Leafless

Mr. Ignatieff should stop realize that French is already being adequately promoted and that his attention should be directed to and support the fact that Canada is an 'OFFICIALLY MULTICULTURAL COUNTRY'. Relating to French on a federal level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualism_in_Canada For the federal government to intervene, relating to bilingualism in Canada, is only reinforcing the views of many English speaking Canadians that federal official languages in Canada is controlled by ONE GOVERNING BODY with a set of rules that makes the federal government a SUPREMACIST or RACIST government .

Oh, okay there are a FEW schools in Quebec, but does not exclude that fact that they are culturally intolerant as in comparison to the ROC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Quebec In the ROC French immersion has been around since 1970 and is nothing new and French as a second language is offered in all schools in Ontario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Quebec http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/200406/6923-eng.htm

And Quebecers do not have to worry about English immersion in Quebec because there are none. It is a big issue. Ontario has no official language and is not an 'officially bilingual province' and French language policies and sign laws are being implemented without the consent of the residents of the province of Ontario, nor any affected cities. One just has to look at what corrupt politicians and bilingual policies and sign laws did to Ottawa, Ontario, a city whose French population is only 15% and only 4.3% in all of the province of Ontario. The 'French Language Services Act' in Ontario providing 215 services in the French language was corruptly initially implemented by the Bob Rae Liberal government without ever asking the consent of the residents of Ontario. Regardless, this thread is about Mr. Ignatief and not bilingualism in general.

I supose the multitude of your juvenile post are taken seriously? Only if read by a stupid person or a French propagandist. As if a federal party is going to mention ethnocide or ever admit to it. I think you are a condescending dick. With one being worse than the other.

http://www.canada.com/Life/Federal+Liberal...5917/story.html How can a federal leader possibly be more biased than Mr. Ignatieff. It certainly is strange Mr. Ignatieff would be so much in favour of possibly igniting further political strife across Canada relating to the bilingualism issue.

I always wondered what you looked like. Now I know.

And who the hell wants to be part of those who belong to cultures of entitlement outside of Liberals who force all Canadians pay for what they want.

Because of the pursuit of over priced unaffordable cookie cutter houses, plastic coated shiny cars and a host of other materialistic offerings that generate huge profits for banks and coupled with high taxes require both man and wife to work, have replaced the natural drive to have families.

That was simply relating to the cost of a private plan not subsidized by the employer as in comparison to what a Canadian would have to pay (in the way of taxes) compared to that of a private family plan. There are other reasons for a higher TOTAL health cost in the U.S. including these: I would hate to see what the bill is for Veterans Administration alone. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429

Am I suppose to be able to. What an inane question. I think I have already IDENTIFIED them throughout many different threads on this site. Then why has the federal government have to stoop to implementing cultural policies relating to 'ethnocide' to accommodate them? Immigration....how else. Statistics Canada says the average age of immigrant workers is 43...worse still. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2009...e/10770-eng.htm

There are many other factors to consider rather than sheer numbers of immigrants and most have already been previously discussed. Not until between 2020-2030 will there be a natural birth rate of zero. http://www.cicnews.com/1998/08/canada-depe...owth-08527.html Short term gain for long term pain is not the answer. I can't imagine how Canadians survived prior to 1966 when EITHER national health care nor Canada pension plans existed. Besides our current national health care plan cost is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008, which is higher for a comparable private plan (not subsidized in the U.S.). Private family health care plans are available in the U.S.:

There are many other factors to consider rather than sheer numbers of immigrants and most have already been previously discussed. Not until between 2020-2030 will there be a natural birth rate of zero. http://www.cicnews.com/1998/08/canada-depe...owth-08527.html Short term gain for long term pain is not the answer. I can't imagine how Canadians survived prior to 1966 when EITHER national health care nor Canada pension plans existed. Besides our current national health care plan cost is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008, which is higher for a comparable private plan (not subsidized in the U.S.). Private family health care plans are available in the U.S.: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/h...th-policy_x.htm

I prefer the smaller easier to handle population of 20-25 million Canadians. But we have increased long term problems by allowing into this country incompatible non-White immigrants who want to retain their culture and not assimilate. We already know for a fact the tremendous social problems caused by Quebec and French Canadians who also refuse to assimilate. Why should we import more of this type of immigrant only to increase cultural and social strife in Canada. This is on top of the fact the average age of an immigrant is 39 years old, meaning that they will immediately present a strain on Canada's health care system and only pay taxes for approx. 26 years as compared to an 18 -20 year old native born Canadian who will pay taxes for 45-47 years.

Same as the U.S. It's mainstream culture is the English culture. Like you say it is only a notion ( a vague idea). The fact is Canada was created by the British North America Act by way of confederation. A policy implemented by a supremacist government. 'Which is a policy implemented by a supremacist government .... absolutely. 'CANADIAN'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uh-huh I am happy you agree.

I don't think that, I know that, and have proven it.

Canada was created by the BNA Act and confederation and was NOT created by 'founding nations'.

Ha-ha-ha-ha. The Dominion of Canada was created by the British North American Act of 1867 through the initial confederation confederation of Upper and lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Canada purchased Ruperts Land from Hudson's Bay company from which the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan were later formed. Newfoundland became the last province to join. Canada also includes three territories. Canada's majority culture is the English culture that was built utilizing the civil liberties that was available to all other Canadian cultures.

Do you actually think anything you say will make any ion of difference to Canada's immigration policy. The current government is content as with past Canadian governments by acting in the postion of 'multicultural supremacist'. And as far as this thread is concerned the anwer up to now is SEAL THE FLOODGATES.

All this bailout is doing is contributing to a record high deficit in Ontario. And what does this mean for the tax payers of Ontario: http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...6/?hub=CP24Home

We very wll know what direction government coercion has driven Canada's immigration policies and other cultural politically correct Liberal policies. It's called CULTURAL GENOCIDE.

Because bilingualism which is basically federal type bilingualism is MUCH more than just about providing services in French. You do know what you are saying as it not in not in the federal governments interest to allow other provinces to have their majority English language made official. We all know the federal government discriminates and oppresses relating to official languages.

I'am not to certain about that. Prior to 1935 the Progressive Conservatives were called the Liberal Conservative Party.

Almost. From 1935 onwards with the exception of the Diefenbaker Conservative government from 1957-63. There was a point even the Liberals could no longer satisfy the political demands of Quebec, thus the reason for the creation of the Block Quebecois in 1991. Prior to the Mulroney Conservatives forming a government in 1993 (Quebec PM) it was all Liberal governments right back to the Pearson Liberal government in 1963.

I am glad to hear you admit that 'official bilingualism' discriminates against Canadians just as badly as Ignatieff's racist comment "that the abilty to speak both official languages is the essence of being Canadian".