Wideleft

Sometimes the spirit of an agreement is more important than the details and that is why the Paris Agreement in hindsight was so important.  195 countries officially agreed that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed - that was not a small accomplishment.  
The markets are changing, but without government aid (which was far smaller than what the petroleum industry was receiving) we would not have seen the acceleration towards green technology that is so evident now.  
 

Saw him and Lyle Lovett a few months ago.  Their between song banter was almost as impressive as their songs.  Fabulous show.

Sometimes the spirit of an agreement is more important than the details and that is why the Paris Agreement in hindsight was so important.  195 countries officially agreed that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed - that was not a small accomplishment.  
The markets are changing, but without government aid (which was far smaller than what the petroleum industry was receiving) we would not have seen the acceleration towards green technology that is so evident now.  
 

Sometimes the spirit of an agreement is more important than the details and that is why the Paris Agreement in hindsight was so important.  195 countries officially agreed that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed - that was not a small accomplishment.  
The markets are changing, but without government aid (which was far smaller than what the petroleum industry was receiving) we would not have seen the acceleration towards green technology that is so evident now.  
 

the Classic-leaning Rock station I program was getting so many requests for him, we added a few tracks. "Perfectly Good Guitar" gets a lot of love...

Such an amazing guitarist, singer and songwriter.  
 

Buncha damned idiots.

sctv (original)
 

The agreement worked fairly well until Trump showed up and scared the **** out of them with his anti-Muslim rhetoric.  I don't feel much sympathy for the border crossers as they were well aware that their visas had expired and they were living permanently in the US as illegals. Whether the reasoning behind that was to better themselves economically or if they actually faced a threat upon return to their home country would have to be determined on an individual basis.  They know the rules of the game they're playing, so I don't see them as being innocent to the consequences of their actions.
I'm more upset with the Americans for not dealing with their problems and allowing them to spill over the border.  I don't think Trump is losing any sleep over the current situation though, this solution meets his objectives.

Not that easy, Canada and the U.S. have an agreement in place and until that agreement is amended or renegotiated they have to abide by it's rules on both sides.
From Wikipedia:
The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement, officially the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries,[1] is a treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States to better manage the flow of refugee claimants at the shared land border.
Under the agreement persons seeking refugee status must make their claim in the first country they arrive in, either the United States or Canada, unless they qualify for an exception. For example, refugee claimants who are citizens of a country other than the United States that arrive from the United States at the Canada–United States land border can only pursue their refugee claims in Canada if they meet an exception under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The agreement was signed on December 5, 2002 in Washington, D.C. by Bertin Côté (Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada) and Arthur E. Dewey (Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, United States Department of State). It entered into force on December 29, 2004.[1]
 

Here's more information on The Safe Third Country Agreement (the link is in a previous post I made):
 

It is concerning. I don't think anyone's arguing that. When you consider the current situation in the US and the fact Canada and the US share the longest and technically unprotected* international land border on Earth, nobody should be surprised at what's been happening. Historically, however, it's not like this just started happening when Trump was elected POTUS. It's been an ongoing phenomenon for years.
*meaning the areas between border ports of entry are essentially wide open

You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S.  Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.

You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S.  Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.

I'll answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question: "What is the cost to taxpayers of doing nothing?"  
You don't think that shutting down a refugee program would actually stop refugees from arriving, do you?

I'll answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question: "What is the cost to taxpayers of doing nothing?"  
You don't think that shutting down a refugee program would actually stop refugees from arriving, do you?

My understanding is they are vetted and dealt with accordingly. I don't understand your weak PM comments. The safe country agreement was made in 2002. That's the crux of the issue, not whatever the PM or the POTUS are tweeting 

The article does not mention the third country agreement, nor does it quote any immigration lawyers or officials. Refugees who have not been granted asylum in the United States are permitted to cross the border and try to claim in Canada. 

Since when is a disease or developmental issue in any way similar to sexual orientation?

They're not similar at all. Understanding disease at the genetic level improves our understanding of how to treat and mitigate those diseases. Because diseases have negative effects on the people who have them. How does that in any way compare to a person's sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not down the road science discovers there's a genetic aspect to it?
And besides, the only people who care about the sexual orientation of others are hardline social conservatives stuck in the past. And they're pro-life, anyway.

I believe it is a mother's right to choose whether she is capable of carrying a baby to term or raising a child in a healthy, safe environment.  A mother who would abort based on the unlikely scenarios you describe probably shouldn't be a parent anyway.

Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly by anyone and with the exception of Republican (Pro-life) Congressman Scott Desjarlais (and a few others) it is the hardest decision many women have to make.  The argument you make is so cynical (and I am a cynic) about human nature that I would suggest these babies would be better off not being born in the first place.  
If you want to reduce abortions, do your best to make sure society takes care of kids when they are born.  Vote for parties that encourage planned parenthood, universal daycare, school meal programs etc.  Arguing about stopping abortions when kids are born into poverty, danger, addiction etc. and not first condemning political parties that abdicate responsibility or aid to these kids is disingenuous.

Since you asked.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/06/muzzles-removed-for-federal-scientists-at-department-of-fisheries-and-oceans.html

Defend the rights of all who cannot defend themselves - such as a refugee child who cannot defend itself.
I'm not in a position to know how badly various refugees across the world need help - go ahead and share if you have something other than an opinion on that.  I do know that nothing good can come out of people spending years in refugee camps, due to wars, famine, et. al.  
https://twitter.com/selkirkrecord
 

I mean given the way it's written you could pretty much put any Conservative's picture there and it'd be relevant to the people who write the way that's written. 
Bottom line is it was a status quo pick by the Conservative party, and I don't see how that does anything but guarantee the Liberals another 2 terms. They'll get their asses kicked next time and think "oh just need time for people to warm up to the new leader" but then they'll get their asses kicked again the following time and perhaps then they will stop and say "wait a minute, this back asswards social conservatism doesn't fly anymore, we better change"
My hope is they get absolute wrecked next time so it forces them to get with the times quicker.