shortlived

Derek L we seem to be on the same page in regard to the benefits of facilitating private militias that are self funded. The thing about the reserve it isn't a expeditionary force, it is meant to be a reserve, hence reserve. Primarily it is more like the national gaurd in the US. these forces are meant to in large part provide emergency relief for the CF during emergency type situations. In reality if the CF needs more personnel for foreign deployment the idea would be to have more regular forces, to carry out regular force activities, not to draw upon the emergency reserve for what should otherwise be routine deployments overseas for regular forces. Now in practice both the national guard and the CF reserve has been called up for foreign deployment but in large part it is a little bit of a misuse of those forces. Now sure 90% may not really be into it regularly, if that is the case, I'm actually surpised that % would be deemed ineffective. However if sh1t hits the fan, they are still trained, they just arn't in shape perhaps, once you go through BMQ and what not its not like you are of no use, it just means the sorts of activities you are engaging in may not be unit deployment or coordinated, eg. if the establishment itself collapse, and in event of ongoign emergency I have little doubt things will congeal a little. I know people who have been in the reserve, and yet a bunch of times it is more about getting some extra money, mostly when they are younger. IMO hiring older professionals into the reserve will insure a higher effective rate, example people between 25 and 40. While promoting ROTC type programs that offer educational / financial benefits for younger people, with the option of military entry as an officer for younger people. The programs just are not psychologically effective the way the reserve is met. I would go a step further to encourage people in the suppliemental on leaving the forces to have militias to carry on their military training, as well as engage members of the public who do not wish to be duty about as reserve forces, or where there is no reserve, or MOC availability for their desired activities in that locality. Since sometimes the reserve options are limited and do not reflect the interests of the participants.

Dude, protest is legal in Canada. Quebec has been notorious for cracking down on what are suppose to be constitutional rights. Protesting against police brutality is a moral thing to protest on. The fact the city and police are engineering what should be a legal protest, into 250 arrests and fines is absurd. They knew 16 years in advance this protest was going to happen but even on advice to coordinate to prevent unlawful activities failed to do anything but prepare for arrests as opposed to intervention to bring order to the event without need for police intervention. It is disgusting that the government is engineering these sorts of situations where it sets up its own citizens to be arrested and be put into the criminal justice system, given criminal records, and causing even more antagonism against the system, it is debilitating.

No as I said I contacted all sides involved police, city, and protest organizers in last year on the issue of barriers to legal protest and all sides were unwilling to address the issues as a result More than 250 people were arrested yesterday That is aiding crime in occuring. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/03/15/montreal-anti-police-brutality-march.html?autoplay=true 250 is A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, both from provincial and federal tax payers. Also 250 people is 1/4 of the size of the town I live, that is like 1/4 of an entire town being carted off to jail, potentially for life, as participating in something deemed a riot can carry a life sentence. This was due to the city and police, and protest organizers, facilitating this too occur, they are all staging it. It was entrapment by the city and police.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-protesters-arrested-during-march-against-police-brutality/article9840467/ ................ I can't help but feel much of these issues are developed and not uncoordinated on both sides of the fence. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-police-anti-police-protesters-clash-in-annual-standoff-1.1197636 both the city and organizers have ingored advice to facilitate orgnaization of the protest (it is a total set up) (which I personally communicated to all parties previous years) the arrests were avoidable but both sides have intentionally ignored advice to keep the peace. the police are also complicit in insuring breach of the peace, the city, and organizers. A total stage show. The partles are inciting riot (city of montreal, sq and "protest organizers" who I have inclinations are government agents in some cases)

You are creating a false impression NO GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MEAN STATE you confusing the two is where you are errored in your reasoning. Also NO establish peace order and good government does not mean RULE. it is utterly ignorant for you to propose that peace order and good government is equivolent to rule. They can establish laws relating to indians and reserve lands, they do not rule indians or reserve lands. much like the federal government does not rule me, it is a free society, they have to ", insure peace with indians, insure order in dealings with indians and insure good government in relation to indians, which means indians should be constituents and stakeholders in government. no where is rule stated, courts rule and the federal government does not have power over the justice system the monarchy does (it is the monarchy) the courts manage breaches of peace, as well as establish warrants for the executive interaction with members of canadian society which is free, including freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Parliament does none of those things. (although there is one slight exception in regard to the parliamentary bar... which is just overly too complex to include here (and it hasnt' be used in soooo long.) Understand parliament composes legislation, it does not rule, that is the job of the executive to undertake on behalf of the fount of justice --- which the courts represent. You have a false connotation of what parliament is g_bambino. You have twisted the constitution to be a force of centralized evil dictatorship as opposed to being representative of a balance of powers in a free and democratic society. Just acknowledge the fact that the state is a constitutional monarchy and the federal government is not the state.

Says the guy form Seatle. Hey you know people arn't forced to take free tuition, with an average income of $45,000 for university graduates that works out to $1350 a year. But it would likely be lower to start at entry level jobs and would grow as income levels increase. But tax payers are already paying for 50% of students tuition anyway in places like ontario. This also not counted on the loan write offs and payment assistance. Tax payers in general area paying over $200 a year just at the federal level, so everyone can pay $500 or student who get the free tuition pay $1350 a year on average, which students who take 8 terms at ~$3500 a term (or $28000 for a 4 year degree) works out to 20 years to pay down at $1350. It works out to 2x as much over a life time or about $60,000 before retirement at 67 (or whatever number it is) Yes its more but you will get hit for most of it anyway, and it is the right thing to do. I dont think that we will be capitalst in another 30 years anyway, let alone 40 or 50 oh and that 28,000 wasn't even adjusted for the 8%+ interest which can be even higher.) So no, it is more for the student but the payment period is longer and it provides free tuition, the cost savings are found it getting rid of all the other programs that just add layers of red tape, and staffing to administer that red tape. Yeah that is right in the same period tax payers are paying $20,000 whether they get free tuition or not.. hey geuss what, that is almost the entire difference, with interest added in, it might even be less to take the free tuition than maintain the current system for the student getting the free tuition... and geuss what the tax payers just loose $20,000 to pay for someone elses education.... get it, you either pay $20,000 and get nothing, or you pay more as a student than under this plan.. what don't you get? It costs the tax payers less, it costs the students less, and it cuts down on red tape and wasted time, and resources... THIS IS GOOD NOT BAD WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? oh and better yet, those who pay into the Free tuition fund become shareholders.. with an issue each year, including tax payers forced to fund the plan until it became self supporting, meaning they get a pension once it fullfills its mandate to pay for all the students who request access to the free tuition. The share on return is based on the percent of annual contribution in association to the total sum of contributions. So the weight of the share would vary by year based upon individual input into the total fund for a given year, and total shares would then payout based upon any remainder as divided by share holding weight once the fund was self sustaining.

Hey Pliny why don't you read the thread first, rather than being ignorant and completely out of touch with the subject.

So its just alternative day care to give people free elementary and secondary school right? There is no educational benefit whatsoever. Get the clue that post secondary education is the new highschool. Oh so 1 in 10 of university educated people don't have jobs, how many high school graduates don't have jobs, how many drop outs? Could the people who stay in, maybe be there cause they don't have jobs. No man your view is retarded. I'm appalled you are a university graduate who says such stupid things. So that 1 in 10 high school graduates that don't have jobs or 12% unemployment rate, and that 23% unemployment rate of highschool drop outs. Oh how about income levels and contribution to GDP.. post secondary graduates vs. highschool graduates vs dropouts geuss what... it makes the country wealthier.. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=54 You are being stupid. What about crime rates of those classes example statistics such as "82 per cent of federal inmates had an education of Grade 10 or less" Guess what one of the leading causes to a lower crime rate, NO not a conservative federal government, but rather education.. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/28/f-vp-kempa-crime-rate.html ----------- Lets get real though, no the system won't change because bad people make money off of the mismanagement. France has free tuition it is doing fine. Fact is IT WILL COST TAX PAYERS LESS.. what don't you get about this?

No there arn't. There is one state of Canada which is a constitutional monarchy. There is one federal government, and ten provincial governments. No, it isn't. Federalism a layer of government which manages specific functions, but not all functions. The federal mandate as it was envisioned was not as centralized in 1867 as it is today, and it does not remain all encompasing. You are wrong. Read the Constitution again and realize your position is wrong. Dude, there is only one head of state of Canada, and there are mulitple heads of government, get a clue. The big crown thing you are caught up on is crown of government, not monarch, which there is only one head of state. governments do not have heads of state, they have heads of government. Keep grasping. No the federal govenrment is not charged with governing aboriginals, where does it say that in the constitution? The head of state is responsible to uphold treaties with the first nations, not rule aboriginals, You are being absurd and engineering something that is in no way the way things actually legally work. Your federal parliament on advice of the house and senate can make laws on the " Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada" it is not a state. Parliament establishes how the Government of Canada is to function, it does not run the Government of any particular province, and it does not run the state, the constitution does, with the reserve of the monarch, hence constitutional monarchy. These are the areas that parliament legislates on to create peace order and good Government " 1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45) 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce. 2A. Unemployment insurance. (46) 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. 4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit. 5. Postal Service. 6. The Census and Statistics. 7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence. 8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada. 9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island. 10. Navigation and Shipping. 11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals. 12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries. 13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces. 14. Currency and Coinage. 15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money. 16. Savings Banks. 17. Weights and Measures. 18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. 19. Interest. 20. Legal Tender. 21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 22. Patents of Invention and Discovery. 23. Copyrights. 24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians. 25. Naturalization and Aliens. 26. Marriage and Divorce. 27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. 28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries. 29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces." NOTHING ELSE As you can see Rule Indian is no where in there. It said make saws for the Peace, Order and Good Government, not RULE.

g_bambino -The federal government is only responsible for "federal tier of government" not the state, get it through your head. Now the privy council is closer to the state level though, but not parliament, parliament is federal, it does not pass provincial law. It has limitations and shares "legislative" authority with the provincial legislatures. Note that parliament is only a legislature, and the State of Canada has many legislatures all with supreme legislative authority in specific areas as outlined by the constitution 1867, and all require the head of state to agree to any laws they pass to become effective. They are however only legislative. The Queen composes the executive and is responsible for it, and individuals who exercise it swear an oath of duty to the Queen to exercise in her best interest loyally. The prime minister who the Monarch or their representative sign off on, select the prime minister, which in general is usually the leader of the party in federal parliament, but it need not be. It can be anyone from anywhere in the world, their task is to run the executive goverment, not rule or make law. The task is administrative, not executive. The supreme court also nearly resides at the state level but only in representation of the queen (something both the provincial supreme court and the federal supreme court are suppose to do, they don't rule on their own behalf, and are still subject to specific measures of the sovereign which resides at the head of state. You are fancying Canada to be a republic, it isn't. The PM is not equivolent to the president of the united states, parliament is not the same as congress.

No it isn't. Regardless of concepts, the form of the state of canada is a "Constitutional Monarchy" not a federal monarchy. It is the powers of the constitutional monarch is the head of Canada not the federation which is a body of the state of Canada. Canada is not a "federal state". Don't lie to people. Wikiepdia saying it is a federal state is bad enough. Canada's powers are shared between the federation and the provinces. Absolute power does not rest with the federal government. The government "functions" for the benefit of the crown, the legislatures both federal and provincial (and otherwise) sit at the leisure of the crown, however, respectfully members which compose those bodies serve as officers of the crown at leisure of the monarch, and those people give advice in how the monarch should carry out the affairs of state, both provincial and federal. IT IS NOT A FEDERAL STATE. This in mind that the constitutional monarch has a reciprocal trust with their subjects. The STATE IS NOT FEDERAL. It is a constitutional monarchy. This is the dominion http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html This is the country.. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const//page-15.html#docCont The constitution act only merges government, not state... An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof --- 1867 was creation of a polity but it was not sovereign, so there is no reason to think that the state came to be as a result of the constitution 1867, it didn't. Canada wasn't a full state until 1982, (in 1919 Canada became a Nation and had some autonomy but not full autonomy in the 1920's - until the Balfour Declaration which was ambiguous in Canada - giving techinical sovereignty but not full soverignty, legislative independence with reservations came about in 1931 in the statute of westminister - note that the federation does not hold all legislative rights, and that with the creation of citizenship to replace british subject status and the constitution in 1982... there have been progressive moves to limit the monarchy as a point of power, however it is by the wording of the constitution act 1982... still very much a constitutional monarchy as it appended the 1867 constitution to it) the state arrives from British parliament/(including the British monarch) --- The federation does not today hold all powers, so it is not the state as it is not sovereign. The state of Canada exists beyond the federation. It is very clearly stated in 1867 s.9

You'd have to look at the policies in place, its not the guy who put him in there, but it is the person who told him to put him in there and if it was legitimate to do so. People make mistakes, sometimes lots of them. The guy didn't necessarily have the intent to to have the violent drunk kill the jay walker, I would be suprised if this were the case (and I have a very negative view of police ethics in general). None the less the screening policies before incarcerating someone should be there, I'd wonder though why all their holding cells were full, or why a jay walker was in a cell at all. I'd be asking why a jay walker was remanded into custody. Its the judge that f'ed up, or the legislators. It is ludicrist to remand a jay walker into custody, since keeping them there would cost more than the ticket, which is arbitrary in the first case. (arbitrary confinement is unconstitutional it is laid out in section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms - where civil offences would not be sufficient to arbitrarily confine someone which a bylaw fine is clearly civil in nature since bylaws are non-criminal in nature, thus confinement for something which is noncriminal in nature is clearly arbitrary and unethical) It would have served justice better to have stripped him down to his underware and dropped him off at a homeless shelter or something. Or get some labour out of the guy, nothing like old fashioned slavery never hurt noone. Canada was founded by kidnapped and indentured servants afterall, "it's part of our heritage." If not for the alchohol psychotic jail mates, it would seem like Canada was getting soft on crime and restitution. Or well retribution, but not restitution there would be a negative restitution by remanding into custody, and lets get real there is no need to punish someone for crossing a road. I can understand public endangerment or obstructing traffic, But no, jaywalking isn't a criminal, it is people who use cars and ask for the government to limit the pedestrians ancestorial mobility rights that are corrupt. Deprivation without need is immorality. Although jaywalking 'isn't a crime' and any society that fines people for using a right of way is a corrupt society, any 'fines should be able to be worked off, it makes no sense to just keep people locked up, it is ill mentality for that type of people to be administering the justice system, but thats the way it is. Its the legislators fault for making jaywalking an offence that can in anyway result in incarceration. Canada has erred in americanizing its pedestrian road use, rather than stick to the motherland British society has survived so why would Canada be any different? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6251431.stm Canada is suppose to be a free society, how can the disgrace of jaywalking continue, it has killed someone, can't we learn from our mistakes and do the right thing! (It violates the common law)

No they didn't. I have the sense about 80% of it was just to waste my time, and even up karma. On the contrary staff who worked at the university were subsidized. And what is your point, how exactly does this differ from a life time annuity? Have you ever gone through the government loans and grant process it is such as waste of time and paper. Why are you including "finding yourself" to a program for free tuition. You seem to be going on some tangent that you are inventing a scenario for again. People want to earn a real living, no one, or few people is going to drift trying to find themselves as they live on $500 a month earned in part time work income and free school. People desire more. Your point here is off mark and doesn't represent my plan at all. People will go for the gold or a way out if they are shown the light of day. Dude I said they would get free tuition I didn't say they would get free shelter or food. I have no idea, few if anyone is going to live on air to go to lectures every day at 9am sorry you are wrong. You seem to be inclining lectures are "fun" like movies and popcorn or something. You need to get grades to stay in University. You are quite wrong. The new standard for employability these days is a post secondary education, as opposed to highschool. Occupational oppourtunities open up after acheiving a Bachelors Degree, it is also required in general for masters, and doctorates who are among the highest income earners. As stated you just don't appreciate the arts, but lots of professions benefit from the humanities and social sciences. I totally disagree, companies like google have hired on history majors, there are a whole host of arts and culture based occupations. Some people *gasp* are professional artists, graphic design is highly desirable for the internet. Communications (I am geussing you are refering to speaking and public relations) is also desired within corporate HR and PR departments and other spots. There are tons of English teaching jobs in which a degree in English opens the flood gates.(There are tons of job requests for technical writers and editors) Your position is utterly nonsense. Finishing a University degree takes learning a lot about things, reading, and writing and memory work, presentation skills, all things someone fresh out of highschool may not have developed. A certain level of professional peer interaction comes out of adult life learning, as opposed to teenage learning. Its not the same. The stakes are different. Also usually in year two people declare so this aimless drifting is an entirely different matter, do remember universities can deny or accept a request to change a program, and also I'd rather someone take an extra year to get the credits they need, or even come back for a double degree than going into a profession they won't enjoy. I do agree though there should be more technical and applicable skills at the university level, there simply isn't enough hands on practical training in universities, it is in large part letters, generally you take sciences courses (and yes you can take a B.A. and do sciences courses within your degree or even a joint degree) Who are you to tell people what they should master? The stuff actually does train people. Geography IS useful. For example GPS systems are highly useful and if not for geography we wouldn't have anything near what we have today. (I know people and companies, government and non governmental that depend on GPS from day to day to do their jobs and live their life) GIS is useful in so many academic and engineering related tasks, even policing, military, shoping malls, the list goes on and on, geography is about more than knowing what province is what, it is about how space and items interact, demographics used in marketing, supplychain management and logistics. I find it ignorant of you to criticize something you have no clue what it is. Your position on geography being 'useless' is retarded, considering Canada's economy is resource driven. Absolutely retarded.

People who applied for it.

Canada.com has a lot of different news stories from different sources, They may be more left leaning though........... example http://o.canada.com/2013/03/14/documents-lift-veil-on-cyber-security-web-behind-canadian-government-firewalls/ postmedia ctv etc..

K vs k Small k BIG K in the name. No maybenot.

I read an article only a few days back stating that February this year had the ice breaking up where it broke up in March last year. The ice flows are way thinner, so it is ice volume not ice surface coverage, however ice surface coverage does matter. none the less there is less and less multiyear ice leading the flows to be very brittle. Its like the difference between having a sapling or an old oak tree. This is more like a tree that has grown and is now decomposing. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/large-fractures-spotted-in-arctic-sea-ice-15728 http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674huge_arctic_sea_ice_crack_below-average_ice_extent_for_2013_data_cente/ and for interest http://www.climatecentral.org/news/thinning-ice-turns-arctic-into-algae-hotspot-15601 and the cashgrab http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/17/arctic-ice-melt-is-accelerating-even-in-fall-and-winter/

I think you are sadly mistaken. Fact is education is being paid for regardless. It only makes sense to have the people who get access to it to pay for it rather than the tax payer. I don't know why you are trying to force people to pay for other peoples kids education. The riots would say otherwise. Well that is why I propose tuition only be covered, and for there to be an across the board part time student employment service. People will want to move on to better jobs, or start paying off their private loans. Oh I think you are wrong in regard to accessibility of education. Everything indicates that better education leads to a better technological quality of life for everyone. People are not machines culture is part of society and valued. Whether you understand or not, the arts actually are valued and there are many jobs in arts related fields. History teaches how to make orderly society, or atleast understand how to rely on evidence to draw a conclusion as to what lead us to develope the way we have, one of the most important things for society, people who actually look for the evidence, rather than being mindless sheep. The physical sciences such as Earth Sciences are of great economic value. You simply don't understand how the world works to be making the assertions you are making. You seem to be calling on stupid atomotons able to build stuff but do nothing for any particular purpose.. You seem to be ignorantly ignoring the fact that my plan costs the tax payer less it actually reduces their taxes.

So why does the act use Canadian Forces everytime it refers to them except s. 14? Doesn't it mean the opposite then. It says they are the Canadian Forces when they are armed and raised from the Canadian Armed Forces, which is a service. So the Canadian Forces are armed, and the Canadian Armed Forces are unarmed. That is what it says very clearly. 14. THE CANADIAN FORCES ARE THE ARMED FORCES of Her Majesty ... "raised by Canada" ... AND CONSIST OF ONE SERVICE called the Canadian Armed Forces. So clearly the service is the Canadian Armed Forces, but the Canadian Forces are armed, and the Canadian Armed Forces are just a service, not armed. . note that armed used in 14. for the Canadian Forces is a small letter a meaning, armed, while the Armed in the Canadian Armed Forces part is a capital A designating a proper named noun. Thus the Canadian Forces as stated above, are indeed armed, while the Canadian Armed Forces, are a service, which is not stated as armed anywhere in the act, other than when they are raised and become the Canadian Forces. (By the power of PEI!)

I find it sort of neat he could end up returning to his family home. The election is two years off though. Lots of things can change in two years like nuclear holocaust and chinese occupation.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/physicists-say-they-have-found-a-higgs-boson/article4508342.ece wow, just wow. see the political implications here http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/higgs-boson-particle-could-spell-doom-for-universe/article4451852.ece NEW FORUM?? interstellar politics? .. rest of the universe? In other words, "we may have broke it" I dunno breaking a planet is bad enough, now we may have broke the universe, "someone" / "something" could get pissed at that.. you know a big asteroid sent to cause an explosion or something.. (yeah I know try aiming at that distance) And before you go into it, initially they thought global warming would take a long time to effect us too..

Yes I agree people are suppose to be assessed for mental condition, and people who are mentally unstable should be kept in PC away from stable prisoners. The mere fact this person was put in jail for fines rather than hard labour is evident of the stupidity of the justice system in Canada.

Yes which is exactly why having an ability to export to Asia is wonderful. Not only oil but mineral resources too. Goods also, food what have you. Even people. All via RAIL! Goods from China likewise can be sent via rail or russia or even from South Africa, all by connecting the last link. Not only this but the line and tunnel would connect Canada's north rather than highways to the north,put in rail, and with that new doors to Northern Resource development will be opened up. All for just $100 a year (or less) from Canadian tax payers for 10 years, before income generated, and any private corporate interest in the project, which I think companies seeking access to northern development would either be customers of this rail line or directly invest in it. For the cost of only one happy meal a month you could fund a railline and tunnel that will connect canadian markets with the old world. Not just Canada but also American and Latin American markets. It is being part of something big. Most of all it would create Canadian jobs in rail and resource industries because the goods from around the world would transit through The Yukon and/or NWT and Alberta and/or BC. Better yet instead of Taxing Canadians they can be sold stock each year for the Canadian portion of the project. Because this project is one that will pay off in time. Yes instead of forcing Canadians to pay taxes for something they don't use, instead they will be given stock. How much better can it get? Being connected to the Old World via rail has many benfits.. export markets for farmers, cheaper goods for consumers, more resource availability for industry, an alternative for passenger transport by air and sea. More web connectivity for communications to reduce satallite communications needs in the north of Canada, and so on. Also railways arn't a bottomless pit, railways made Canada.. it is part of canadian history.. and more so the metal to lay the rails and wood is a resource that can be used in the future if needed... it is there forever. True just like the northern pipelines and highways of WWII that were laid down in the North, this railline will face many of the same challenges or worse, but humanity has grown better at technology, now there are machines that can do the work, and the ability to fabricate the needs are available with greater ease. Reducing those dirty leaky pipelines as much as possible especially in environmentally sensitive areas is a good first start, and that is what this project can help with a bit. For less than the cost of ActionPlan you could have a link to the world! Now thats a plan! LinkPlan, a real economic project, with positive benefits... as opposed to 'Harper Benefits'

This is just nonsense. Russia by all means would facilitate transit of oil and gas, its about who buys it and where it goes to. Russian needs Canada to get to the continental US, Canada needs Russia to get to Asia. You are talking nonsense. I think that Russia would warmly welcome Canadian Participation in the TKM link. You don't seem to be citing anything that would indicate support for what you are saying. Simply put TKM is not very viable without Canadian support. So your position is not accurate. Canada, the US, and Russia would all benefit. You are assuming that there will be excess supply, this is not the case with oil. There is a near infinite market for oil and gas. All oil and gas ain't the same. Buyers want different blends based on their industrial needs. You don't seem to understand the project. I suggest you ask questions before making completely invalid statements. The siberian link is an international project that includes many many business partners. as far back as 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-tunnel.1.5332262.html?_r=0 The chunnel cost maybe $15 billion or so, this tunnel is twice as long as the chunnel, but as opposed to linking a country to Europe, it links the old world to the new world and vice versa. It is tremenous if considering how high speed rail and rail in general could revolutionize travel to asia and beyond. the thing would probably be the 21st century's panama canal. bear in mind Northern gateway is pegged at $5.5 billion, that money could be redirected to get TKM worldlink online to acheive much the same result. or rather a greater result... see also ICL worldlink http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICL-World-Link-4541246 This is something the G8 or even the G20 can get on about http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/eirv34n19-20-20070511/44-45_719_appeal.pdf China is also interested in the project http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/yakunin-wants-decision-on-bering-rail-link-by-2017/456393.html between Canada, US, China and Russia a project of this size (and particularly as a replacement to pipline through bc to the coast for tanker traffic is highly desierable. this project ain't a one trick pony like the tanker project is. There is a US champion called interbering on board the project to, its (rather optimisitic) projections are very good Read more:http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/yakunin-wants-decision-on-bering-rail-link-by-2017/456393.html#ixzz2NV9IAOTI The Moscow Times I think even the ambassador bridge guy might like to get onboard this one. Here is the interbering url http://www.interbering.com/ Also the rail link could be sped up by automated rail laying machines that exist now. http://www.interbering.com/Alaska-Canada-rail-link-study-2.html

Not when they have never been in the foreign country or had ties in the foreign country. Fact is no crime was committed within US jurisdiction so he shouldn't be tried in US courts. You can't try someone for shoplifting in another country. One of the few exceptions is jurisdiction extending to your own citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries, but no there is no jurisdiction to try foreign citizens in their own countries for things they do in their own countries. Fact is US didn't declare any war, so the rules of war don't apply. The US in fact hasn't declared war since WWII and all its military actions have been in violation of international law since that point. (with the exception potentially being those actions mandated by the UN security council resolutions) The US effectively abducted the guy, which in itself is criminal. What it represents is both corrupt conduct by the US and Jordan. This is currious "these crimes", making videos denouncing the US, were commited well beyond the US statutory limitations period. This is well beyond the 3-7 years statute of limitations if these "crimes" were said to occur in 2001. It is well well beyond the prosecution period. Did the law even exist in 2001? I find it ludicrist in a country where freedom of speech is suppose to exist they can't arrest somemone 10 years after the fact for making a video in a foreign country saying, that because america is bombing afghanistan Americans should avoid highrise buildings. It is pure BS, and not proportional, I would argue not in anyway criminal. He did not at any time indicate he would be involved in any attacks. The videos were clearly him just expressing hate and contempt for the US, something entirely legal for people of foreign countries to do. Much like americans express hate and contempt for countries such as Syria and Iran. The indisciriminate abduction of Americans who have said bad things about syria and iran to those countries to face charges is just ludicrist and AMericans have no expectation of equal treatment of the law for the same act. So it is a bs charge. I applaud Turkey for refusing the extradition. When is the US going to arrest its own citizens for commiting this exact same 'crime' in relation to its own citizens and politicans in relation to foreign countries and foreign citizens? You have the US even saying it will commit terrorist acts against its own citizens in foreign countries. There is no standards of ethics in performance of their witch hunt. Which if applied to its own citizens in relation to foreign countries would be considered "free speech" All the Americans have is a bunch of hearsay and communications which fall within free speech. This is just an instance of guilty by association, and a fraud of the American criminal justice system "There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live" No sh1t sherlock now where is the crime? The guy didn't say he was going to fly a plane into a skyscrapper nor did he say that he was going to get someone to. He just said that someones is going to fly a plane into a skyscrapper. There is a difference between opinion and criminality. Criticism and opinion based communication is part of what makes free speech free. You just don't like what he had to say because it was an act of defiance against the US. Not a crime. The guy earned prophet points with "He said the US and Britain, by attacking Afghanistan, had opened a door that would never be closed." what is it 12 years later now? One should realize that in 2001 the afghanistan invasion was an illegal war, which at the time was not sanctioned by the UN.