Leafless

Correction to the last paragraph of my post should read: " complicated by a series of PM's (prime ministers not MP's)."

Charles anthony You wrote: "Hey! I would say it has literary merit, too! It has a nice ring to it. However, I would also describe it as ill-informed, narrow-minded bigotry." Actually Canada's multicultural policy has nothing to do wth foreign immigration and integration but did have something to do with this. "As for the second “B,” the federal government accepted the Commission’s view of Canada as a bilingual nation, but replaced biculturalism with multiculturalism. In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adopt an official policy of multiculturalism. In addition to recognizing Canada’s diverse multicultural heritage, abandoning biculturalism helped make the policy of bilingualism more acceptable to English Canadians." http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultu...sm/charter.html But basically the Liberals occupied with Quebec either by fault or design neglected to to reinforce 'Canadian nationalism' and thus foreign immigration continued to go unchecked relating to integration. In other words integration was never a serious issue with the Liberals who knew that Quebec could never be persuaded to commit itself to 'Canadian nationalism' but rather left it free to be dedicated and loyal to it's own brand of 'Quebec nationalism' and left other cultures free to do what they like with their own foreign culture. Again, the problems we have today are directly related to weak federal Liberal leadership also complicated by a series of MP's from the province of Quebec.

Riverwind You wrote: "I guess the current adminstration likes seeing the US targeted by Muslim extremists. Americans need to understand that having military bases in any country is going to create frictions with the local population (even the Japanese have problems with US bases). Keeping permenant bases in a country like Iraq is a really dumb idea." I can't imagine anyone having a problem with permanent U.S. bases in Iraq as a lot of time and effort has gone into the 'War on Terrorism' and it is fairly obvious that permanent stability in Iraq could be a very long way off. You seem to cower under the threat of Muslim extremist or are actually whishing them well pertaining to your statement " I guess the current administration likes seeing the U.S targeted by Muslim extremist" and only hope your reference is not the latter.

Lighten up a little newbie the poem is a valid piece of literature reflecting a broken multiculturalism policy and socialist policies gone bad.

Darth Budda I ask you what changes or improvements are you talking about and did not ask you to verify your dislike of George W. Bush and the Republicans via Mr. Bolton. Anyways there could possibly be another time for constructive dialogue. Have a nice day.

August1991 You wrote: "I think it is fair to say that Canada's multicultural policies are a matter of supreme indifference to bin Laden, assuming he's ever heard of them. Do you think Zarqawi gave any thought, against or for, to Canada's multicultural mosaic and whether it didn't foster a strong Canadian identity? Or how about the Bali bombers? Or Mohammed Atta? Or the the guys that blew themselves up in London? Or planted the bombs in Madrid? I agree that the Canadian government can and must take steps to deal with this threat. But I don't see how cutting funding for "Celebrate Our Diversity" school posters (as much as I'd like to see the cuts occur) would have any effect on the people intent on replacing Zarqawi." Multiculturalism I think has more of an effect conditoning Canadians to accept the federal governments multicultural policies and foreign immigration rather than have any effect on foreign immigrants religious and political ideologies. They already know Canada is a cutural softy pertaining to the federal government implementing stringent measues to integrate. You say there is no real way you can stop Muslim immigration. I say this is simply not true as if you look at immigration numbers from the U.S. they are extremely low. Does this mean no one in the U.S. is applying for Canadian citizenship or is it government is somehow blackballing or somehow labelling potential U.S. immigrants as undesirable. I have already heard of reports how hard it is for U.S. and British potential immigrants to gain permanent Canadian citizenship and I wonder why. Regardless there is nothing stopping the federal government from employing the same or similar tactics to curb immigration from undesirable countries.

I find it strange August that you would find it rather compulsory that the English in Quebec must conform to the larger French community in Quebec. Is your logic based on the fact that French is the 'official language of Quebec'. Or the fact that there are NO bilingual policies anywhere in Quebec. Or the fact the 'French Language Charter ' restricts the use of English. Or the fact schools restrict an English education based on mother tounge and what language you were primarily educated in. Or do you fail to realize that English is the dominant language of Canada and despite all of Quenbec's restrictions that life for the majority English can still be carried on in Quebec. This proves August if there is no real purpose for a language people will never be bother to learn it especially one that promotes racism. This is why 'official bilingualism' in the government is so discriminatory and such a joke with the federal government trying to emulate a large employer in a country that is pretended to be seen as to be naturally bilingual in which both official languages offer and provide a multitude of jobs and services available to anyone who happens to be bilingual.

August1991 You wrote: "I think it's useful to have a discussion about immigration, and about multiculturalism. But in this modern world, the idea that we can stop people from coming to Canada is not on. And ultimately, these people are going to fit into Canadian society in their own way." Unfortunately you are not in a position to make such a statement. I gather you have a thing for turmoil and potential upheaval.

geoffrey You wrote: "But how can you advocate removing equalisation, the tool of the federalist, and still want a strong federal system? Allocate more provincial powers to Ottawa? That won't fly out here, actually, it just won't happen." I am not necessarily advocating the removal of equalization but the federal government should reserve the right as to direct or allocate into what areas these financial resources both equalization and transfer payments are to be spent. Obviously a new formula should be created to reduce the total tax burden relating to the true cost of living of Canadians in different provinces that would reflect the total amount of dollars left available for both equalization and transfer payments. You also wrote: "August made a good point, that the right balance is when Canadians don't have to choose between their province and their country. And that can be done in a much less centralised state. " I don't even know what that is suppose to mean. This is like proposing eliminating Canada's ten provinces and creating ten new countries.

geoffrey You wrote: "It seems how you see Quebec is how I see Ontario or the Maritimes, a big burden on our prosperity. That's why I think we need to just split this ship up a bit, operate together on mutual issues like a Canadian military or hockey/olympic teams and just stop pretending that the areas are similar enough for everyone to get along. Everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes." You can view the issue as you wish. All I'm saying is Quebec is the root cause of constitutional dissention leading to the problems we have today and was never resolved because of weak federal leadership. There is no way I want to see federalism diluted and think at the present time to many federal powers have already been given away in essence destroying federalism and is the main cause for provincial animosity. Your view concerning burdens and prosperity is ludicrous and has nothing to do with the root problem. All countries are faced pretty much the same problem with less productive parts than others but I have reservations that the country cannot afford the cadillac equalization system we now employ.

geoffrey You wrote: "Argus, your right that Muslims aren't a race. But it doesn't make common sense to just dislike all Muslims, I'm skeptical of many, but I know most are good intentioned. I do take a second look at the young Muslim kid with the bulky backpack and the IPOD in his hand on the c-train when we are passing in front of the Calgary Petroleum Club... but I don't think blanket statements or blanket policies against Muslims is the answer. They can be productive, they can add to society. The cancer does need to be removed from their population though, and we are seeing that with arrests such as those in Toronto." It's not a question of disliking Muslims it's a question of Muslims disliking basically White Christians. You would have to admit Islam is a problamatic religion and Canadians should not be put in a dangerous positon by our own government nor in the postion to train or educate or civilize Muslims to be good dedicated Canadians.

August1991 You wrote: "Leafless, instead of looking at it from your perspective, look at the relationship from the US perspective. Canada could be a northern Cuba. Then, Americans would have to worry about a long, long border and whacky shenanigans on the other side. That was (is) precisely the situation of Russia and China." The major difference is Canada and the U.S. originated from the same people. There is very little difference between Canada and the U.S. up until recently with Canada's emphasis on foreign immigration created unsettling conditons concering anti Americanism. I think it is very unwise to allow immigration into Canada from countries unfriendly or hostile towards the U.S. and if they are hostile or unfriendly towards the U.S. I can't imagine why they would want to immigrate to a country so close to the U.S. with mostly the same cultural and for the most part political ideolgies as the U.S. Combine this with an anti-American Quebec and you have problems. Do you actually believe any other country in the world in the place of Canada since the countries creation would actually give the U.S. any problems? You also wrote: "Look what's happening in Iraq right now. A minority of Sunnites (20% of the population, smaller than French in Canada) is making life hell for everyone else because they refuse to share power. Or how about Sri Lanka. Or Ireland. Or South Africa. It's very easy for a minority to make life hell for the majority." Well depending of the issue's relating to that specific problem with minority uprising, that's life. Don't forget August the minorities you speak of are also creating hell for themselves and are also in the positon to cool it if they wish. No one has to tolerate blackmail. You also wrote: "Over time, French Canadians have accepted alot of nonsense from English Canadians and yet they have responded in a civil manner. From an English-Canadian perspective, you should be thankful. The alternative could far, far worse." Maybe you can address or explain that issue in a more detailed manner as I am not certain what your getting at.

Rue I really don't think you know what your talking about. The U.S was built on cultures of all races but unlike Canada the country comes first and foremost. Multiculturalism in Canada is not meant to take away or reduce Canadian identity by allowing foreign cultures to impose their cultures ahead of the Canadian one. This is what it was meant to do: "In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adopt an official Multiculturalism Policy. This policy provided for programs and services to support ethnocultural associations and to help individuals overcome barriers to their full participation in Canadian society. In 1982, the multicultural character of Canada gained constitutional recognition in Section 27 of the newly adopted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It specified that the courts were to interpret the Charter "in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada". By virtue of this section of the Charter, Canada became a constitutional multicultural state." You wrote: "You want to hate monger against "immigrants" and "refugees" and look for someone to hate, got news for you. Its been done. I guess you wish you were alive in the 1920's and 30's when Immigration policies were a lot tougher and men were men and blacks and Jews were told not to use the same beaches in Toronto as real Canadians." The only indifference I have with immigrants or anyone else in Canada is that you are a citizen of Canada and not some foreign country so it is soley your responsibility to act and behave like a citizen of Canada 'full participation' and that includes dedication to the country of Canada. At the present time we have immigrants and other Canadians who think Canada is a country void of idenity and to them it is only their cultural and political identity that is meaningful. http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/respect_e.cfm http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/110..._Welcoming.html

August1991 You wrote: "If I can make a comparison to North America, Americans should be thankful that they share a continent with such a country as Canada for a neighbour. We cause Americans no grief or trouble. The alternative could be far, far worse. In a similar sense, English-Canadians should be thankful to share a country with a minority such as French-Canadians." I really don't know how you can make such a comparison between super power U.S. and constitutional boat rocker 'have not Quebec.' For starters ANY country in the world in Canada's position would be on their hands and knees kissing the dirt to be America's neighbours, so don't give us the crappola we are something special because we don't cause the U.S. serious problems. Do you really want to know why Canada has become so regionalized. Simply because provinces have become so sick and tired of seeing the feds kiss Quebec's butt and being treated not in the same manner that now everyone wants a piece of the action and are demanding federal attention. I don't especially want share my country with problamatic Quebec but unfortunately to date have no choice.

theloniusfleabag You wrote: "Bolton was known to be arrogant and abrasive before he became UN rep. The US knew full well what stance he would take, because he made no secret that he hated the UN and what it stood for. The US gov't (and the businesses it serves) have nothing but disdain for the UN. Not because it is an ineffective beuraocracy, either, but rather because it is a hinderance to the free hand the US wishes it had in international politics." Do you have proof the UN is an effective organization? The problem is that the UN sees many world issue's through 'rose coloured glasses' when in many instances a more direct approach sometimes is immediately required and many world issue's are hard or impossible to resolve. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/ind.../310?theme=alt1

Johnny Utah You wrote: "If only the PM was a woman.." So, carry on!

Bakunin You wrote: "It must be hard to understand but their is a strong barrier, i beleive we know more about american culture than canadian culture. Im interested in canadian culture unlike most of quebeckers and the only canadian TV artist i know having a career in canada is Rick mercer and Don cherry... The only show i do listen once a year is this hour as 22 minutes. Other than that i know canadian air farce, the redgreen show,or something like that and the mercer report. Thats all i know about canadian culture, thats all i found wich i beleive is highly above average for a quebecker. The only other link is politics. Are there anything else about canadian culture i should know ? It is hard to beleive that two cultures ignorant of each others could form one day a stable central government. How could quebecker care or at least be loyal about something they don't know." There is very little difference in modern Canadian culture as in comparison to U.S. culture. I really get a kick out of all this cultural B.S. stemming basically ( no one else really cares) from Quebec when the only real difference in Quebec culture compared to the ROC and the U.S. is the French languge. And even at that I highly suspect the only reason for Quebec to pursue it's usage is to use the French language under the guise of culture as a political tool that is advantageous to Quebec politics to pursue power but at the huge expense of national unity and the main cause of a dysfunctional federal government. I am sure Trudeau and his Liberals must have recognized this fact and therefore was all along part of the Quebec game political game plan. This puts enormous political pressure on any other non-Liberal PM to adhere to this Liberal created constitutional effort or be seen as a direct threat to national unity if any non-Liberal PM whishes to undo Liberal created constitutional package. In effect you can basically say the emphasis regarding this insincere Trudeau inspired cultural trickery has not possibly allowed Canada to progress in the fashion of a modern democratic country and instead reduced Canada in many areas with problems similar to that of a third world country.

Darth Budda You wrote: "I'm no fan of U.N. beurocracy, and I think a lot of things could be improved, but Bolton is certainly no agent for change: he's the Jerry Falwell of international politics. Rude, crude, and so's his point of view." Well Darth exactly what changes arte you talking about?

Argus You wrote: "Why? I didn't see anything said as being particularly insulting or improper. Bolton is trying to pick a fight with the UN in the same way the Republicans are trying to pick a fight over same sex marriage - to inspire the masses of dullards who finger their prayer beeds as they donate to the Republican party and then rush off to vote for God's chosen politician - 2006 version." Talk about misguided terminolgy with a preference to support the perverted which of course is your democratic right.

Rue You wrote: "Your above comment is a bit misleading. In the Province of Ontario, French is considered an official language in all provincial court proceedings and government services and in fact the provincial civil service and provincial courts must provide services in French if requested. So while most Ontarians are not bilingual, it does have a public policy that in effect guarantees equal services to Francophones." No, my previous comment is not misleading and Ontario is NOT federally or provincially 'officially bilingual'. Your comment is misleading. What you are talking about is the 'French Languages Services Act' (FLSA), passed in 1986 regonizes in it's preamble that French is an honoured language and states the government of Ontario whishes to preserve it (voluntarily) for future generations. The Act guarantees the right to receive provincial government services in French (where numbers warrant). To date 201 organizations such as hospitals, children aid socities and nursing homes have been designated. Designation of these organizations is VOLUNTARY. I am in disagreement to this Act simply because it was imposed on Ontarians without a referendum and can lead (does lead) to the type of linguistic discrimination and minority control (4.8% French of all Ontario) found in the federal version of 'official bilingualism' in the cfederal public service and needless to say is extremely costly to maintain at the expense of ALL Ontario tax payers. http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/english/about-ann...ckgrounder.html

GostHacked You wrote: "Bolton trashed the UN at almost every chance he got. He was sent there to try and reform the UN. I thought the goal was to strengthen the UN no weaken it." So you are advocating the 'boy scout' approach? It is already known and acknowledged that " the UN cannot work without U.S. engagement and U.S. leadership." This can be extended and implied that 'American global leadership' is an absolute basic requirement.

Article 'Ottawa Citizen'- Titled-'Bolton demand UN apology'- Thurs. June 8/2006- pg.A10. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton rebuked the United Nations second highest ranking official yesterday for delivering a speech asserting U.S officials have undermined the UN by withholding support and failing to defend it from it's harshest critics. Ambassador John Bolton called on Secretary Kofi Annan to "repudiate" the speech given by his top aide, Deputy Malloch Brown, or live with "adverse" consequences. " Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim I fear will be the United Nations" Mr Bolton told reporters. He also called the speech a "very, very grave mistake." Here is fox News take on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198603,00.html Looks like the UN is loosing it's credibilty more and more every day.

I to think equalization as seen it's better days as there is no 'down button' concerning equalization amounts and is just another form of giving tax payers money to the provinces with no strings attached. Equalization payments subsidize 'failure' by removing incentives for provinces and it's residents to 'help themselves' rather than be given a lump sum payment with basically no strings attached.

The report unveiled yesterday recommends that Newfoundland and British Columbia take a cut while Quebec would get a $1.57-billion boost in funding. " Quebec would see the highest year-over-year increase, they wrote of the proposed 30-percent increase. In Quebec City however, Finance Minister Michelle Audit called the conclusion " a good basis for discussion and negotiation." Prime Minister Stephen Harper raised eyebrows amoung some of the premiers when he catorized the commitment as merely his party's 'preference' on the issue. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...518ff64&k=37645 There are problems with equalization formula and premiers are not to happy. Equalization payments are out of sync with actual per capita incomes. The problem lies with the formula to detirmine equalization that involves 33 revenue sources. Measurement using tax definitons distort tax bases to reflect political choices rather than true economic resources, such as retail sales tax, that exempt many services or personal taxes that exclude some forms of income. The equalization program also does not account for underpricing by Provincial Crown corporations that keep provincial profits LOW , such as in Quebec and Manitoba's power systems. http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=46390 But I think one of the real problems is there are no direct stipulations to describe what exactly is the federal government role or how far should they go in this issue and this leaves room for political posturing or vote buying. Quebec appears to be doing very well for a province that never even signed Canada's Constitution and has worked against the country with excessive constitutional demands with threats of separation with draconian language laws. Premiers are upset.

Warwick Green You wrote: "What party are you aware of that would either (i) "remove their federal 'official bilingual policy'" or (ii) "have it justified by a national referendum." After 35 plus years of federal government rule from a string of prime ministers from Quebec with a fabricated unity issue based on separation as bait, presently there is no federal party that would undo 'federal official bilingualism. I say fabricated because the 'issue' appears to be perpetual in nature and was not or never dealt with properly and constitutes constitutional blackmail. I think any federal national party other than Quebec infiltrated Liberal party will eventually eliminate the 'federal official bilingual policy' or have it justified by 'national referendum' as this policy discriminates against other provinces that cannot compete or deal on the basis of linguistics as a tool to obtain employment in the federal public service or manipulate it's workings. This federal official bilingual policy is highly irregular as all Canadian provinces are not provincially 'offically bilingual' except for the province of New Brunswick. How the federal government can apply this discriminating policy especially in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario both provinces being NOT provincially 'officially bilingual' is mind boggling.