mikemac

Keystone pipeline delayed until 2013 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/11/10/keyston-pipeline-route.html?cmp=rss The Harper administration and the Alberta Premier are crying the blues. And they are suggesting that Canada can sell the un-refined oil to China. Are they braindead. Canada has it's own refineries. Why would they want to pipe it to Texas to have it refined there. It seems to me that the Harper administration and the Alberta Premier are more concerned with temporary jobs in the US building the pipeline than they are concerned about permanent jobs for Canadians. If it was refined in Canada it would supply permanent Canadian jobs in the refinery as well as permanent Canadian jobs to truck it to Texas after it was refined. Take the vote on the side of the web site above. It's already showing 54.21% in favour of Alberta processing the bitumen here in Canada.

See my post titled "Toronto Star endorses the NDP" cybercoma. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18787 Actually there hasn't been a party that represents what I consider good government for me for quite some time so I have been holding my nose and voting against the worst. The way I see this election a vote for Jack Layton now is a vote to preserve Canadian sovereignty.

Toronto Star endorses the NDP Published On Sat Apr 30 2011 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/983376--toronto-star-endorses-the-ndp Monday’s federal election may well turn out to be historic for all kinds of reasons that were not obvious when it was called five weeks ago today. Unless the pollsters have totally misread the mood of the voters, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives look to be heading for another victory. As we said on Friday, that would be bad for the country. The last thing Canada needs is an affirmation of a government obsessed with control, dismissive of critics, and determined to further diminish the role of the state in charting a better future for the country. Voters who believe that Canada can — and should — aim higher have an important decision. Until 10 days ago, they had only one realistic alternative to the Conservatives — the Liberal party under Michael Ignatieff. Today, that is no longer the case. The New Democrats have been reinvigorated under the leadership of Jack Layton. After Monday, they may well challenge the Liberals as the principal national standard-bearer for the roughly two voters in three who disagree fundamentally with the course charted by the Harper Conservatives. Progressive voters should give them their support on Monday. In the past it has been easy to dismiss the federal NDP as naive idealists. That no longer applies. In this campaign they have emerged as a credible force, for many reasons. • The party is on the verge of a historic breakthrough in Quebec, which would go far toward establishing it as a truly national party. Pushing back the Bloc Québécois is an enormous service to all Canadians. For the long-term unity of the country it is vital to have a national federalist leader trusted in Quebec as well as other regions. Layton’s roots in Quebec have proven key to this. • The platform the NDP offers voters is ambitious and puts people first. It focuses on seniors, health care and the environment. It is in the broad tradition of nation-building that has long been at the heart of Canadian politics. After years of hearing the Harper Conservatives give the back of the hand to such aspirations, it is refreshing to see. • On economic issues, long the NDP’s weakest point, the party is much sounder than it has been in the past. It is reaching out to small business as the main motor of job creation, and proposes no increases in personal taxes (though it would hike the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent). It pledges to balance the federal budget in four years, the same as the Liberals and Conservatives. • In Layton it has a leader who has won the trust of many voters — a rare feat in a time dominated by cynical, ultra-partisan politicking. As a product of Toronto’s municipal scene and a veteran of urban politics, he is more attuned than any other major leader to the needs of our country’s cities — the engines of innovation and future prosperity. Question marks remain. The NDP has never felt the discipline of power at the national level, and it shows. There are doubts about some of its proposals, including the amount that might be raised from its cap-and-trade system and its plan to claw back revenue from tax havens. New Democrats have shown at the provincial level that once in office they can square their social conscience with fiscal responsibility. They are the party of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow — pragmatists with a vision and a heart. Now that a much more significant role beckons at the federal level they must accept the challenge of developing that approach nationally as well. The way this campaign has developed took everyone by surprise. The biggest disappointment has been the Liberal party under Ignatieff. Going into the campaign they had by far the biggest challenge — to connect with voters and offer a strong alternative to the Conservatives. They had to overcome the Conservatives’ brutal but effective framing of Ignatieff as something other than a real Canadian. With only two days to go before voting day, all the signs are that they have fallen short. Ignatieff has spent the past few days lamenting the loss of the centre ground of Canadian politics and attacking the NDP as spendthrifts and “boy scouts.” His party’s collapse in Quebec raises the question of whether it can truly be considered a national force at this point. Liberal governments built much of what is best about this country — but voters are sending a clear message that they don’t feel they owe the Liberals anything for what the party did once upon a time. Nor do they believe the party has fully purged itself of the cronyism and corruption of the past. Elections are about the future, and the Liberals have not made a persuasive case for themselves as the alternative in 2011. Fortunately, this time there is a real choice. Voters who believe Canada should aspire to something greater than the crabbed, narrow vision offered by the Harper Conservatives should look to Jack Layton and the New Democrats on Monday.

quote from mikemac quote from CANADIEN Okay CANADIEN I stand corrected. Laurier did try to attempt reciprocity with the US for several natural products and a number of manufactured products. But I was correcting August1991 who said that "Laurier also signed a Free Trade Agreement with the Americans." Which is not correct. Laurier "suffered a bitter defeat" on account of the reciprocity bill he was putting forward. Thanks for pointing that out CANADIEN. I remember back when the country was so upset that Mulroney's majority was planning on forcing us into a free trade agreement with the US many commentators repeatedly said "Every Prime Minister since Confederation had said that Canada can not have reciprocity with the US". I remember hearing it a lot. Back then Mulroney was known around here as Backdoor Brian because he entered the city hall threw the backdoor without facing an angry crowd out front. Actually today Harper could also be accused of "leading the country towards political annexation".

That is nonsense August1991. Starting in 1855, while Canada was under British control, free trade was implemented between the colonies of British North America and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1866, a year before Canadian Confederation, the United States Congress voted to cancel the treaty. Every Prime Minister since Confederation had said that Canada can not have reciprocity (free trade) with the US because of the difference in the economy of scale between the countries. Every Prime Minister up to Mulroney. You know what you can do with your "individual sovereignty" or any other Austro-Libertarian philosophy, policy or pipe dream. If one man was to blame for the financial meltdown that many countries around the world are still struggling from it's that Libertarian Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve. If Harper likes his Libertarian policy so much then let him pack his bags and head south. I heard this catchy tune on a local radio station today, "Steve It's Time to Leave" You can see who has the best chance to beat out the conservative in your riding at the Project Democracy web site. http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

That is wrong M.Dancer. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992 to sign NAFTA. That is the main reason why the Conservatives got only 2 out of the 308 federal ridings in the following election.

Why isn't Canadian Sovereignty an Election issue? It certainly should be. It is for me. See my post "We have a traitor in our midst - Harper" http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18598

I've never been more serious in my life.

On 09/29/91 Brian Mulroney (the character that struck the first blow against Canadian sovereignty with NAFTA) said this below in front of an audience of about 7,000 people in Frost Amphitheater at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Throughout the years, the amphitheater has been the host to many events including a prominent speech by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1992. This 09/29/91 Stanford News Release is titled "Mulroney on Canadian, U.S. roles in new world order" http://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/910929Arc1160.html At the G20 meetings in Toronto in 2010 talking about their agenda Stephen Harper said "It's a Loss of National Sovereignty" meaning Canadian sovereignty. See it on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvhEjt9IQec Harper is working for and in the interest of the United States government. Harper has already committed treason by signing a secretive deal with the US on Feb. 4, 2011 to remove Canada's sovereignty, with a minority government and without the approval of the Canadian public or parliament. Fortress America, the next step to the North American Union. http://www.canada.com/business/Harper+Obama+agree+integrate+border+creating+security+trade+perimeter/4225641/story.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/dont-deal-away-our-sovereignty/article1901070/ http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada If you think for one moment that the Canadian public won't see this as treasonous when they realize it and see Stephen Harper as a traitor then you are mistaken. The traitor Harper has to go. This is a very important vote if you like being a Canadian. We need every Canadian, especially young Canadians to choose and vote on May 2nd for the MP that has the best chance of beating out the Conservative MP in your riding.

"$80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions." (Source) A November 2009 poll by Environics Research Group for Life Canada found that: * 18 percent of those polled said women should pay for abortions themselves or have them funded by private insurers, not public funds. * 49 percent said public funds should be used for abortions only in emergency situations such as rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life. * In total, 67 percent oppose public funding of most or all abortions. This 67 percent is close to the figure for those who want some legal protection for the unborn, which is 66 percent. This is a quote from a girl in another forum;

"When it could actually survive on it's own?" That would be about the age of 17, wouldn't it.

When it's used for convenience, a form of contraception for stupid people then tax payers shouldn't be made to pay for it.

Why should it be free? It's not health care. If you think it should be free then why don't you volunteer to pay for it all. I certainly don't want to.

At conception. Long before the last trimester. I don't think tax payers should have to pay for it. Why should they?

We've had universal health care long before abortion was legalized here in Canada. With the recent health care bill concerns in the US centered around tax payer funded abortion the question needs to be asked. Should there be tax payer funded abortion here in Canada? The Canadian law allows a mother to have an abortion in the last trimester, even the day before the baby is born. This certainly is not health care for the unborn child. The mother may have physical problems after the abortion. A lot have emotional scars that last for years. This is not health care. Even some fathers have emotional problems after the fact. Statistics show that there were 100,763 abortions performed in Canada in 2004 with only 6% due to health problems and only 1% because of rape or incest (source). These numbers do not include any abortions performed in the Manitoba abortion clinic as it did not release data to Statistics Canada. So over 94,000 (93%) of these abortions were performed for convenience. A form of contraception. This clearly is not health care. And it is putting pressure on our health care system. Unborn babies deserve human rights in Canada too. Do you want to be amazed? Then watch this short video to see an unborn baby stretch, suck it's thumb, bounce, rub it's shoulder, scratch, open it's eyes, yawn, pout, stick it's tongue out and smile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uKCchuIjM If you believe the time has come for our government to extend full legal protection to every human being from their biological beginnings to natural death then please sign this petition. http://www.personhood.ca/