Leafless

geoffrey I can fully understand the frustation iamcandian2 is experiencing and what has WASP got to do with anything which I don't think he is anyways. In many ways Quebec culture has failed and they cannot succeed even in Quebec with the language of their culture, French without federal government intervention (tax payer support). It should be remembered they are the ones that refuse to be assimmilated even as they face unsurmountable odds concerning Quebec as an affluent successful French society in Canada and North America. Who's fault is this, Canada's? What Quebec rights dictate that Canada is responsible for their culture and language in and out of Quebec ? They refuse to acknowledge there is no natural commercial demand for French in Canada or North America. Forced French intervention has dictated by the federal government has affected me personally to a large degree BOTH in private industry and government. I don't consider Canada capable of freely supporting free flowing bilingualism. It is forced fed and therefore discriminates and works against the majority English the very people the federal government uses their funds to force Canadians to comply to the twisted standards of MAINLY the federal Liberals concerning bilingual policies and the like. It would also be unconstitutional if the federal Liberals had not reworked the constitution in favour of Quebec without the participation of Canadians, another huge undemocratic undertaking by the federal Liberals.

iamcanadian2 All that name calling besides their favourite trick labelling one a bigot or racist if you don't agree with French ideologies including it seems Bill-101 king of racial discrimination. I don't know why those individuals are not banned. Reminds me of all the antagonistic and cruel name calling (as well as being occasionally physically attacked because I was English ) I endured as a child for eight years just trying to get to my English school where I had to walk alone through a large French neighbourhood also containing French schools.

Iran deserves to be 'whacked down'. Any country that promotes terrorist ideologies that can promote world disorder deserves to be. It's not hard to imagine what would be left of the world to-day if was not for U.S intervention preventing catastrophical conditions both social and political.

geoffrey You wrote- " There isn't much margin in downstream, profit is there over the whole system, but there isn't much profit per litre, 3.5% ',ve heard is the average. the government is taking way more than any oil company." I wouldn't be to sure about that one. A barrel of oil = 42-gallons. It makes about 21 gallons of gasoline. Say a barrel of oil increases in price $10.00. So you might think a $10/21 or .48 cents per gallon rise in the price of gas would be correct. That would be right if the WHOLE 42 gallons was used up to make 21 gallons of gasoline. BUT the barrel of oil makes about ANOTHER 21 gallons of other fuels like home heating oil. THIS MEANS a gallon of gas should only go up 1/42 because a gallon of heating fuel and other types processed from the same barrel would also rise by 1/42 or about .24 cents a gallon of the rise in oil price of a single barrel of oil. Of course these fiqures are only approx.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " What a load of bunk". Only time will tell the validity of an opinion expressed from a Jewish standpoint rather than the all to common Muslim sentiments we are familar with hearing about from this part of the globe. Anyways, this simply illustrates the volatility of religion and the never ending problems that are associated with it or perhaps under the guise of religion. It is evident language and culture would place a close second and are nothing more to the unsettled as excuses to raise the sword rather than declare outright war against another group in man's eternal quest of power and control.

A viewpoint from a distant forum. http://www.albawabaforums.com/read.php3?f=...161034&t=161034 Comments?

cdnazzurri You wrote- " And if we were to go along with U.S. interest, then we would have gone into Iraq as well". It was the Paul Martin Liberals who refused Canadian military intervention in Iraq as allies with the U.S. not Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. You also wrote- " However, Afghanistan is not about U.S. interest, it's about ther War on Terror and humantarian intervention". The U.S. and Canada both share core "fundamental units" concerning national interest and with Canada's participation in the war on terrorism in this advanced stage indicates Canada's concern regarding national interest or Canada would have probably pulled out if only interested as a peace keeping force. Canada's participation in Iraq at this point is really inconsequential as Canada's military is quite small and has been underfunded for years by the federal Liberal government with conflicting ideologies between the Liberal and Conservative governments. I to think that Canadians should be supporting our troops but understand our involvement should be limited and controlled to ensure our troops are adequately protected according to the availability of our military resources.

Shakeyhands You wrote- " Is there an answer somewhere in there". National interest in my mind has to do with the preserving of Canadian nationalism that include securing the fundamental units that form Canadian social life concerning certain cultural and political claims that form the nation that Canada and Canadians belives it is entitled to. Some of these fundamental units are jobs, economic competitivness, health, security, sovereignty. Sometimes when I read some of the post on this board leads me to believe certain people would be delighted to see Canada fail and ground into the dirt.

CamTheCat You wrote a quote from the Star - " What exactly are our national interest in Afghanistan"? I would not hesitate to inform you our national interest would be directly in line with U.S. national interest including national interest that affect all of the free world. Unbelievable any Canadian would ask such a STUPID question.

What do you expect in an officially multicultural country?? Of course this is only one of the many problems Canadians can expect when you throw your cultural allegiance, values and morals out the political window.

geoffrey You wrote- " I agree with you BD, rural Alberta would gain even more power, and that's not something Iam ok with. it's good our farmers are respected, but we do need to be reasonable that its the cities that bring in the bucks". Preston Manning is already a proven political performer and is the principle founder of two federal political parties and is closely associated with Conservative ideologies. To say this man is going to lead in a fashion that represents rural Alberta only is ridiculous. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/strongandfree/index.asp

Slavic 44 You wrote- " This is perhaps one of those situations where the Conservatives could have done something quietly but I suppose that doesn't play into the hands of Quebec nationalism." That's all the more reason not move a stick more of federal property into Quebec as Quebec nationalism does not jive with federalism as proven by the separtist party that represents Quebec federalism and who as rejected just about every federal inititive to promote bilingualism policies and never even signed Canada's Constitution. I think it's time Canadian's received the chance to reject or accept Quebec as part of confederation rather than Canada's politicians constantly playing the old constitutional blackmail game at the expense of Canadians. The only thing that will quell Quebec's thirst for independence is a constant flow of tax payers money and more federal powers and this worn out old record guarantees nothing but only more future demands from this self-rightous province.

Argus You wrote- " Mulroney pushed and accepted the idea that Gatineau on the other side of the river, was sort of a "co capital " with as much right to the term to appease Quebec". Mulroney being a Conservative was also a Quebecer and did have to appease Quebec but was totally wrong that west Quebec " was sort of a co capital" as legally Quebec then and even to-day has NO LEGAL RIGHT to any kind of reference as being associated to the capital of Canada Ottawa. You also wrote- " They don't even talk about Ottawa as the national capital much anymore. They talk about the " National Capital Region". Well, this is what happens after years of primarily federal Liberal rule with prime ministers all from Quebec who have tried to destroy the rightful fact that it is Ottawa that is Capital of Canada and there is no legal right that can destroy that fact outside of 'an illegal' federal reference to include to-day the city of Gatineau in the province of Quebec as somehow being attached to Ottawa, Ontario the Capital of Canada. In fact by doing so and fudging official federal statistics by including both cities as a single entity is a total misrepresentation of actual facts and and as far as Iam concerned constitutes FRAUD.

Article: Ottawa Citizen, Fri., April 14, 2006. Sec. F1. Article titled- " Science and Tech museum poised to move to Gatineau" Federal Quebec Minister Lawrence Cannon, minister of transport, infrastructure and communities is about to in his own words " I want to exercise my influence to ensure that the future Science and Technology Museum is built on the Quebec side of the river, more precisely in Jacques Cartier Park". This museum presently sits in Ottawa and is slated for expansion and is part part of the landscape since 1967 and is in Ontario Premier Dalton Mc.Guinty riding. If this museum goes as planned it will be the second major museum the first being the Museum of Civilization gone to quebec along with many federal departments. I personally am sick and tired of the rape of Ottawa's federal real estate being stolen and moved to Quebec. Ottawa is the Capital of Canada NOT Gatineau Quebec and has always been home to Federal entities and Ottawa depends on these resources to provide Ottawan's with employment as a federal government town with federal presence and recogniton. If this move goes through I will never again vote in another federal election and am telling Mr. Harper well in advance WHY and I encourage others to do so also. .

Bakunin The big thing with bilingual policies is that it guarantees you the RIGHT to be served in the language of your choice. In Quebec there is no guarantee and this is where one can be easily discrimnated upon and in fact guarantees any Quebecer to use only the official language of Quebec French and there is little any one can do anything about that fact. In other words the potential (to discriminate) officially on a linguistic basis is readily available to any French Quebec resident in a provincial positon or to any one in Quebec as French is the offical language and also dampens or eliminates any type of bilingusalism policy. The only reason Ontario has bilingual policies and allowed the 'French Services Act' is because primarily of federal intervention concerning the premier of Ontario and even the mayor of Ottawa, something the federal government DOES NOT pressure Quebec to do. I have read your links but know there are many restrictions who can go to what shools in Quebec and am not clear on the 'English immersion process' and how many schools offer this along with the many language restrictions relating to who goes to what schools depending on the language of your mother tounge. I know many English schools and hospital were paid for by English tax payers but am not up othe the funding process whether all public or by English tax payers. Everything I seem to search on is not available or in French. I read the questions and answers and truly find this to be federal propaganda in favour of Quebec. For instance the purpose of 'official bilingualism' is to provide service in the language of your choice is NOT the main objective of official federal bilingualism. The main objective for federal offical bilingualism is to provide employment in the federal public service for french Canadians and advance it's culture so as you can work in the language of your choice. This is outright discrimination. Section 16-(3) in the Charter of rights and Freedoms states- "Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French". This could constitute a Charter in itself concerning legislated rights and privledges. And we know their not talking about English.

August1991 You wrote- " Leafless you are confusing official government policy, government policy in practice and what occurs in daily life between private individuals". I could not care less what occurs between private individuals and in fact that is the way I would prefer bilingualism in general to occur is naturally with no government intervention. This thread is devoted to provincial services (hospital) in a majority English province that reeks of discrimination. This is why we veered into federal and provincial jurisdiction and language and hospital care as it involves all four items. What makes bilingualism so discriminatory in Ontario a majority English province is that the province has dictated that Ontario is not an officially bilingual province but provides bilingual policies and has not made English and official language like Quebec. But the 'French Services Act forces the English tax payer in Ontario to provide many French services including schools and hospitals. This in effect makes Ontario ALMOST an officially bilingual province, one Ontario resident tax payers never had a politcal say on.

Buisness Development Bank of Canada provides loans that supports programs listed below and lenders are required to take security for the amount financed. This could be where surety insurance play a part with government. -Canada Small Buisness Financing Program -Canarie -Canmet Energy Technology Centre - Export Development Corporation - HRDC Self Employment Assistance Program - Industrial Research Assistance Program - Scientific Research Assistance program - Technology Partnerships Canada

Bakunin You wrote- " It means split up between English and French". Then this as nothing to do with bilingualism but in fact teaches to separate languages in the same school. You wrote- " but i did have English immersion in my small regional French only school". French Quebecers I thought are by law to remain in French only schools until I believe grade 12. If in fact Quebec schools do provide French immersion can you supply a link to prove this? You wrote- " The only true bilingual place in Canada are Ottawa, Montreal and a few places in New Brunswick." The city of Ottawa has bilingualism policies for schools and hospitals and services and it's Ontario provincial government provides French services. New Brunswick is the ONLY officially bilingual province in Canada. Montreal is NOT officially bilingual as No Where in Quebec is there any bilingual policy unless you can provide proof. It seems unless you can supply proof we must understand that the offical language of Quebec which is French offers no Provincial or municiple English policies anywhere.

Bakunin You wrote- " Health care is available in French and English in all of Quebec's hospitals". No, this is totally false. There is no guaratee without a bilingual policy that English services are guaranteed in Quebec hospital and there are NO BILINGUAL POLICIES in Quebec. BTW can a person with an Ontario health card obtain hospital care in Quebec like Quebecers can obtain hospital care in Ontario with a Quebec card?? You wrote- " Schools, 400 English... 100 bilingual. What does a bilingual school mean it is in Quebec?? Does it offer English immersion to French students like Ontario offers English students French immersion and French students private French Catholic schools and public catholic schools and public non-denominational schools?? You still haven't answered what policies the Quebec government provides for it's English minority???

Bakunin You wrote- " i have no idea about bilingualism policy but what i know is the services are 10-20 times better adapted". It seems you don't have much of an idea about the other cpncerns in the preceeding post either. Do you have a link to back up your convictions concerning services for the English. This is what Ontario covers under the French Language Services Act...as well of course bilingualism policies. www.rssfe.on.ca/english/t4a-e.htm

Bakunun You wrote- " I mean why do I read complain all the time about french outside Quebec having to much services and stealing jobs and complain about english ppl not treated well enough in Quebec." Well, maybe that's what the facts are. With Quebec being officially unilingual French what guarantee anywhere is there in Quebec hospitals or anywhere in Quebec that the majority English of this country will get proper service in English. If we get complaints concerning English being discriminated by french employees in Ottawa's public Montfort hospital, what would the discrimination factor against the English be in Quebec hospitals?? Does Quebec provide an English Services Act like Ontario does with Bill-8, for Quebecers? Does Quebc provide any type of bilingualism policy for the English in Quebec? Jobs in Quebec have all kinds of restrictions especially in the construction industry preventing English workers from working in Quebec. What kind of jobs does Quebec supply do Ontario Aglophones in the same nature and quanity Ottawa does allow for Quebec with thousands of Quebec cars pouring over into majority English Ontario every day taking all that money out of Ontario's economy and giving to and supporting Quebec's economy? I hope Ontario would make English official like they do the French language in Quebec with restrictions to Ontario employment like Quebec does then obviously there would be NO requirement for any type of federal bilingualism and jobs in Quebec and Ontario would be on a level playing field.

Bakunin You wrote- " 500,000 french speaking ppl in Ontario have 400 beds... and you complain about it. Service pertaining to hospitals goes by the district you live in and the elderly gentleman and his family we are talking about in this thread was treated 'culturally indifferent' and according to the article discriminated upon linguistically in a English majority English province that is not offically bilingual. I am also getting tired of seeing French population fiqures like you posted. Are you telling me the 5000,000 French speaking people in Ontario you posted cannot speak English?? I think this is false, as a census indicated for instance in Ottawa 97% of the population can speak English. If the French funded their own hospitals ...then they could be considered French hospitals...but this is not the case is it?? The Montfort Hospital is a public hospital advertised as a bilingual hospital paid for by all tax payers of Ontario also catering to Quebec doctors and patients as well as other Ottawa hospital do likewise. I think Ontario is providing up and beyond services required relating to French Canadians and Quebec doctors and patients and certaintly expect so called bilingual hospitals to be courteous and not discriminate against English patients.

geoffrey You wrote- " That's a complete lie. English kids into French emmersion at almost every level and age, as long as there willinging to learn French and have a basic understanding". The point is the U.N. ruled it is dicriminatory to publicly fund R.C. schools and not other religious denominations and besides Ontario is not an officially bilingual province. Quebec has control over language in their schools and why should Ontario not be any different by promoting only the majority English language religion free, or provide funding for ALL religious denominations. What good is official multiculturalism especially in a majority English province and tax payers are suppose to fund the French and their Catholic religion. Times have progressed culturally and I think it's time to say goodbye to expensive French Catholic private denomiational schools and concentrate on the majority language of Ontario English and religion free. If the French Catholics want their own private schools let them fully pay the bill, times have changed. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111803.html

iamcanadian2 Concerning the constitutional amendment allowing Quebec to reorganize ths school boards along linguistic lines was a '1997 amendment' "not looking at things from a post 1972 viewpoint". The facts are there. Check it out yourself. I to find this discriminatory, undemocratic and breaks the back of the concept of 'official multiculturalism'.

iamcanadian2 You wrote- " Why do Non-French Canadians in Ontario stand by and let their tax dollars be abused this way by a minority group in Ontario that is less than 5% of the population to let them enjoy all these extra benefits and specifically designed extra public services that also divides our citizens". The French are riding the train relating to both culture and religion. There was a constitutional amendment made that added Sec.-93A to the Constitution Act 1867, which excludes Quebec from the section relating to the organization of schools in the province (Section-93). This gives Quebec the SOLE power to detirmine the system of education in Quebec. The chief motive was to allow Quebec to reorganize the school boards along linguistic lines. In Quebec they advance schools linguistically. In Ontario the French control private Catholic school board primarily on religious grounds. I think all public federal and provincial funding of ANY language or religion including federal in Quebec should be banned as language and religion are causing deep divides among Canadians and is creating religious and cultural ghettos at tax payers expense.