Leafless

August1991 You wrote- " And sadly the one group that's going to get screwed in all of this is the U.S. consumer. Politics and government, they sometimes make you want to wretch." And how is that August? We import more American logs then we export. The logs we export are the skinny ones Canadians don't want and only represent a small percentage of our total paper products and lumber exported to the U.S. Maybe you can tell me how that small percentage of logs affects the U.S. consumer?

KrustyKidd You wrote - " No, let's set up a registry so that the most vulnerable and fragile members of society don't have to be sacrificial bait to see if these evil people without conscience have been rehabilitated or not." There will always be sex crimes as we ARE ALL sexual creatures and some people more than others take advantage of an illegal sex act ignoring all consequences provided by society due to a variety of reasons. I fail to see the difference as far as the criminal act goes between a child or a women or man or boy of any age who as been duped in one way or the other or viciously attacked in a sexual manner by a person bent on or driven by any reason to satisfy his or her craving by way of illegal criminal sex acts. In fact psychological ramifications can be devastating or even cripple the mind of any victim of a forced sexual act. I would like to see a registry for all criminals concerning all crimes of a fairly serious nature as I would like to know who my neighbours really are. But a registry especially a public one for a crime based on sexual assault of one sort or another in my mind bears resemblence to when we burn't people alive mainly women for the crime of being labelled a witch. It is up to authorites I think if they think a crime of this nature superceeds all other crimes is to initially increase jail time to whatever they think is appropiate. And from what I'am reading here is nothing short of throwing the key away for good is the answer. This of course could also apply to a long list of other serious crimes that are just as equally offensive and damaging to different members of society that are the cause of serious personal ramifications.

geoffrey You wrote- " Are you okay with having no English in Quebec, if you are so adamant in having no french in the rest of canada? Or is English to be regarded the superior language?" Legally speaking there is no English in Quebec if the provincial and federal OFFICIAL Language is French. Any English received by by an English speaker in Quebec by a French Quebecer is solely a voluntary effort with no legal obligation to do so. Again there are no bilingual policies in Quebec of course not saying that SOME English is not provided, but why shouldn't there be as Quebec is part of a majority English country also the majority language of the only country attached by a border the U.S. and is the universal language of the world. I think it is well recognized that English is the offical language of commerce throughout Canada and if you want to put it that way is the superior language of the country. I find it strange though you would use the word superior rather than say dominant.

seabee You wrote- " No language, including English' is or was banned in either law 22 and law 101." The French Charter is full of draconian restrictions and conditions that emulate the oppresive tactics of Nazi Germany. Just the fact Quebec 'officialized' it's French languaguage is laughable considering the 'de facto ' majority language of commerce in Canada is English. I would suggest all majority English language provinces 'officalize' their English language like Quebec in non-official bilingual provinces excluding the only offical bilingual province in Canada New Brunswick. This would be done in order to protect English jobs and the potential ruin or actual ruin of English careers by the onslaught of the French concerning official bilingual federal employment and non- official provincial bilingualism propagated primarily by the federal government and power hungry federal supporting Liberal provincial premiers and federal Liberal supporting municiple city mayors. Democracy has been badly tarnished in Canada and has been replaced by corrupt politics.

Bakunun You wrote- " Then quit whining all the time about quebecers like a racist would do." You have that one backwards! It was not I who voted a Quebec separatist party into power to sit in parliament supporting RACIST Bill-101 or the French Charter among a host of other un-Canadian undemocratic endeavours. Iam complaining as a loyal Canadian to this country and it's head of state.

I have heard a local talk show hosts to-day make the same request for Mr. harper to lower the flag. All these request ( driven by emotion) do amplified by the media is embarrass our present Conservative government. I to think that special day government has set aside (Nov.11) to honour Canada's war dead is all that is required.

Bakunin You wrote- " Then quit whining all the time like a racist would do... No other province have has much willing to get rid of that ineffective and disproportionate federal government. No other province fight with much vigor against the trudeauist uthopia." Well then, it looks like Quebec is again riding down the one way street all along supporting Trudeau utopia and now demanding more federal decentralization that could further set up the Quebec separatist reality, legally. The two work hand in hand while destroying the concept of federalism. Iam total against federal decentralization as this could lead to massive problems mainly the destruction of federalism and the potential of failed provincial policies which could further destabilize the country or bankrupt it, as well as padding the separation factor.

I have always been a centrist and love nothing more than to sit back and clearly identify all those lefties and righties keep swinging and fighting from the extreme left or right or just being utterly ridiculous. Makes me always reconfirm my centrist political ideologies as being reasonable, justified, thoughtful and idealistic no matter what the issue.

Bakunin You wrote- " Give me the name of one province fighting harder and with more vigor than Quebec to get rid of federal centralisation." Yes and I wonder why?

August You wrote- " I'll repeat myself if Canada is to remain a united federation, then the federal government must function more or less in both English and French." What makes you think Canada is a united federation? We are not united in loyalites to Canada or united in political convictions. Quebec has been playing the cultural blackmail game for 50 years and is still not satisfied. You can repeat yoursef all you want as I think the government should get out of the language game (it never had any buisness in initially) entirely and leave it up to Canadians if they want to continue to be culturally blackmailed by a province who only feels at home if it is pulling the political strings to remain culturally aloof from the rest of Canada all at tax payers expense IN and OUT of Quebec.

iamcanadian2 You wrote- " If there is a community with 100% of the population being bilingual English/French then that community does not warrant any government services in French because English will do fine." I am not to certain about that as the criteria used to obtain those numbers works on the official language of the user and the users mother tongue and percentage of population. This means that if 100% French speakers declared their official language as English but their mother tongue is French they would go down in the books as French is the way I understand it.

August 1991 You wrote- " Going back to a debate I thought ended a few decades ago, bilingualism merely means French speaking people should receive federal government services in French. That's it." Well to-day August in the majority English Province of Ontario in cities like Ottawa where the majority language is English one is hard pressed to find a job in English in PRIVATE INDUSTRY or the private sector never mind federal employment that does not require speaking both English and French languages. I challenge you to DESCRIBE how this could possibly happen when you said yourself " bilingualism means French speaking people should receive government services in French. That's it." The DECAY of the importance of the English language in Ottawa's PRIVATE SECTOR is owed specifically to federal government pressure in an area OUTSIDE of FEDERAL JURISDICTION creating an ARTIFICIAL BILINGUAL AOURA concerning the artificial importance of French. This debate will never be over as long as we have a fraudulent constitution courtesy of a la Liberals (creators) that allows undemocratic application of federal legislation and continual involvement and political pressure to overide the natural majority 'de facto' English language of this land.

seabee You wrote- " Always has been? Nope! It had been French for a century and a half before the English violently took over." You know the French never really colonized Canada and that's why it was taken over. That's life! At the death of Samuel de Champlain, the fort at Quebec had 85 adult residents. This of course was after Canada intially being found by England's John Cabot then with France sending out Jacques Cartier who copied John Cabot's expediton. Our history is similar to Beligiums: http://zapatopi.net/belgium/ http://www.zapotopi.net/cascadia/#FACT

geoffrey You wrote- " How is it unconstitutional? To make that claim it must violate the Constitution. where in the Constitution does it say you must speak only one language." The majority common language and language of commerce in Canada is 'de facto' English and always has been. What the federal the Constitution Act 1982 does is allows the federal government (not a simple group but the government of this land) to overide 'de facto' English by providing rights pertaining to federal legislation and actually provides the federal legal authority to advance the equality status or use of English or French, Sec. 16-(3) without ever having a national referendum on that imposed federal legislation. This is outright totalitarianism and borders a 'coup d'etat' and defeats any kind democratic acknowledgement and the RIGHT of Canadians to be part of this ALL IMPORTANT decision making process to remove 'de facto' English as the working language of this country but nevertheless the Liberals plowed this Charter legislation through regardless. This also puts provinces in an linguistic AWKWARD postion to rectify the situation by making provinces legally English by working against imposed federal legislation which naturally the feds would view as unacceptable but never raised objection when Quebec made French the 'official' working language of Quebec. The U.S. and the U.K. are both 'not official' but 'de facto' English and I would like to see what the reaction of it's citizen's would be if either government would ever try to impose another foreign language to overide 'de facto' English language of either country.

Betsy You wrote- " Is anyone preparing to?" We have always been fairly well stocked but not necessarily for an impending diaster or catastrophe but just to ensure a selection of basics is always available. But I don't really know if this would in itself would guarantee anyones salavation in the event of a major diaster or attack or whatever. The problem is living in a conjested area (city, town etc.) faced with a major food shortage, it would just be a matter of time before you or I are found out that we posses food and could be possibly assaulted or even killed for whatever food you or I might have. This scenario is not far fetched as from what I understand any major disruption in food delivery to our supermarkets, the shelfs would be bare in a mere 3-days or possibly longer or shorter depending where you live. This also could be coupled with the fact that our military being so small would never be able to manage to ensure the majority or maybe even any citizen's have basic supplies of food and water and would be jeopordized even further with medium to large scale uncontrolled violence. Look at the horror stories from New Orleans arising from hurricane Katrina in the most powerful and well equipped country in the world.

justcrowing Could be the government or at least the previous Liberal government has a different definiton of a criminal and maybe even carry certain socialist sentiments that 'everyone is basically good but just misunderstood'. Either that or Citizenship and Immigration Canada is in one hell of a mess.

geoffrey You wrote- " You need proof heavy oil is more expensive to refine." Most of us or many of us already know that for Alberta to make any money from tar sands that the price per barrel is in the range of $25.00. Saying this and with the price of a barrel of oil now at $70.00 per barrel is a difference of $50.00 pure profit or around there. What I ask you is for NUMBERS not a lecture. Obviously numbers are hard to come by and both oil companies and government are not being truthful nor transparent concerning actual cost vs. profit. These numbers ARE NOT readily available. All countries are faced with transportation cost and taxes. Until I see the numbers to prove what you are saying I will still stand by my reasonable convictions and maintain that we are being ripped off at the gas pumps. Both government and oil companies have nothing to lose by maintaining as high as possible a cost at whatever the market will bear and I can't say that I blame them if people continue to insist on keeping driving their vehicles no matter what the cost of gasoline.

geoffrey You wrote- " I'm just vocally opposed to people calling French Canadians lazy people that don't deserve rights in Canada." Of course French Canadians are not a lazy people. But I think what 'iamcanadian2' was getting at was the government jobs that are created for Quebec and French people under the guise of federal official bilingualism along with all the federal created subsidies and programs that are available to Quebec rather then Quebec BEING FORCED to create and maintain it's own successful province. Obviously it refuses as far as I can see to do this because it would be forced to cater to the English in a much more significant manner rather than be in mostly full control like they are now with their own 'French official province and official language' with heavy emphasis on Quebec nationalism. This means they would be forced to assimilate to English and would obviously prefer to be taken linguistic care of under the wings of the federal government. I don't fully agree with the 'rights issue' as with rights as there must be a compromise and with Quebec many issue's 'are a one way street' with unrealistic linguistic expectations.

Andre You wrote- " Well for a start some ethnical violence may be inspired. I see those latest demos of "illegal immigrants in America as kinf of testing ball." Andre, TAKE A HIKE!

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " If the USA is claiming to be 'championg freedom and democracy', why do they not stand up for countries that actually want it and are fighting for it." Maybe that country is just to problamatic and a country that lies between China and India with disputes with India. http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/07spec2.htm

Bakunin You wrote- " That's what I thought the same policy will always be wrong in quebec and right everwhere else, in other words there is no problem to discuss because the problem is in your head." The problem in my head is why does Quebec think it's a country, self absorbed with Quebec nationalism and defies and discriminates against Canada's Constitution with it's OWN French languge Charter. That's the problem, Bakunin!

geoffrey You wrote - " Actually you have to speak English or French to immigrate anywhere in Canada." Well, thats what multiculturalism official languages has done to Canada it 'DISCOURAGES ASSIMILATION.' Normally and anywhere else in Canada but Quebec does not NEED any offical linguistc status because English as always been the 'de facto' language like the U.S. and the U.K. But I think we should follow the 'official language example' of Quebec and make English the offical language of all other Canadian provinces to especially encourage assimilation a very necessary ingredient to make provinces linguitically efficient similar English language legislation pertaining to 22 U.S. states. This way the rest of Canada would be guaranteed English immigration like Quebec is guaranteed French immigration and we would not be faced with cultural ghettos and the many associated problems.

Bakunin You wrote- " Then what do you think of unlingual school in Quebec?" English is still by far the majority language in Canada. I didn't realize English was some little backward HICK language in Quebec. The English PAID for many of their schools in Quebec unlike French schools in Ontario that are built and funded by the public purse. Why shouldn't English have unilingual schools in Quebec as Canada is not a totalitarian type country and if Quebec continues to abuse English rights maybe it should be on it's merry way---out of Canada that is.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Quebec has the 2nd highest immigration of all the provinces, far more than except BC which runs closley behind in third place." And why dont you tell us Quebec picks and chooses it's own immigrants many from French small African countries and other French countries and is not forced to accept the bulk of immigration like other Canadian provinces must do by the federal government and who do NOT HAVE A SAY regarding what immigrants are permitted to their provinces. In effect the Province Quebec is being allowed to pad it's French population with French immigration in almost the same manner as an INDEPENDENT country which it is NOT and French immigrant children forced to go to French schools while being subsidzed courtesy of the Canadian tax-payer. BTW- Quebec's use of the "notwithstandingclause" pertaining to it's use in Bill-101 or it's French Charter against the English was never meant to be ABUSED in the manner Quebec uses it. It was apparently assumed by the authors of the Constitution Act that to abuse this overide power (NWC) would be political suicide for a government and therefore none would ever use it. Sort of makes the Charter of rights and Freedoms a useless rag--doesn't it?

geoffrey You wrote- " It's way more involved then the simple example you've given." That is a matter of opinion, the point being other fuels that represent the other half of a barrel of oil are easier to refine requiring less refining such as home heating oil but still represent the same increase as gasoline per barrel of oil. Since you claimed Canadian oil is heavier and requires extra refining the burden is on you to supply proof between say Iran oil or Texas oil and Canadian oil relating to refining costs. We are not talking small change here as the difference based on an increase of a SINGLE barrel doubles the profit of that increase for Canadian oil companies. Unless those numbers can be proven it can be said with a high degree of confidence that Canadians are being short changed at the gas pumps.