Thursday, March 08, 2007

Daily Digest March 8, 2007

Joe Hueglin wrote:


ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM - Just a few days to go- and counting

HALIFAX HERALD - Tories prime GTA pump

MONTREAL GAZETTE - Of course partition is possible

MONTREAL GAZETTE - Canada needs more oil refineries

OTTAWA CITIZEN - Women at work

OTTAWA CITIZEN - Misplaced symbolism

TORONTO STAR - Canada can't take equality as a given

TORONTO STAR - One Cent on a roll

LONDON FREE PRESS - ATM fees just small part of daily grind

K-W RECORD - A medal for individuals

WINDSOR STAR - No-fly list: The delicate balance

WINDSOR STAR - Canada's Victoria Cross

SUDBURY STAR - Climate for ATMs is getting hotter =


CALGARY HERALD - Forced care a humane option

Prince George Citizen -Biodiesel development shouldn’t be subsidized

VANCOUVER SUN - There's no easy way to stop the pine beetle devastation

VANCOUVER PROVINCE - Public needs more protection from dangerous convicts


Top Taliban says fighters ready to smack NATO

Two Afghan militant strikes target Cdn. convoys

Meddling with tradition

U.S. taking offensive in reopening lumber wars?

Alberta grain company files complaint against CN over rail-car policies

CMHC to help self-employed

Canadian Natural backs off upgrader over green-plan fears
Costs and uncertainty about environmental rules blamed

Everyone has caught India fever, except for Ottawa

Canada told not to use term 'visible minorities'

Gov. Gen. meets with Karzai in Afghanistan

Russian military to inspect Canada from above

Graduated drug licensing proposed
Health Canada reform: Medicines would be evaluated after release to public

Clean hands, nurses told

When things go wrong at the pharmacy
College of Pharmacists alerts its members to areas of concern

In their own words: Experts and politicians weigh in on Canada's controversial extradition process

Lack of English service voids charges

Should Canada hold sex offenders indefinitely?
It's time to discuss U.S. civil-commitment measures, Ontario's Attorney-General says

Use of 'p-word' sends Quebec into uproar
Talk of partitioned province evokes 10-year-old debate

Partition front and centre
Thorny issue dominates. Party leaders - and voters - feel caught in referendum campaign

Fuel for separatists

Quebec ironworker alleges discrimination

Thanks for the $1.5 billion, but it's not enough, Ontario tells Ottawa

Poll puts Tories six points ahead of Liberals

Flaherty sympathetic to concerns on debt burden

Dion vows tax cuts and education funding if elected PM

MP goes, leaves opening for Dion ally

Commissioner of Lobbying Must Investigate Link Between Prime Minister and Lobbyist

Harper lawyer stokes debate over lobbyists
Man who once defended PM also spoke to PMO about labour case: documents

Courting converts
Tories hope tough law-and-order platform wins over wavering voters

Dion did not support Kyoto efforts, former environment minister says

Grits would cut income, business taxes: Dion

Sunday, March 04, 2007
Exclusive Interview with Elizabeth May

Industry fears PM's plan

Rae not sure election is on way

Harper has Grits green with envy

Gloves come off on left as NDP take bead on new Green leader
May dismisses attacks which seem based on her surging poll numbers

Stephan Dion refuses to take part in the debate on the partition of Quebec

In-fighting leaves Liberal leader on shaky leg

Dion doesn't want an election until 2008

Election 2007: The $275 million question

Voices inside, outside government grow in opposing buildings' sale
Role of banks, financial risks questioned

Conservative Interference in Barley Vote?

Omar Khadr calls home for first time in 5 years

Khadr vowing to boycott military trial

Global warming? Like we care

Economists from one of Canada's big banks have thrown their support behind taxing industries and consumers who contribute to global warming.

Daylight savings switch unlikely to save much energy

ABMs rob the fools

A war widow's tale: From Afghanistan

ATM fee facts: It is a tribute to competition and lack of regulation that Canada has far more ATMs than most countries

Canadians ready to change medicare

Tale of deception has lessons for Canada

Muslim women struggling for their basic human rights
The faith that was a saviour for women 1,400 years ago is used to bar them today

Don't give in to prevailing prejudices

Harper's nation resolution opened the partition can of worms
Clarity Act, demergers comfort federalists who would want to separate from Quebec

Don't worry -- the kids are all right

Multiculturalism flourishes when cultural values are accepted

Speech is free, and everywhere in chains

On the menu: Opposing racial diversity

Wikia wants to compete with Google and Yahoo


Stéphane Dion refuse de participer au débat sur la partition du Québec

Michaelle Jean est à Kaboul; elle a rencontré le président afghan Karzai

Hekmatyar dit avoir cessé tout contact avec les talibans

Omar Kadhr, détenu à Guantanamo, a téléphoné à sa famille

Un autre député libéral fédéral quitte la politique: Jim Peterson

Bob Rae brigue l'investiture dans Toronto Centre

Dion promet des baisses d'impôt

Wikia veut concurrencer Google et Yahoo

Votez libéral et évitez la partition


        Brad being the only one interested in what's transpiring in Quebec I thought I'd put his post here rather than at the end.  Partially in order to
        say he was good enough to send us the wording of the Clarity Act which will be sent to any requesting it.

Brad Thomson
    It seems to me that the Clarity Act is unclear. What concerns me is the set of criteria to be used to determine whether or not a sufficient expression of the will of the people has been achieved, with respect to separation. Of course, the referendum question must be clear, simple and capable of no alternative reading. But assuming that it is, there is no precise mechanism as to how to decide whether or not the will of the people has been clearly expressed. The Clarity Act reads in part:
Factors for House of Commons to take into account
(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

(b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

(c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.

Other views to be considered
(3) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.

    It is obvious, then, that the final determination as to whether or not a clear expression of the will to separate has been achieved is a matter of judgment, or opinion. Hence, the Clarity Act is itself unclear. Quebec will always argue that fifty percent plus one is good enough, while Parliament will in all likelihood argue that some greater percentage, though not one precisely defined, will be required. This does not make much sense to me. We need a clear Clarity Act.

    One possibility might be this. Perhaps the separatists should have to amass not just fifty percent plus one of the votes cast, but fifty percent plus one of all possible votes. In other words, those who choose not to vote must be deemed to have voted against separation. This would take the matter out of the potentially biased hands of Parliament, and would provide for a clear expression of the will of the people. Oddly, though, it would also mean that those against separation would not need to bother voting, since they would be deemed to have voted against separation by simply not showing up. No solution can be perfect, but certainly fifty percent plus one of, say, eighty percent of the population who did go out and vote, cannot be considered sufficient. And again, the determination as to what is sufficient should not be left to the judgment of Parliament, it should be clearly spelled out.

Brad Thomson


Mark Whittle

Subject: News Release-Trilateral Business Council Charts Course for Enhanced North American Competitiveness

Trilateral Business Council Charts Course for Enhanced North American Competitiveness

A trilateral Council of business leaders from Canada, Mexico, and the United States today put forward more than 50 concrete recommendations designed to strengthen North American competitiveness in global markets while improving public safety and security.

The recommendations are contained in a report titled Enhancing Competitiveness in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, copies of which were presented this morning in Ottawa to nine senior cabinet ministers and secretaries from the three countries. The report is the product of nine months of consultations and deliberations by members of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC).

The NACC was established by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States at their 2006 Summit in Cancún. Its mandate is to provide high-level business advice on how to make all three countries safer and better places to live and to do business.

Copies of both the NACC report and a related news release are available on the website of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE). The CCCE is the Secretariat to Canadian members of the NACC.

To access the CCCE website, please click here.

NACC report:

Enhancing Competitiveness in Canada, Mexico, and the United States

Raymond Denson.

enjoyed the comments on 9/11 by Mary-Sue Haliburton and Brad Thomson.
The weakest part of the official account of these events is to be found in the destruction of the third skyscraper, WTC No. 7. At 5.20 pm on the same day, this 47-storey building, which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds, at almost free-fall speed. It was separated from the Twin Towers by two steel-framed buildings which were ravaged by fire, but did not collapse. WTC No. 7 is not mentioned in the report of the 9/11 Commission and some have seen this as evidence of a cover-up.

The government agencies, FEMA and NIST, have asserted that WTC No. 7 was brought down by fire, but the fires in it were relatively small and limited to two of the 47 floors. In any case, the assertion is wholly implausible. A one storey or two storey wooden shack, engulfed in flames, might collapse in 6.6 seconds, but not a 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper. The only rational explanation for its near-instantaneous disintegration is that WTC No. 7 was brought down by explosives which had been placed in position prior to 9/11. Forces other than bin Laden and a team of aerial acrobats must have been responsible for the destruction.

This gives rise to another question, which is often disregarded. Why was it necessary to destroy this particular building? Andreas von Bülow, who has served in the German government as Minister of Research and Technology, believes that WTC No. 7 housed a control centre which directed the planes into the Twin Towers. Destruction of the building eliminated the evidence.

That these ideas should be received with guarded skepticism is entirely understandable; but we must remember that those who hold them, such as the eminent "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", cannot be dismissed as a group of ignorant fools.

Raymond Denson

Zeb Landon

Subject: Coal, nuclear, natural gas,  hydro, wind, east-west grid, or what?

Dear Friends,

Friends have been discussing "nuclear or coal". In my area we have seen the damage of coal-based electricity generation, and so therefore we wonder about the nuclear option.

To some it seems a lot cleaner than the coal option, a "containable" sort of pollution, burying "bricks of hazard" deep in rocks underground, a less "spread-out" damage to the environment, and safer now than with earlier Candu technology.

But are there important factors that are being overlooked, to make us pause about Candu?
-- Such as the already existing half million tons of uranium ore tailings in the  US and Canada, the transportation of radioactive materials by road or rail, and especially the risk to mine workers from radioactive dust inescapably present, and pollution of natural waters? Check out Elliot Lake, northern Ontario.  Thirty years ago, Iwalked over the tailings, past the coloured toxic ponds.  I first heard then heard of radiation sickness.Somehow, I bet these ponds and tailings are still there.

In elementary school, we learned about hydro-electric generation, and probably thought it was "clean". Even building reservoirs for hydro-generation comes with a huge cost to the environment, since mercury is washed out of the soils of flooded lands, into the systems of lakes and rivers.

Ask the Natives in Grassy Narrows near the Ontario-Manitoba border about the mercury poisoning which they have suffered during decades in their remote location,
where eating local fish is traditional and essential nourishment.  Northern Quebec has that issue too.

Yes, it would help some to extend our power grid to where there is surplus hydro, at least evening out temporary crests and troughs on a national grid.

What about natural gas?  But what would that do to its price? And how long would it last?  We're insatiable!

Do we blight the remainder of our landscape with giant wind-turbine towers for a partial remedy? They haven't proved out well so far, with much of their production loading the system at wrong times.

Here ion the north shore of Lake Erie we see the damage of coal burning, the brown streak in the sky, the worst air in Ontario.  Why is our health not worth the dollars to install scrubbers in the smoke stacks, to clean up Nanticoke's air pollution?  Why the go-so-slow? We spend billions on health care and isn't prevention best?

In frustration, naturally, we start to think that nuclear would mean cleaner air for us locally.

A chance for our local natural environment to recover?

I haven't made up my mind, but I just think we should be looking closer at the realities, whichever way we go.

Since here we already have the infrastructure (power lines, etc.) from the huge coal generation station, and it won't go away,do we push for a coal clean-up (and maybe a reduction in capacity), or do we ask for nuclear?

What do you think are the most relevant facts to consider?

We have to decide.

Zeb Landon

Charles Tupper

Subject: NAU: Still Don't Think It's Happening?

Remember, they unified Europe without the citizen's desire. The same plan is for North America.

Here is the actual CFR report... Copyright © 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. calling for a unified, militarized police force for the North Americas ...

Building a North American Community
Report of an Independent Task Force

...Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

Canadian participants:

John P.Manley is Senior Counsel at McCarthy Te´trault LLP. He has held several senior portfolios in the Canadian government throughout his fifteen years of public service­including industry, foreign affairs, and finance­as well as holding the position of Deputy Prime Minister. Following 9/11, he was named Chairman of the Public Security and Anti-terrorism Cabinet Committee and, in that capacity, negotiated theSmartBorder Agreement with U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security Thomas Ridge.

Pierre Marc Johnson* , a former Premier of Que´bec, attorney, and physician, has been Counsel to the law offices of Heenan Blaikie since 1996. He was a senior member of Rene´ Le´vesque’s cabinet (1976–85) and succeeded him. Since 1987, Mr. Johnson has been Professor of Law at McGill University and an adviser to the United Nations in
international environmental negotiations. He has written numerous books and essays on trade and the environment, civil society participation, and globalization. He lectures in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and serves on Canadian and European boards.

Michael Hart holds the Simon Reisman Chair in trade policy in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at CarletonUniversity in Ottawa. He is a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, founding director of Carleton’s Centre for Trade Policy and Law, and the author of more than a dozen books and a hundred articles on Canadian trade and foreign policy.

Allan Gotlieb* was Canadian Ambassador to theUnited States,Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, and Chairman of the Canadian Council. He is currently a senior adviser to the law firm Stikeman Elliott LLP, and Chairman of Sotheby’s Canada and the Donner Foundation. He has also been a member of the board of a number of Canadian and U.S. corporations, taught at various universities in both countries, and written several books and articles on  international law and international affairs.

WendyK.Dobson * isProfessorandDirector, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. She has served as President of the C.D.Howe Institute and AssociateDeputy Minister of Finance in the government of Canada. She is Vice Chair of the Canadian Public Accountability Board and a nonexecutive director of several corporations.

Thomas P. d’Aquino is Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), composed of 150 chief executives of major enterprises in Canada. A lawyer, entrepreneur, and business strategist, he has served as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Canada and Adjunct Professor of Law lecturing on the law of international trade. He is the Chairman of the CCCE’s North American Security and Prosperity Initiative launched in 2003.

Thomas S. Axworthy* is the Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen’s University. From 1981 to 1984, Dr. Axworthy was Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau. Since 2001, he has served as Chairman of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

DavidMcD.Mann, Q.C., isCounsel atCoxHansonO’ReillyMatheson, an Atlantic-Canadian law firm. He is the former Vice Chairman and former President and Chief Executive Officer of Emera Inc., a diversified investor-owned energy and services company.

CFR report - Building a North American Community.pdf .


Subject: New Mexico Impeachment Resolution Introductory Press Conference - Google Video

Raymond Denson

Anyone who postulates that fire can cause a 47-storey steel-framed building to collapse into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds and can bring down two more skyscrapers in a similar manner on the same day, will have no difficulty in  acknowledging that water runs uphill.
Why did Silverstein, the owner of WTC No. 7, say on television that he had told the fire chief "maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it"?
So Popular Mechanics claims that WTC No. 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis: "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
Raymond Denson

. . . what did Popular Mechanics claim?

Present the alternatives clearly It collapsed in this manner.

Either by "this" or "that".

Have other buildings of like nature been on fire and not collapsed?

Have controlled collapses of such a nature or of the same nature
occurred? If so how done?


There is a vast literature on this subject and I could refer you to books by Nafeez Ahmed, Jim Marrs, Peter Dale Scott, Webster Griffin Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, Barry Zwicker, plus papers by Morgan Reynolds, Steven Jones, etc.,etc. All this is completely ignored by the corporate controlled media.

With reference to the points you have raised: (1) Popular Mechanics says that there is no evidence whatever that WTC No. 7 was demolished by explosives, and claims that the building was brought down by fire after being damaged by falling debris. (2) No steel-framed building has ever collapsed on account of fire before or since 9/11, but we are asked to believe that three skyscrapers were brought down by fire on the same day. (3) Skyscrapers in Madrid, Caracas and New York (among others) have burned for hours, or even days, and have never collapsed.

WTC No. 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, almost free-fall speed, and the fires in it were small and limited to two floors. It was not engulfed in flames. The suggestion that a fire was responsible for this almost instantaneous collapse is simply absurd. Have you seen it on DVDs? There is no smoke, no flame, and it just goes straight down, into its own footprint.
I hope that I have answered the questions that you have raised. If not, please get back to me.


Stephen Berg

Hi Joe.  I hope all's well.

Been busy for the last couple of weeks working and planning for my graduate studies, so I only got to this now.

Great work on the global warming compilation!  It should be a great resource for DD subscribers.

Keep up the good work!


(Thanks. Will do.)
Vern Bretin

Subject: Income Gap

Hi Joe:  Let's hypothesize.  We're told that the rich are getting richer and the rest are losing ground at a rapid rate.  Perhaps some of the readers can offer their comments on just how our market driven economy could address some of the apparent disparities now existing.

Just a few examples taken from publications espousing the virtues of some CEO's.  Our once Canadian CNR , Mr. Hunter Harrison was the receipient of 56.22 million in 2005.  Nortel Networks Mike Zafirovski gained 37.42 million in 2005.  CIBC's John Hunkin got 29.47 million.  Potash Corp. William Doyle picked up 22.13 million.  Magna International paid Donald Walker a mere 19.56 million while EnCana Corp paid out their former leader Gwyn Morgan 18.16 million.  Check out the for many more.

These dedicated people have no doubt been influential in recommending & maintaining their aspiring directors, who approve the salaries, share units and options of executive members of the corporations they serve on as directors.  A 'scratch my back' attitude permeates our commercial world.  Conflict of interest doesn't seem to apply as it supposedly applies to political bodies.

If directors are unable or unwilling to bring executive earnings to levels considered reasonable to the populous, shareholders, and employees, then it might be helpful to have government provide some guidelines directors might be led to follow.  Wow, government interference in private enterprise?  One might wonder how government interference has allowed the high rollers to evade being taxed like the majority of their employees.

One guideline which could help directors in setting executive earnings and benefits, could be to consider the average earnings paid by the corporation to its lowest paid 20% of employees.  This figure, multiplied by a chosen factor, could establish the basis of setting executive earning levels.  Profitability or loss of the corporation income could serve as factor when considering perks beyond basic salaries.  Layoffs, plant closures, and moves adversely affecting domestic staff members, might offer directors the opportunity to cut executive earnings as these moves were inevitably caused by some inappropriate management decisions of the current or previous CEO's and their executive staff.  Perhaps a five year holdback of any perks beyond basic salaries could be considered to insure reasonable recognition of performance.

This type of 'director guideance' might relieve some of the 'conflict of interest' considerations faced by directors when asked to approve executive earning levels. 
Socially minded economists might consider the implications of choosing a multiplier considered fair and reasonable by shareholders, the public, and the corporation's employees.  They might consider how these moves may tend to elevate the earnings average of the lowest paid 20% of employees.  Executives would suddenly become aware of the working poor among their ranks and press for their earnings to be increased.  (A transfer of conflict of interest from directors to the executive?) 

The economists may also consider how shareholders might benefit from the lowering of executive total earnings.  It may be assumed that an abundance of willing applicants would be available to fill any gaps created by CEO's & executives choosing not to accept the guidelines.

If this type of guideline was applied to corporations and to government and government controlled entities and boards, our economists could have a field day in making their projections of doom and gloom or otherwise.  Could it be called 'wage control' when the masses wages were not being 'controlled'?

Would the economists project a decrease in the income gap being witnessed currently, and if so, to what degree, and what further measures might they recommend be taken?

Just a thought for pondering.

Rubie Britton

Subject: How to give 103%+++( I just thought this was cute)

What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100%  in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If: A B C D E F G H I J K L ! M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y  Z is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 =  98%
and K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But, A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 =  100%
And, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20  = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you. A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While  Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will  get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put  you over the top!

As ever,

(Crude in parts - but cute and, unfortunately, too often experienced)
Jacob Rempel

Poison Dust 
Click on
Promo by Jacob Rempel, Vancouver ::::
This great American documentary deserves
its full hour and 25 minutes of your attention.
I hope that each of you receiving this from me will
pass it forward to every person on your contact lists.
Canadians like Americans need this information.
The important issue missing is our Canadian
complicity in supplying Saskatchewan uranium
which becomes the poison DUst of radioactive
uranium isotopes being exposed to hundreds of
thousands of people in many countries.
As well, we are complicit in that we are accessory
to the crime before, during, and after the crime of
killing and injuring so many thousands of innocents
by allying our military forces with the USA forces
which have been and continue to use these criminal
weapons in Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, and even in
Irag with Canadian sea patrols and logistical support
in the Persian Gulf region.
As well, we are complicit in a crime against the earth,
poisoning areas of soil, water and air with radioactive
poison DUst that will remain there for many generations,
sickening and killing many thousands for many years,
even our very own grand children. Our precious
Canadian universal medicare will help no one.
...Jacob Rempel
Mark-Alan Whittle

Subject: Poll Question
Do you want a federal spring election?

YES 36%
NO 64%
 Please note that these survey results are of website visitors who voluntarily take the survey. These results are not necessarily representative of the larger population.
“Oyate Witaya Waste”
Mark-Alan Whittle, CEO
Send to my wireless Handheld |

(MAW - wonder how many are going to rush to vote YES?)
Bill Love, Barrie

Subject: The NDP Policy on the neo-cons NAU

I sent Jack Layton an e-mail on his views of the conservatives treasonous betrayal of Canada, Here was his answer.


Thank you for your previous email outlining your concern for our national sovereignty. I share your concern.

In Parliament on February 23rd I demanded to know why the Harper Government refuses to inform everyday Canadians about Canada's participation at Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) meetings. I noted in my speech that this whole process, launched by the Liberals and pursued by the Conservatives, is very vague. Secret talks are being held on security, transportation, the environment, health care and increasingly deeper integration, all without the mandate of Parliament and without any public input on integration.

NDP International Trade and Globalization critic Peter Julian recently commented: "the previous Liberal government engaged Canada in a slow merger process with the United States and Stephen Harper is accelerating the agenda. The NDP demands a full debate in Parliament on this issue. Everyday Canadians have the right to know what is being negotiated."(

"Canada is not the gas tank of the United States.  NAFTA already locks us into supplying energy to the United States even if ordinary Canadians go without; a North American Union would only make this worse," added NDP Energy Critic Dennis Bevington.

Mr. Julian has been very active on this file since the very launch of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). ( and . He is also working with others from the United States, Mexico and here in Canada who share our concern.

It is now apparent that neither the present Conservative government nor the Liberals before them can be counted on to "stand up for Canada". We have opposed their capitulation with the Bush Administration on issues such as Afghanistan, the Softwood Lumber Agreement, the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). We have consistently challenged the Harper agenda and were the only party to unanimously vote against his Conservative government on every non-confidence vote - Budget, Afghanistan and Softwood Lumber.

Again, thank you for taking the time to register your interest in safeguarding our future and our Canadian sovereignty. Feel free to forward this email to anyone who may share this concern. All the best.


Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats