ReeferMadness

Global Research is an iffy source but in this case there are real issues. Anyone who wants to see a scholarly review of the literally dozens of serious issues with the TPP should read Professor Michael Geist's blogs on the topic. This is a deeply flawed agreement for Canada. Geist is not only a University of Ottawa law professor but holds the Canada Research Chair on Internet and E-Commerce Law. One might think it would have a been a good idea to have his expertise on the negotiations team but the ideologues in the Harper regime no doubt were so enamored with the magical abilities of free markets to solve all problems that they didn't need any help. Another opponent of the TPP is RIM co-founder Jim Balsillie who believes that the agreement would be disastrous for Canadian innovators. He said that the agreement will help lock in Canada's 19th century economy of digging commodities out of the ground. I guess people who thought Harper's focus on scraping sludge out of Northeastern Alberta was genius are probably not too worried about this.

That's not fair. I hear the Ontario Gazebo Association had its best years ever under Minister Clement.

If the Province of El Burda has difficulties getting communities to accept it pumping toxic sludge over their water supplies, it seems a bit of a stretch to imagine the Free State of El Burda having a better time.

Are you just trolling or do you really not see how specious and superficial that comparison is?

The deliberate misspelling of the province's name is often associated with an attitude that, to put it mildly, is negative or even disdainful of that particular province and its inhabitants. Anti-French sentiments are quite deep in some parts of Canada. But since the moderators seem to let it go, I think we just need to allow the MLW member from El Burda room for creative expression.

Thanks - I recently read about it but I didn't realize it's on Netflix. Is it on the Canadian version? I know it's possible to see what the US sees but I understand that Netflix is starting to crack down on that.

Yes. And this rush to throw money at Alberta is especially curious since the Fraser Institute assures us they don't need it.

Indeed, many Canadian businesses (the ones that don't make their money digging sludge out of Alberta) are already feeling the benefit of a lower dollar.

That's what they keep telling me. I take the long view on things and try to look at the big picture. In 50 years, Alberta will be left with the world's largest toxic wasteland and not much else to show for it. And lots of people calculate the benefits of that sludge, very few look at the costs.

Not exactly. I'm saying each province does act, to a large extent, as an independent country. This federation was formed by awarding almost all of the responsibilities to the provinces. When Alberta decides to throw open the tarsands to whatever foreign state-owned companies want to come and dig up the sludge, they do it without regard for what the impact of that activity will be on Ontario. The one key power Ottawa does have its ability to tax and use that economic clout to hold the country together. It's nothing short of miraculous that the country has held together all this time. I don't know what you're reading but it must not have been anything I've written. The gold-rush-like opening of the tar sands and Saskatchewan bakken (with little regard for niceties like the environment) has created an unnecessarily large vortex that has drawn investment and people from other areas of the country, while artificially inflating the dollar, making it harder for other industries to compete internationally. This wouldn't have been so bad, had the oil-producing provinces captured a reasonable rate of the resource value (like Norway). But the giveaway resource rates further strengthened the vortex while ensuring little of that money remained after the gold rush, Yes, and pulling together will mean economic policy that is geared towards sustainable industries, not one-time gold-rush ventures.

There was a time when I would have said that pretty much exactly word for word. But I've become wiser as I've become older. That pile of sludge in northeastern Alberta isn't going to last forever. And the world is going to move on from burning dirty fuel. If anyone in Alberta has seriously started to plan for that eventuality, it's a well kept secret.

Clearly, it is better to have resources than not to have resources. Clearly, it is better to use that resource revenue to help diversify the economy rather than give the resources away to multinational corporations in exchange for jobs that can be chopped on little notice when the commodity prices drop (as they inevitably do). Clearly, it would be better if there were some level of control over the rate of exploitation of said resources so that our currency wouldn't get dragged around when the commodity prices change. Clearly, none of this has been happening, thanks to happy-go-lucky politicians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and an economic fundamentalist in Ottawa. And clearly, you would prefer to debate some fictional point you wish I had made rather than the points I am actually making.

Living well to the west of you, and never having lived in Ontario or Quebec and also having lived in Alberta "quite a while before 1982", your contention that I am "defending the eastern portion of the country" is hilarious. You're illustrating my point perfectly. Alberta separatists and Quebec separatists are mirror images of each other. Both perceive their provinces as under-appreciated, misunderstood, treated badly and better off without the rest of the country. And they're all wrong - tragically so.

I came across this cartoon recently and I laughed out loud. It's perfect, not because of its intended message, but because it is the perfect caricature of western alienation. And let's be clear, when we say western alienation, we really mean Alberta with support from Saskatchewan and the oil producing parts of BC. (We who are truly on the west part of Canada probably have less in common with Alberta than with the maritime provinces). This is the image that Brad Wall and his acolytes see when they look at Canada. Poor Alberta and Saskatchewan doing all the work that will benefit everyone but the freeloaders in Ontario and Quebec don't appreciate it. Meanwhile, 6 provinces and 3 territories don't even exist. In case anyone doesn't get it, this is the image they have when Alberta is selflessly trying to build a pipeline to pump their toxic sludge across Canada to save this great nation but the ungrateful NIMBY's in Ontario and Quebec are too stupid to get it. The reality is that Alberta and Saskatchewan, with their gold-rush mentality on shipping raw commodities as fast as possible, put Canada in this vulnerable state by artificially inflating the dollar and tilting the economy towards less skilled. more volatile economic pursuits. Meanwhile, Ontario, Quebec, BC and the other provinces, with their more diversified and sustainable economies, are now providing a stabilizing influence. Full disclosure: I lived in Alberta and was unemployed with few marketable skills during the height of the recession in the early 80's. I heard all of the stories (mostly nonsense) about how it was all the fault of the National Energy Policy. The truth was that Alberta allowed its economy to become too dependent on a single volatile economy and didn't use the good times to diversify. And we paid the price when the inevitable downturn hit. In other words, exactly the same situation as now.

In fairness, I gave you a chance to salvage your credibility. Ah, well.

Yup. The government sells out the future for the sake of short term gains in the present. And the public mostly demands it. See what's happening on the pipeline front for more of the same.

Derek, this article you've cited is so dishonest, it's hard to believe the author was dumb enough to believe it. In other words, it's reasonable to suspect that the author was intending to deliberately deceive the readers. Here is a list of the appointees who received the letters. You'll note that none of them are described as "judges" because the "lawfully appointed judges" are in fact citizenship judges. Citizenship judges are not members of the judiciary and as such your reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is grossly misleading and irrelevant. Let's all give MLW member Derek the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply failed to check the accuracy of his post. He can demonstrate that by amending his post and noting his mistake. Furthermore, the Conservatives are being unbelievably hypocritical in this instance. There were 49 political patronage appointments that were scheduled to take place after Harper left office, in some cases, years after. This is clearly an attempt by an unethical Conservative government to influence government well past its mandate.

Bernie Sanders' speech. There's a few people crapping their pants just watching this guy - the Koch brothers, Wall Street, the medical insurance industry. :D

I think women should run the world for a while. They can't possibly f*ck it up as badly as men have. The only problem is that it seems like some women in leadership positions try so hard to make sure they aren't perceived as "soft" that you get... well, Hilary.

You go right ahead and expect anything you like. Good luck with that.

Justin Trudeau and Pierre Trudeau. Not so hard, is it?

If moderators want to censor dubya, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that there is a legitimate need for the junior when it comes to Bush whereas it's nothing but a pejorative when it comes to Trudeau.

In fairness, there were 2 George Bush's. There are not 2 Justin Trudeau's.

Unlike the Economic Action Plan, this was CBC's idea. Neither the party nor the PMO was able to vet the candidates or know what questions they would ask in advance. So, it definitely is a marketing exercise but I wouldn't call it slick. It's actually kind of awkward to watch. I think the Liberals like to demonstrate the huge chasm between how their guy is unafraid to meet people without everything being carefully controlled vs how Harper's every interaction with everyone all the way down to his kids was carefully stage managed.

One last time because I tire of dishonest debate. If the ideal is room temperature (20 C), then the equivalent to -30 isn't 30C, it's 70 C. Can you wrap your head around that? I've snowmobiled in -30 C weather, I can't even fathom being outdoors in 70 C. So, I'll tell you what. I'll dress how I want and go outside in -30 C. You dress however you want and go outside in 70 C. Let's see who can last longest.