Key words:Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Global Government of North America (GGNA).
Ever wonder why Canadians and Mexicans were never asked in a referendum the kind of relationship we want to have with Americans and the White House? Ever wonder why Canadians and Mexicans dont have a veto power on the White House's policies and legislation, and yet we feed Americans with our resources? How is that possible? What does that do to the world, to all life on Earth, and to the next generations? As of January 30, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt held by the public was roughly $5.1 trillion and the annual deficit roughly $400 billion. They paid very little for our resources and with money they borrowed every year from China. Americans buy our ' home grown corporations ' with money they dont own. When they have not borrowed the money, they have invaded other nations and taken their resources. Blood resources. Blood money. How can we trust a partner that is basically bankrupted morally and economically? How can we let our governments be dealing with the White House on an agreement such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

Key words: Canadian multiculturalism, diversity, the Canadian experience, immigration, symbiosis global society, symbiotical relationship, global ministries
Canadian society today includes a vast diversity of cultural heritages and racial groups. This multicultural diversity is a result of centuries of immigration. Truly, the struggle for the making of Canadian multiculturalism is the Canadian experience and the Canadian identity. Canadian multiculturalism is a symbiotical relationship between Canada, the Canadian people, and the world.

Indonesia — If, as you read this, you're tucking into a KitKat or dipping into a tube of Pringles, you might be interested to know that these products contain palm oil that is linked to the destruction of forests and peatlands in Indonesia. As our new report "How the palm oil industry is cooking the climate" shows, it's a recipe for disaster. The manufacturers of these products - Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever - are sourcing their palm oil from suppliers who aren't picky about where they site their plantations. As the volunteers at the Forest Defenders Camp in Sumatra have seen, this includes tearing up areas of pristine forest then draining and burning the peatlands. Indonesia's peatlands act as huge carbon stores so replacing them with plantations them not only threatens the amazing biodiversity, including the rare Sumatran tiger, it also releases huge volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They only cover 0.1 per cent of the land on Earth, but thanks in part to the activities of the palm oil industry they contribute 4 per cent to global emissions. If expansion of the palm oil industry continues unabated, that figure can only rise. What's to be done? The Indonesian government should urgently introduce a moratorium on forest and peatland destruction, which will provide a chance to develop long-term solutions and prevent further emissions from deforestation. And our eyes are fixed firmly on the UN climate meeting in Bali next month, where the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol will be discussed. With deforestation accounting for up to a fifth of global emissions, including financing for forest protection as a core part of the plan to tackle climate change is essential.

More than 800 million poor people in India are bearing the burnt of climate change. This is partly due to the emissions caused by the few privileged rich people in the country, said a report released by Greenpeace India Society. The report on climate injustice entitled `Hiding Behind the Poor’ urged the government to apply the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in the country to deal with the situation arising out of climate change. The study authored by G Ananathpadmanabhan, K Srinivas and Vinuta Gopal, however advocated India’s right to seek common but differentiated responsibilities at the global level. Referring to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, it said that India claims its right to development and thus its right to consume more energy from fossil fuels, asking developed nations to create the carbon space. Implicit in this is the notion that the developed countries need to decrease their carbon dioxide emissions drastically so that developing countries can still increase theirs without pushing the planet in the direction of climate change.” However, the study pointed out that over the last few decades, emissions of rapidly developing countries like India and China have surged. In fact, rankings by the WRI of top GHG emitters has US on top and developing countries such as China and India are ranked at No 2 and 5 respectively, making them amongst the world’s biggest emitters. The Greepeace India made an urgent plea to the government to consider the situation especially when the next round of negotiations for the second phase of Kyoto Protocol is scheduled to take place in Bali in Indonesia in December, this year. The Greenpeace India report further said that India was faced with two sharply contradictory realities. On the one hand there was a rapidly growing rich consumer class which has made the country the 12. The largest luxury market in the world and on the other hand India has become the home to more than 800 million poor people on the planet who are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. India’s per capita carbon dioxide emission has averaged to 1.67 tonne.

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon urged the national governments to do more to arrest the climate change. The report also offered blueprints to avert the worst catastrophes, he said and added that climate change imperils the most precious treasures of our planet. Ki-moon said that the report would be placed before the forthcoming UN framework on climate change meeting in Bali in Indonesia to review the progress made under the Kyoto Protocol. The report noted that observational evidence from all continents and most oceans showed that many natural systems were being affected by regional climate changes, particularly rise in temperatures. Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of the human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial value determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

Biotechnology in agriculture, bio-fuel, climate change and energy security are top on the agenda of the European Union’s new offer for science and technology cooperation with India. I am confident that we are embarking upon a new eara in science and technology cooperation between the European Union and India. Our S&T cooperation agreement is about to be renewed for a further 5 years and we are about to announce new exciting opportunities for collaborative research, which may include biotechnology in agriculture, bio-fuel, climate change, energy security and computational material science. We will establish a road map of our strategic S&T cooperation for 2008 and beyond.

Welcome to the Age of Insuffiency: As oil prices hit new highs and supplies sink, our way of life will drastically change.
We are nearing the end of the Petroleum Age and have entered the Age of Insufficiency. Major investors are not likely to cough up the trillions of dollars needed to substantially boost production in the years ahead, suggesting that the global output of conventional petroleum will not reach the elevated levels predicted by the Energy Department but will soon begin an irreversible decline. This conclusion leads to two obvious strategic impulses: first, the government will seek to ease the qualms of major energy investors by promising to protect their overseas investments through the deployment of American military forces; and second, the industry will seek to hedge its bets by shifting an ever-increasing share of its investment funds into the development of nonpetroleum liquids. In considering these past events, it is important to recognize that the use of military force to protect the flow of imported petroleum has generally enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Washington. One might imagine that the current debacle in Iraq would shake this consensus, but there is no evidence that this is so. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case: possibly fearful that the chaos in Iraq will spread to other countries in the Gulf region, senior figures in both parties are calling for a reinvigorated US military role in the protection of foreign energy deliveries. There is mounting perils to the safe flow of foreign oil. Concluding that the United States alone has the capacity to protect the global oil trade against the threat of violent obstruction, it argues the need for a strong US military presence in key producing areas and in the sea lanes that carry foreign oil to American shores. An awareness of this new "Washington consensus" on the need to protect overseas oil supplies with American troops helps explain many recent developments in Washington. Most significant, it illuminates the strategic stance adopted by President Bush in justifying his determination to retain a potent US force in Iraq -- and why the Democrats have found it so difficult to contest that stance. We should expect an increase in the use of military force to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in global supplies.

We are faced with thoughtless development that paves flood plains and destroys wetlands; dams that displace native people and scar watersheds; unchecked industrial growth that pollutes water sources; and rising rates of consumption that nature can't match. Increasingly, we are also threatened by the wave of privatization that is sweeping across the world, turning water from a precious public resource into a commodity for economic gain. The problems extend from the global north to the south and are as pervasive as water itself. Equally encompassing are the politics of water. Discussions about our water crisis include issues like poverty, trade, community and privatization. In talking about water, we must also talk about indigenous rights, environmental justice, education, corporate accountability, and democracy. In this mix of terms are not only the causes of our crisis but also the solutions. It ultimately comes down to an issue of democracy. "We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about fundamental questions of democracy itself: Who will make the decisions that affect our future, and who will be excluded?

The hot breath of global warming has now touched some of the coldest northern regions of world, turning the frozen landscape into mush as temperatures soar 15 degrees C. above normal. Entire hillsides, sometimes more than a kilometre long, simply let go and slid like a vast green carpet into valleys and rivers on Melville Island in Canada’s northwest Arctic region of Nunavut this summer, says Scott Lamoureux of Queens University in Canada and leader of one the of International Polar Year projects. The entire landscape is on the move, it was very difficult to find any slopes that were unaltered, said Lamoureux, who led a scientific expedition to the remote and uninhabited island. The topography and ecology of Melville Island is rapidly being rearranged by climate change.

A growing body of progressives within the global justice movement, including environmentalists, economists and policy makers, broadly agree that a significant overhaul of the world’s economic and political systems is long overdue, and that without significant restructuring our most pressing problems will never be tackled. It is time for a significant re-evaluation of global economic and political values and the creation of an economy that serves the needs of the global community as a whole, within our environmental limitations.