Mulroney: As 'Green' As They Get.

This is a fascinating angle on Mulroney. Although he was considered quite right wing economically, socially Mulroney was quite the socialist, verging on policies that would make the former Soviet leadership blush.

He tripled immigration at the orders of the one-world elites who he bowed to, pushed to end apartheid in South Africa, and signed environmental treaties that did little to help the "global environment" as Kyoto allows countries and their corporations to simply shift production to countries like China that are not signatories to the agreement.

I do really respect Chantal Hebert, but I respectfully disagree with her big time in this case. Harper cannot win a majority simply by being more environmental--that's what Jack Layton of the NDP tried and Canadians snubbed him as he was out of touch with the major issues on the minds of Canadians.

The world was much more globalist, utopian in 1962, and even 1992, than it is in 2006. Issues like unemployment, cultural policies and issues like health care, overpriced post-secondary education and ridiculously high income taxes for average people are much more on people's minds than any environmental agenda.

Harper could take a page out of John A. MacDonald or even Jean Chretien (who created Pacific Rim National Park) and create new parks--or better protect the ones we have, but anyting around lower CO2 emissions or whatever is not a something people will be able to see, even if there is a benefit.

The cynic inside me also sees that if countries like the U.S.A., Russia, China and India keep polluting at a rapid rate, it makes little difference what smaller countries do. Naturally, small Scandanavian nations are the best environemtally yet their small size makes the benefit very small.

---
Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

When you look at the actual votes, his win was hardly awe-inspiring. Some of those voting even cast a vote for nobody. That is the sad reality, and ultimately what leaves Muldooney as the winner.

Longer course history will show he will turn out to be one of the worst as NAFTA turns into Deep Penetration. Our environment will be totalled, and his original free trade agreement was the key to the door.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

But Chretien was just as bad or worse, and Mulroney was clearly just selling what he was told to sell. If anything, NAFTA as Orchard has mentioned is beginning to look less popular and harder to justify, and the 3 Amigos summit down in Mexico was hardly a busy affair--it, like the previous meeting, was very half-hearted. It was basically a meeting where Vincente Fox begged Bush and Harper to take more unemplyed Mexicans and they smiled and made no committment.

---
Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

WalMarts don't go where they aren't wanted, and neither does NAFTA. If people really can't stand the idea of buying American goods when they have the comparative advantage then they'd pay more for the Canadian goods. As for immigration we have nothing but free space, so why not? No one gets to choose where they're born, and no one can possibly deserve to be born in a particular place either. So until it hurts the economy or our culture we're obligated to take on as many immigrants as we can. Mulroney's reforms did neither.
And yeah, Canada can cut all the CO2 emissions it wants, but unless the other nations do too, it's futile. It wont be NAFTA that kills our economy and environment, it will be poor diplomacy that cripples our ability to negotiate environmental policies that will be adopted by "competing" nations.

Quote: "WalMarts don't go where they aren't wanted, and neither does NAFTA. If people really can't stand the idea of buying American goods when they have the comparative advantage then they'd pay more for the Canadian goods."

--In most cases Canadians can't find many things to buy that are made in Canada. The domination of the Canadian economy by Americans was already well entrenched before NAFTA--FTA/NAFTA just made it worse and prevented us from restricting foreign ownership/investment from America. NAFTA also gave away control over regulation of our formerly independent natural gas and oil market, which is insane. Yes I would agree some just want the cheapest but WALMARTS DO spring up in many towns where they are not wanted. In fact, the town of Burlington, Ontario is the first Canadian city to literally ban WALMART.


Quote: "As for immigration we have nothing but free space, so why not?"

---There are dozens of reasons why not and I find it disturbing that someone who nicknames themself "common sense 101" can't see them. Most immigration do NOT come to "fill up Canada's empty space", they come to live in either Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and to a lesser extend Edmonton, Calgary. Canada has many unemployed, a low birth rate that could be improved and is currently bringing in immgrants at a rapid, unsustainable rate fron non-traditional sources.

As for Mexican immigration, which was the topic at hand, Mexicans have nothing on us and we don't need the crime and corruption they are deservedly well known for.


Quote: "No one gets to choose where they're born, and no one can possibly deserve to be born in a particular place either."

---What does that have to do with anything.

"So until it hurts the economy or our culture we're obligated to take on as many immigrants as we can."

You are at least 30 years too late. It has been hurting our culture and economy for decades. Government studies admit immigration uses up the resources it creates--our economy's problem is foreign ownership and a lack of risk-taking and innovation, R & D. Canada's economy was imperfect but much more competitive before mass immigration. Now we are like 22nd or 24th on the OECD rating in productivity even though we are a G-8 nation.

As for culture again, please tell me where you live because if you live in a major city, you have blinders on.

Anyway, your premise that "we are obligated to take X number" is also the opposite of your hilariously inaccurate username. Canada is not obliged to take ONE immigrant. It is always our choice. Most Canadians in polls prefer few immigration or even no immigration at all, and only from traditional sources when they do.


Quote: "Mulroney's reforms did neither."

---I don't think you are aware of what Mulroney did. Although Trudeau was a swine, Pierre lowered immigration during recessions, and kept it at abouit 80,000 a year. Mulroney tripled it to almost 250,000 a year, PERMANENTLY, even in a recession. Chretien later set an immigration target of 1% of our population annually, which has never been reached but still is insane.

Mulroney ruined us immigration-wise way more than Trudeau, although I'm not accusing the swine for dreaming up the baloney he was pressured to sell to the fools also known as Canadians.



---
Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

Has anyone noticed that since S. Harper has been elected we here about Brian Mulroney on a constant bases in the news as well as along side / with Stephen Harper where as before his election we seldom heard about Brian Mulroney?

Its like we elected Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada.

Brian Mulroney's new book release; The Man And The Power Behind the Prime Minister of Canada

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Ok, fine, I just assumed I wasn't talking to bigots. And my nickname took into account a basic code of ethics in addition to reason. Limiting immigration to increase our own wealth is an unconscionably immoral idea. And if you want to talk about high crime rates from immigrants why not talk about our good ol' homegrown Native population? They've been in the country since it started but there's no one more overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. Paranoia alone isn't a good enough reason to deny people entry.
And yeah there's unemployment, but there are also jobs everywhere and retirement of baby boomers is about shock every level of the economy. Immigrants will be able to find work with little difficulty. Try going to Alberta and not finding work.
Speaking of which, yes really only go to the big six. I didn’t say we managed it competently. But I have been to the biggest cities in Canada and I saw a lot of diversity. I thought that was the Canadian culture? But I'll tell you what; I'll go down the local Iraqi owned gas station and make him start carrying hockey sticks and toques.

Lastly, go watch the South Park episode on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s might get built, but they'll go out of business if people really don't want them. But maybe that state intervention seen in Burlington is actually responsible for a decline in innovation? Maybe when 30%+ of the nation is employed by the government, and another huge percentage deals in primary goods we shouldn't really expect to lead the way in R&D? Realistically though, it's about as easy to blame planetary alignment as immigration for the decline in R&D, and just as reasonable.
Regardless, you're right. Mexicans have little on Canada. Mexicans who would come to Canada however, or as I call them for short, "Canadians" have just as much promise.
And since potshots at usernames are on the menu, I figured you'd welcome Mexican immigration. The cocaine they might be able to smuggle for you can probably help bring down the primary source for your perturbed nation, and might help you complete your final solution.
And if you want to call Canadians fools you might want to back up on your claim that they also oppose immigration...

True enough.
But the Mulroney tapes did their part, too.

Mulroney and Belinda Stronach were trying to "unite the right" a while back. The incompetence of the liberals led to the situation where the media gave in and finally allowed Harper to get the propaganda needed to get elected.

Nobody is a bigger whore for power than Mulroney. It has been said that he knows EVERY dictator in the world on a first name basis. I'm not kidding. He phoned up Bush Sr. to tell Bush Jr. that Harper needed a break--talk about revealing how politics really works. Not that Harper will get a break.

---
Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

Quote: "Ok, fine, I just assumed I wasn't talking to bigots."<br />
<br />
--I assumed I wasn't talking to loons.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quote: "And my nickname took into account a basic code of ethics in addition to reason. Limiting immigration to increase our own wealth is an unconscionably immoral idea."<br />
<br />
---I was raised Christian, but what the heck are you talking about? You think self-preservation is immoral? Immigration is selfish, people come here to improve their situation, not to save us. They come for themselves, so any self-respecting country must take care of itself as well and ensure that immigration only occurs when it benefits the nation. I'm not an internationalist like you--I believe in nationalism, as long as it is thoughtful, non-extreme. Anyway, it is a moot point because there are simply to many people to "save" in the world--over 5 billion and Canada can't accomdate them.<br />
<br />
<br />
"And if you want to talk about high crime rates from immigrants why not talk about our good ol' homegrown Native population? They've been in the country since it started but there's no one more overrepresented in the Canadian justice system." <br />
<br />
---You make a great point and if you want to talk about aboriginal crime, I'll do it all day. They are well-known for their high crime rate and do no exactly endear themselves to the city-folk on the prairies. The reason I didn't mention them is they are here already. Immigrants are not. The first issue is preventing the problem from becoming worse. Low rates of well-screened immigration are a must if we need any at all. I doubt we do--not anymore anyway. We settled the country in the early 1900s to avoid annexation, but that is past.<br />
<br />
Quote: "Paranoia alone isn't a good enough reason to deny people entry."<br />
<br />
---I agree.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quote: "And yeah there's unemployment, but there are also jobs everywhere and retirement of baby boomers is about shock every level of the economy. Immigrants will be able to find work with little difficulty. Try going to Alberta and not finding work."<br />
<br />
Alberta is thinking of shipping in Chinese guest workers to undercut wages. Immigrants and native-born Canadians ARE having trouble finding good jobs. Alberta is in a boom that won't last, and why not accept unemplyed French or Germans that would fit in better? Because of course they expect to be paid better than they did 60 years ago.<br />
<br />
Boomers may not retire for ages. They always exaggerate shortages except in fields like high school level teaching that are in demand.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quote: "Speaking of which, yes really only go to the big six. I didn’t say we managed it competently. But I have been to the biggest cities in Canada and I saw a lot of diversity. I thought that was the Canadian culture?"<br />
<br />
---It is the government imposed state religion of diversity and multiculturalism, masquerading as Canadian culture. Canada's dominant cultures are English and French. <br />
<br />
<br />
Quote: "But I'll tell you what; I'll go down the local Iraqi owned gas station and make him start carrying hockey sticks and toques. Lastly, go watch the South Park episode on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s might get built, but they'll go out of business if people really don't want them. But maybe that state intervention seen in Burlington is actually responsible for a decline in innovation? Maybe when 30%+ of the nation is employed by the government, and another huge percentage deals in primary goods we shouldn't really expect to lead the way in R&D? Realistically though, it's about as easy to blame planetary alignment as immigration for the decline in R&D, and just as reasonable.<br />
Regardless, you're right. Mexicans have little on Canada. Mexicans who would come to Canada however, or as I call them for short, "Canadians" have just as much promise.<br />
And since potshots at usernames are on the menu, I figured you'd welcome Mexican immigration. The cocaine they might be able to smuggle for you can probably help bring down the primary source for your perturbed nation, and might help you complete your final solution."<br />
<br />
---What the heck are you talkinb about? I never said immigration is the only cause of our unprductive nature--it is only part of it. I also stated foreign ownership and a lack of enterpreneurial culture as a problem, as well as our crown corporations being privatized.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quote: "And if you want to call Canadians fools you might want to back up on your claim that they also oppose immigration..."<br />
<br />
---Not all fools, just naive, cowardly and in denial. That said, when asked in polls, they usually provide logical answers:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.canadafirst.net/immigration.html">www.canadafirst.net/immigration.html</a><br />
<br />
1) The Gallup Poll of June, 1987 found Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to immigration that would upset Canada's ethnic balance. <br />
- Do you ... think the size and content of immigration should be permitted to change our ethnic and cultural balance? <br />
-YES: 22.4%; NO: 77.6%. <br />
-Would you or would you not favour a policy where the main selection of immigrants is made from countries with cultures similar to Canada's to ensure compatability and integration? <br />
- YES: 52.7%; NO: 47.3%<br />
-Absorptive capacity is the rate of immigration a country can absorb without dramatically changing its population composition and nature. Do you or do you not favour adopting an absorptive capacity policy for Canada?<br />
-YES: 76.3%; NO: 23.7% <br />
(Globe and Mail, September 17, 1987)<br />
<br />
2. -Most Canadians believe there are "too many immigrants," especially from visible minorities, according to a new survey commissioned for the federal government. Four in 10 Canadians believe there are too many members of visible minorities, singling out Arabs, blacks and Asians. ... And in Toronto, where the largest number of immigrants to Canada live, the survey showed a startling rise recently in intolerant attitudes. About 67 percent of the respondents in Canada's largest city said there were too many immigrants, compared with 46 percent just two years ago. In the poll, conducted [in February] by Ottawa-based Ekos Research Associates Inc., 53 per cent of Canadians questioned immigration levels, compared with 44 per cent two years ago. ... 7 percent said there were two few immigrants in Canada. (Globe and Mail, March 10, 1994)<br />
<br />
3. A June, 1994 poll, commissioned by the Immigration Association of Canada and conducted by Forum Canada Research confirmed a host of other polls that continue to show ongoing opposition by the Canadian Majority to the current immigration policy. Respondents were asked: <br />
-The Federal government plans to accept 250,000 immigrants to Canada in 1994. In your opinion, it this too many, too few or about right?<br />
A total of 60.3 per cent said too many; a mere 1.6 per cent said too few.<br />
Another question asked:<br />
-Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal to place restrictions on the entry of immigrant workers who may compete with unemployed Canadians for jobs during periods of high unemployment?<br />
Fully 66.3 per cent approved of such a proposal.<br />
A tightening of the much abused family reunification track won wide support. <br />
-Currently the majority of immigrants coming to Canada are sponsored by relatives living here. Would you approve or disapprove if sponsorship was restricted to immediate dependent family members, such as husbands, wives, and unmarried children?<br />
A strong majority -- 69.2 per cent approved. <br />
Currently, people with AIDS, tuberculosis, pernicious Hepatitis B, and even leprosy somehow manage to get into Canada. Actually, we don't even test for AIDS. A runaway majority say this must change. When asked, <br />
-Do you think people with incurable contagious diseases should or should not be permitted to immigrate to Canada?<br />
77.1 per cent said they should be kept out.<br />
When Asked<br />
-Should elderly persons who do not subscribe to medical health programmes that are valid in Canada and who may become a burden on medicare, be permitted to immigrate to Canada?<br />
A solid 61 per cent said no.<br />
Canada still seems to grant refugee or landed immigrant status to a depressing number of people with criminal records. The majority view is crystal clear. Asked,<br />
-Should persons with criminal records, or those with terrorist or anti-democratic backgrounds be permitted to immigrate to Canada? <br />
An overwhelming 95.9 per cent of respondents said no. <br />
Finally, when asked about the government's wimpy policy of granting permanent residence to illegals -who had claimed refugee status on entry, but who were declared ineligible for this status after complete judicial reviews, 64.1 per cent said they disapproved of such a policy. (Calgary Herald, August 4, 1994)<br />
Columnist Doug Fisher (Calgary Sun, July 13, 1994) reflected on the highly undemocratic nature of Canada's immigration policy. <br />
"If immigration policy and levels were set by the opinion polls of the past decade, they would be markedly different in two regards. Indeed, their implementation would make Marchi bail out of office shouting 'racism.' The opinions are plain and blunt. First, most Canadians favour less immigration. They think a quarter of a million a year is too high. This goal was set in the late 1980s and is stoutly defended by Marchi. Second and more shocking, most Canadians prefer immigrants from Europe, particularly the U.K., and would like fewer -- far fewer -- from the Caribbean, Africa, Latin America and Asia."<br />
And still on public opinion polls. Canadians are not jumping up and down with glee at the prospect of an influx of Cubans. On August 29, the Toronto Star's phone-in question was: <br />
-Should Canada open its doors to Cuban immigrants? A crushing 87 per cent said no. (Toronto Star, September 1, 1994)<br />
<br />
4. -Ellen Gee, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University ..., said the changes in immigration patterns have taken place so rapidly that the result is a recipe for social unease. "Survey after survey shows that people are negative about immigrants. I'm very pessimistic. ... Prof. Gee said opinion surveys consistently show the public disapproves of immigrants, particularly in the large urban areas that receive most of them." (Globe and Mail, December 9, 1992)<br />
<br />
5. -Confidential government documents suggest Canadians are becoming increasingly hostile -- if not racist -- towards immigration. The document prepared by senior immigration officials say internal government polling shows "attitudes to immigration levels appear to be hardening, with significantly more Canadians feeling there are too many immigrants coming to Canada." The confidential government survey found fully half of those Canadians polled in the past year were either intolerant or outright 'xenophones'. ... Only 14 per cent were listed as compassionate." Moreover, senior government officials warn: "Canadians seriously underestimate the number of immigrants arriving annually." (Ottawa Citizen, December 9, 1993)<br />
<br />
6. A Gallup Poll commissioned by Zero Population Growth (Canada) in the spring of 1981 found: 60.2% of Canadians felt Canadian population shoulds remain at its then present level of 24 million; only 16.5% wished to see the population larger than 30-million; 31.7% wanted no immigration at all; 65.1% wanted less than 50,000 immigrants pe year; only 15.3% preferred more than 100,000 immigrants per year at a time when the average annual level was 130,000.<br />
<br />
7. A Globe-Environics Poll taken in March, 1987 found that 65% of Canadians feel there is too much immigration. (Globe and Mail, June 6, 1987)<br />
<br />
8. In May, 1987, Goldfarb Consultants of Toronto found thar 83% of Canadians supported the tightening of regulations for the admission of so-called refugees. Only a tiny 11% wanted an open-door refugee policy. (Toronto Star, June 3, 1987)<br />
<br />
9. Another Environics Poll found that 70% of Canadians were opposed to the idea of immigration. (Globe and Mail, March 6, 1987)<br />
<br />
10. A Gallup Poll released in mid-October, 1991 revealed that a mere 17 per cent of Canadians wanted immigration levels increased. (Toronto Sun, October 21, 1990) Nevertheless, when then-Immigration Minister Barbara MacDougall rose in Parliament, October 25, to announce the government's new five-year plan, immigration was hiked to 220,000 in 1991 and 250,000 for each of the next four years.<br />
<br />
11. -Almost six Canadians in 10 express at least some reservations about the number of immigrants to Canada, a poll for the federal immigration department indicates. (Toronto Star, August 19, 1996) Interestingly, the Star had to winkle this taxpayer-funded poll out of the government through an Access to Information Act request. <br />
Forty-six per cent of respondents said there are too many immigrants coming to Canada. ... Forty-two per cent said immigration levels are about right, ... but some respondents who initially said the number of immigrans is about right subsequently said there may be "a little too many." "This suggests that ... concerns about the level of immigration may be (and have been, in earlier surveys) more widespread than one would think in light of responses to the initial question, said a memo to the minister." <br />
The Angus-Reid poll found Canadians resistant to a number of other attitudes fostered by the immigration industry. <br />
Fifty-four per cent said immigration increases unemployment, while 29 per cent said it has no effect, and 15 per cent think it reduces unemployment. So much for people buying the governments immigrants-create-jobs party line! <br />
Six out of 10 said children born to those moving permanently to another country should not automatically be given Canadian citizenship. Support for that view rises to 80 per cent when it comes to grandchildren. <br />
Sixty-three per cent rejected granting citizenship automatically to any child born on Canadian soil, regardless of whether their parents are Canadian. <br />
<br />
12.-Most Canadians want ethnic minorities to adapt to the value system and the "Canadian way of life" of the majority, a survey on race relations says. ..."Many Canadians want Ottawa to spend less on multiculturalism, particularly funding for ethnic festivals and celebrations. These were among the findings of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews' latest survey. ... Seventy-seven per cent also said ethnic minorities should try to adapt to a Canadian way of life, rather than holding on to their cultural differences." (Toronto Star, April 13, 1995) <br />
Naturally, the multicultural cheerleaders tried to put the best shine on the bad news. "But the survey didn't define what it considered to be the 'value system' or the 'way of life' of the majority and that is part of the poll's weakness, said Karen Mock, national director of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith. Michael Sullivan of Decima Research, which conducted the survey, said Canadians seem to be yearning to move away from the traditional notion of the Canadian mosaic toward an American-style melting pot. And many Canadians seem to want to see a change in government multiculturalism policies. Forty-five per cent want to see Ottawa decrease the current $25-million it spends on multiculturalism. ... There was an even split on the issue of immigration policy. Forty-six per cent of those surveyed believed that too many people of different races and cultures are being allowed into Canada and an equal percentage felt there was a good balance of people from various backgrounds coming into Canada."<br />
<br />
13.-Almost 60 per cent of Canadians support a five-year ban on new immigrants coming to Canada, says a Forum Canada Research poll. Forum Canada president Lorne Bozinoff, who conducted the poll for the Immigration Association of Canada ... said: "The results of the poll are pretty self-evident on how Canadians feel about immigration right now." (Toronto Sun, May 16, 1995) The poll conducted in March is all provinces except Quebec asked respondents -if they approve or disapprove of a five-year suspension of all immigration to provide time for Canada to integrate the large number of immigrants who have entered Canada in recent years. The approval rate was 58.9 per cent. Immigration Association President Kim Abbott said the statistics show the government needs to step back and review the high numbers of immigrants it is letting into Canada. Last fall, the government set its immigration level between 190,000 and 215,000 for this year. ... Abbott says the poll also shows 'dangers' in the government's decision to continue to finance immigrants to maintain their culture and lifestyles in Canada. ... The poll also revealed:<br />
73.8 per cent thought any savings from the moratorium on immigration should be spent on creating jobs for Canadians. <br />
50.9 per cent thought that civil servants and not political appointees should determine refugee status. <br />
75.7 per cent think those found not to be refugees should be turned away at the border. <br />
<p>---<br>Multiculturalism is neither left nor right, but rather a sickening indication of what happens when 'representative government' fails the majority.

There's no way I'm reading those polls.
Christ wasn't a nationalist.
There's a difference between self-preservation and an addiction to affluence. The people who immigrate here really might be in a situation of survival. And I'm obviously not in favour of immigration to the point of ruining this country too and there are too many people to save, but just because we can't help them all doesn't mean we shouldn't help those that we can. It also doesn't mean that those we let in won’t help us either.
The only way Germans and Frenchmen will fit in better is because they already have fatter wallets.
If English culture is English culture then why didn't we just stay British, or assimilate with the US? Besides, even if every English and French person lived in Canada they hardly justify consuming a nation as large as Canada. Plus, there are around a billion Indians who are rather fond of coming here and are quite familiar with English. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial spirit is more prominent in other cultures, so why not bring some in?
But yeah, privatizing crown corporations is certainly not one of the things holding us back. Plus, some spoiled jackass Canadian who's content with the comfortable lifestyle their parents provided and are unable to exert even the slightest effort in primary and secondary education will act just as selflessly toward Canada as a Mexican. Besides, it's a moot point. They'll earn money and they'll be taxed. They might not volunteer, but neither do homegrown Canadians.

Under the present governments the same plans can easily be brought to Canada by the oligopolies who control our economy with the free movement of capital and forced globalization, while calling it "free enterprise".<br />
<br />
Ed Deak. <br />
===========================================================<br />
<br />
Neat predator trick, used in the IT industry - <br />
<br />
*Establish a sweatshop in a low wage country<br />
*Bring guest workers from that country to the USA.<br />
*Get American workers to train them<br />
*Return them to work in the sweatshop<br />
*Use it to undercut prices in the USA<br />
*Downsize in the USA and fire the workers who performed the training. <br />
<br />
This and many other scams using guest workers to lower US wages and conditions is described in detail John Miano, at <a href="http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1305.html">http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1305.html</a> on the Center for Immigration Studies site.<br />
<br />
Miano writes: <br />
<br />
"In addition to creating direct competition to Americans for jobs, the H-1B program plays a critical role in the offshoring phenomenon. The largest suppliers of offshore programming services are also among the largest users of H-1B visas (See Appendix G ). The offshoring companies use the H-1B program to train their employees in U.S. business practices and to provide local support for operations moved overseas. " <br />
<br />
D

Yeah, Mulroney is as green as they get- in this case, the green represents money. Mulroney and Chretien`s FTA and NAFTA effectively kill any progressive environmental legislation, given chapter 11, whereby governments can be sued by corporations for lost profit. Mulroney will always be remembered as the PM who smiled with twinkly eyes as he flushed Canada down the toilet as he sold it down the river for his corporate-American masters. And yes, Muldoon is still running the conservatives by proxy. As for immigration, well, this isn`t the post war boom anymore, and we`re actually in the second great depression when you factor in all of the lost good paying manufacturing jobs. So really, the canadian economy cannot presently accomodate 250,000- 300,000 immigrants a year.

---
Dave Ruston