux sociétés internationales ayant des investissements dans les entreprises canadiennes le droit de poursuivre les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et locaux canadiens dans ces ESSAIS SECRETS en dehors de Le système judiciaire canadien si de nouvelles lois sur l'environnement, le travail, la santé et la sécurité, les pratiques commerciales, etc. etConsidérant que ces procès secrets ISDS existent dans une direction seulement - les sociétés internationales peuvent poursuivre les nations, le Canada inclus, mais les nations ne peuvent pas poursuivre les sociétés internationales - ISDS soulève des sociétés internationales de leur propre statut de sujets de nations et accueillir les invités au Canada aux supérieurs des nations; etAttendu que les décisions des tribunaux de l'ISDS sont fondées uniquement sur l'incidence qu'une nouvelle loi canadienne peut avoir sur l'investissement d'une société plaignante et sur tous les autres facteurs (environnement, travail, santé et sécurité, réglementation des pratiques commerciales, etc.) Comme non pertinent pour chaque cas; etAttendu que les décisions prises par les tribunaux de l'ISDS ne sont fondées ni sur des statuts existants d'aucune sorte ni sur des précédents actifs, ce qui implique que les gouvernements canadiens ne peuvent pas savoir, lors de l'élaboration d'une nouvelle loi, que nos actions peuvent être attaquées par l'ISDS; Nouvelle loi avec les conseils d'administration des sociétés internationales si le Canada veut empêcher l'attaque par des poursuites ISDS; etAttendu que les quatre conditions ci-dessus transforment les sociétés internationales de sujets de nations ou accueillent des invités au Canada, en effet, des royaumes non territoriaux et renforce la tendance actuelle dangereuse corrompre le capitalisme vers le capitalisme féodalisme par lequel: Le capital remplace la terre comme le feu; La banque internationale remplace l'Église en tant que puissance extérieure; Les sociétés internationales non territoriales remplacent les royaumes comme les principaux détenteurs du feu; Les PDG des entreprises remplacent les rois en tant qu'autorités par lesquelles le feu est distribué et à qui l'attachement loyal doit revenir; Les grandes divisions internes de l'entreprise et les filiales remplacent les baronnies, les comtés, les ducs, les comtés, etc. en tant que titulaires subalternes du feu; Les vice-présidents d'entreprise, les cadres supérieurs et les PDG des filiales remplacent les différents Lords of the Realm; Les chefs d'entreprise et les techniciens hautement qualifiés remplacent les chevaliers; Les entrepreneurs remplacent la paysannerie libre; et Les ouvriers ordinaires ordinaires sont réduits aux nouveaux serfs; Tout le rôle des nations souveraines et la prise de décision démocratique diminue dans l'insignifiance, réduisant le Canada et les nations participantes aux colonies de ressources et de travail des sociétés internationales; etAttendu qu'en raison de notre participation à l'ALENA, le Canada est déjà le pays développé le plus souvent attaqué avec les poursuites de l'ISDS, dont un est un cas récem- ment récent, un jugement de l'ISDS contre la province de l'Ontario; et Attendu que l'ALÉNA est largement considéré comme un modèle et un précédent pour de nombreux autres accords dits de libre-échange auxquels le Canada participe ou est en négociation avec la participation du Canada; Par conséquent, Nous, les soussignés, avons préparé, «O Canada, Nous sommes sur la garde pour vous», vous prie de:Exiger que la soustraction de la souveraineté au règlement des différends entre les investisseurs et les États (ISDS) par l'intermédiaire de la disposition du Centre international pour le règlement des différends avec les investisseurs (CIADI) soit totalement retirée d'un accord de libre-échange nord-américain renégocié;Exiger qu'à la place de l'ISDS, un ALENA renégocié prévoie que les opérations canadiennes de sociétés internationales qui se trouvent en litige avec nos gouvernements à quelque niveau que ce soit devraient porter l'affaire devant un tribunal canadien ouvert et public dans le système judiciaire canadien pour décision en vertu du droit canadien De la même façon que les sociétés canadiennes entièrement canadiennes et les citoyens canadiens doivent le faire;Si une question dépasse la compétence des tribunaux canadiens, une société internationale devrait demander ouvertement et publiquement au gouvernement de son pays d'origine (par nation d'origine, nous ne voulons pas dire la nation dans laquelle Une société internationale est affrété ou localise son siège social, c'est-à-dire la nation dans laquelle réside la pluralité de capital-actions de la société) de poursuivre la question devant un tribunal international ouvert et public sur une nation souveraine contre une nation souveraine qui détient clairement Les sociétés internationales en tant que sujets de nations souveraines et non comme égaux ni maîtres de nations souveraines;Exiger que Conformément à l'engagement de ce gouvernement d'être pleinement ouvert aux Canadiens, la renégociation se fasse ouvertement à l'attention du public; etExiger que les représentants de: Des entreprises canadiennes entièrement canadiennes qui s'intéressent à la façon dont le commerce international peut affecter leurs propres activités commerciales locales, Les organisations préoccupées par les questions environnementales et la façon dont le commerce international peut avoir un impact sur l'environnement canadien et mondial, Les organisations syndicales s'inquiétant de la façon dont le commerce international peut affecter les travailleurs canadiens, Les organisations agricoles canadiennes s'inquiètent de la capacité des Canadiens à se nourrir tout en faisant du commerce international, Organisations qui prennent en compte les questions de santé et de sécurité et s'intéressent aux effets du commerce international sur ces questions, et D'autres intéressés par l'effet du commerce international sur la société canadienne Ont le même accès et la même occasion de contribuer à une renégociation de l'ALENA que les représentants des sociétés internationales. C'est pourquoi nous aussi, Canadiens, qui aimons notre souverain, «Le vrai nord, fort et libre», vous prie de:S'engager à éliminer l'ISDS de tous les autres accords dits de libre-échange auxquels le Canada est partie, au fur et à mesure que ces accords se renouvellent,Refuser de signer ou de ratifier les accords dits de libre-échange actuellement en cours de négociation, dans la mesure où ils contiennent l'ISDS,Refuser de participer à de nouvelles négociations dites de libre-échange si les parties à ces négociations envisagent d'inclure l'ISDS. Merci pour votre attention.
Petition to John Horgan, @AJWVictoriaBC
Abolish MSP premiums in BC
British Columbia stands alone -- the only Canadian province to charge head-tax-like premiums for health care coverage. It seems clear that B.C. should follow the lead of other provinces in eliminating its flat-rate MSP premiums! Since MSP premiums are a form of tax, they should be assessed by the standard criteria for taxation policy. Given that 90 per cent of public health care costs already come from general revenues, B.C. has ample precedent for replacing its head tax with broader sources, and not becoming a Canadian outlier. It is time for British Columbia to follow the rest of the country and Abolish the MSP Premiums!! Here is a poster that you can download and get onto the community bulletin boards in your area . Please keep sharing this important petition, Thank you!
Petition to Premier Kathleen Wynne, Laurie LeBlanc, Angela Coke, Deb Matthews, Minister Chris Ballard, Minister Bill Mauro, MPP Lou Rinaldi, Minister Tracy MacCharles
Designate a person to conduct an inquiry under the Ont. Building Code Act 1992, 23, 30 (1) to investigate the failure to enforce the Ontario Building Code re Small Diameter High Velocity Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (SDHV-HVAC) Systems.
The Ontario Building Code (OBC) is a key document that protects new home purchasers when they make the most important purchases of their lives – a newly built home. In the case of certain SDHV-HVAC systems, numerous HVAC expert reports have found that these systems do not meet the minimum requirements of the OBC. Performance shortfalls of 20% to 50% of the required heating capacity are often measured when installations are investigated. These systems have been sold in Ontario for more than a decade, and according to CTV’s W-Five in March 2012, more than 50,000 of these systems had been sold in the Greater Toronto Area at that time. These systems continue to be sold in Ontario. Canadians for Properly Built Homes (CPBH) has heard from – and met with - many Ontario homeowners negatively impacted by these systems. In February 2012, former MPP Ted Chudleigh called on Consumer Services Minister Margaret Best for a full investigation, but Minister Best did not commission this investigation. Mr. Chudleigh recently confirmed that he continues to believe that an investigation is necessary. This matter affects a significant number of ordinary Ontario consumers who have purchased homes with these systems. Potential negative impacts to these consumers include but are not limited to: - substandard heating conditions in the winter and poor air conditioning performance in the summer, - significant reduction in the value of their homes and/or liability for damages for failure to disclose the fact that the HVAC system is defective when the home is sold, - repairs ranging from at least $40,000 to more than $100,000, depending on the size of the home and the circumstances. When the deficiencies are discovered, typically consumers realize that their only recourse is civil litigation or quasi-judicial warranty appeals, which are lengthy, onerous, costly - and usually do not result in complete cost recovery. Clearly litigation is not the answer. Consumers who purchase new homes assume that the mandated regulatory and warranty agencies will prevent sub-standard systems such as these from being installed. Consumers also expect that when it becomes known that a certain system is found to be sub-standard, appropriate action will be taken. Although representations have been made to the agencies that could take action on this, little or nothing has been done. CPBH agrees with MPP Randy Pettapiece that this issue needs to be addressed for current and future Ontario homeowners. New home purchasers in Ontario pay mandatory Building Permit and New Home Warranty fees but, in these cases, do not receive what they pay for, that is to say, homes that meet the minimum standard of the Ontario Building Code. While this petition concerns SDHV-HVAC systems specifically, what happened here concerns all purchasers of newly built homes in Ontario. If there is no inquiry and these Building Code violations are allowed to go unchallenged, it means that Ontario’s Building Code Regulation & Warranty Agencies will be able to successfully ignore other OBC violations in the future -- all at the expense of Ontario consumers. The Building Code Act contains a provision for an Inquiry to be held when a situation such as this occurs. It is clearly within Minister Mauro’s power to initiate such an Inquiry, and indeed it is his obligation to do so in the interest of all Ontario new home purchasers. Please sign this petition and show your support for proper enforcement of the Ontario Building Code. All Ontarians need – and deserve – a home that at least meets the minimum of the Ontario Building Code, which is the law in Ontario.