Wednesday, October 15, 2008
CFIA updates warning over No Name flour
Made by Prairie Flour Mills Ltd. of Elie, Manitoba, the flour is sold in 2.5 kg bags with lot codes beginning with 125J and UPC 0 60383 01375 2. If the lot code is not evident, consumers are advised to check with their retailer.
The flour is a normal light beige colour when dry, but may turn yellow-orange when mixed with water.
The CFIA previously reported that the flour had been sold at the following stores: No Frills, Cash and Carry, Freshmart, Fortinos, Zehrs, Real Canadian Superstore and Loblaws.
The updated warning states the flour was also sold at Independents, Valu-Mart and Your Independent Grocer.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Go .VOTE!!! now
oh so all know this is the Canadian VOTE!!! not the us
Yes Canada can VOTE!!! too!
:.)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Ms. May and the Green Party would be excluded
The Elizabeth May debate debacle
Just prior to the 2008 election, Independent MP Blair Wilson announced he would become a Green Party member, giving the party its first sitting member in party history.
In 2006, the Green Party was excluded from the federal leaders’ debate on the grounds that the party had no sitting MPs. When the 2008 election was called, the Greens, now under leader Elizabeth May, argued that this time they should be allowed to participate. This request was opposed by the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois, but was supported by Stéphane Dion of the Liberals. After negotiations took place between the parties and the consortium of broadcaster who stage and televise the debate, it was announced that Ms. May and the Green Party would be excluded
 Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada |
In media stories, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper blamed the decision on the broadcasters, and then on the NDP. It later surfaced, however, that as early as 2007 Mr. Harper had threatened to boycott the debate if the Greens were included. It was the repeat of this threat, along with a similar objection from NDP Leader Jack Layton, that led to the consortium’s decision [1][2].
Much, however, had changed since the 2006 election. Increasingly, Green candidates were gaining a greater share of the popular vote. In a 2006 by-election in London North Centre Ms. May ran and placed second only to the Liberal candidate, earning nearly 26 per cent of the vote – slightly ahead of the Conservative and more than 10 per cent higher than the NDP.
Mr. Harper’s rationale for excluding Ms. May was that she was really a Liberal. He based this on an arrangement between her and Mr. Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates in each others’ ridings, as well as statements by Ms. May that she believed the Liberal leader would be a better Prime Minister than Mr. Harper. “…It would be unfair to have two Liberal candidates in the debate, and she is Stéphane Dion's candidate in Central Nova,” Mr. Harper said [3].
The public was outraged by the decision to exclude Ms. May. Anger against Mr. Layton, especially from his core supporters within the NDP, was particularly strong. Even former Progressive Conservative MP Joe Clark weighed in on May’s behalf [4].
On September 11 it was announced that Harper and Layton had backed down and agreed not to boycott the debate if May participated. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, although opposed to May’s participation, had never threatened a boycott.
Mr. Harper’s decision to oppose Ms. May’s participation and his subsequent reversal was considered by some media to be one of a number of Conservative gaffes in the first week of the campaign. Even after accepting her participation, he continued to complain it wasn’t fair.
References
[1] Former CBC News chief: The election debate process is a sham, Globe and Mail Update, September 10, 2008
[2] Harper blames networks for keeping May from debate, Canadian Press/Torstar, September 10, 2008
[3] Tories blame NDP for excluding May, Canadian Press, September 11, 2008
[3] PM dons campaign sweater, National Post, September 9, 2008,
[4] NDP Facebook slams Layton; Criticized for refusing to support Greens in debate, Canwest, September 10, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Unauthorized use of FedEx & "phishing"
Recognizing Phishing Scam E-mails
Recognizing phishing scam e-mails is key to protecting yourself against such theft and other crimes. Indicators that an e-mail might be fraudulent include:
- Unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package or other item, personal and/or financial information, such as your Social Security number, bank account number, or other identification.
- Links to misspelled or slightly altered Web-site addresses. For example, variations on the correct Web-site address fedex.com, such as fedx.com or fed-ex.com.
- Alarming messages and requests for immediate action, such as "Your account will be suspended within 24 hours if you don't respond" or claims that you've won the lottery or a prize.
- Spelling and grammatical errors and excessive use of exclamation points (!).
FedEx does not request, via unsolicited mail or e-mail, payment or personal information in return for goods in transit or in FedEx custody. If you have received a fraudulent e-mail that claims to be from FedEx, you can report it by forwarding it to abuse@fedex.com.
Examples of Fraudulent
E-mails
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government can not add & he is an economist.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/08/afghanistan-costreport.html
Cost of Afghan mission double Conservative estimate: think-tank
Last Updated: Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:35 AM ET Comments305Recommend127
CBC News
The cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan could be more than double what the Conservative government has estimated, an Ottawa think-tank suggested on Wednesday, a day before the official tally is slated for release.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has previously estimated that the total cost to date of Canada's mission, which began in 2002, is less than $8 billion.
That's less than half the $17.2 billion that the Rideau Institute predicted in a study entitled The Cost of the War and the End of Peacekeeping, which was released Wednesday. The institute's tally includes the cost of ammunition, equipment, military salaries, health care, disability and death benefits and economic aid projects.
The independent research institute, which is a non-profit organization, said Canadians can expect another $11.1 billion to be spent between now and 2011, which is the date the Conservative government has pledged to withdraw most of Canada's military forces from combat duties in Afghanistan.
"It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," said Steven Staples, president of the institute.
A report by Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, entitled The Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, will be made public Thursday morning.
While the report has been ready for weeks, its release required the support of all party leaders. They, as well as Harper, gave their blessings last month — despite concerns it could sway how Canadians cast their ballots in the federal election on Oct. 14.
Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that Canadians — especially voters in the key electoral battleground of Quebec — are lukewarm to the mission.
The Rideau study also predicted additional costs of up to $7.6 billion, once factors such as health care, disability and death benefits for wounded or killed soldiers are taken into account, bringing the eventual total to more than $28 billion by 2011.
98 Canadians killed
Page has already said his report will consider the costs of veterans programs, while he is also expected to factor in more traditional spending points such as military salaries and equipment purchases.
Canada has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan's volatile province of Kandahar.
The mission started in early 2002, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government, although some Canadian soldiers on exchange with the American military were in Afghanistan months earlier.
To date, 98 Canadians, including one diplomat, have lost their lives serving in the conflict.
The institute study's co-author, David Macdonald, said the Defence Department has reduced its United Nations peacekeeping contributions by more than 80 per cent since the Afghan mission began, to $15.6 million in 2008-09 from $94.1 million in 2000-01.
Staples said "the cost of the war in Afghanistan has essentially resulted in the abandonment of Canada's 50-year commitment to UN peacekeeping."
The study also found that about 167 Canadian soldiers and police officers were deployed on peacekeeping missions as of July of this year, ranking Canada 53rd of 119 contributing nations.With files from the Canadian Press