Leafless

Lost&outofcontrol You wrote- " Montfort has 289 beds" Thats the right number of active beds but you excluded 128 long term beds for a total of 407 beds. Beds are beds, and the Montfort expansion provided room within the hospital for long term beds. So even if you exclude long term beds the Monfort hospital is approx. the size of the three indivdual hospitals that comprise Ottawa hospital campuses. The point is Montfort is an extra hospital almost the size of the three individual main Ottawa hospitals and bigger than the Queensway Carleton hospital and also serves as a teaching hospital that includes Quebec doctors and is culturally biased to English speaking Canadians at the full expense of Ontario tax payers. That's the point.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " The government isn't obliged to put everthing to a referendum." And that's why I say the constitution is fraudulent and not worth the paper it's written on as well as being an immoral and undemocratic move on the part of the Liberal government. This Liberal doctored constitution overides the one given to us by the victors of this country and represents 'a slap in the face' to the British, the Queen, democracy and it's values and I would go so far to say it borders on treason. The Mulroney Conservatives would not touch the constitution with a ten foot pole with Mulroney himself being a Quebecer. All other governments in power any length of time, it's leaders were from Quebec. and I think Canadians will never again trust anyone from Quebec. You wrote-from my post " and clearly shows the federal contempt against provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected official bilingualism". This was relating to imposing the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' relating to any or all English speaking Canadians from any province who opposed this Charter without the liberals knowing for certain without a national referendum that this would be the accepted thing to do. The Liberal clearly imposed the Charter not caring what Canadians thought. You wrote- " Perhaps it was. I have not heard that. If that's true does that mean the constitution never happened." No, it means or strongly suggest Trudeau had adverse thoughts about democracy and as far as Iam concerned explains his imposing the Charter without a referendum. He was off in da-da land- everthing fair and equal=communism It's obvious you do not agree with my post and oppose a free democratic country and agree with Trudeau, Quebec, and immigrants ...one I trust you are. You and I are on a completley different wavelengths so I suggest you not waste my time any further and I from now on will ignore anything you might post anywhere in this forum as you are biased against a free and democratic country. I will continue to fight for my democratic English majority rights as a loyal Canadian and hope Mr. Harper will proceed with changes to our constitution to unravel the damage the Liberals have done to this country.

GostHacked You wrote- " It's not even a big hospital at all. It is quite small compared to the other ones in town." Maybe you can supply some fiqures. My fiqures indicate the Montfort actually has a total of 407 beds. The Civic, General and Riverside campuses have a total of 1130 beds. And the Queensway Carleton about 204 beds. So broken down as singular hospitals Montfort is the Biggest.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " I think it's wrong to say the provinces have rejected official bilingualism. Most provinces west of Ontario don't have enough French people to offer services in French." All Canadian citizens did not have the opportunity to to participate in a process to accept or reject the Constitution of 1982 and it's volatile changes which included federal undemocratic advancement of offical bilingualism. You wrote- " And according to you, they reject bilingualism in alberta. So should albertans and quebecers be banned from the public service." Where did I say Alberta rejects bilingualism ? Where did I say Alberta has no bilingual policies or programs???? You wrote- " This was my summation of your viewpoint as far as I could make out." This is not my viewpoint ...This is FACT. You wrote- " Twenty-five years ago Trudeau attempted to bring Canada into the twentieth century to unify this country and have our own constitution . It is now the twenty first century and you want us to behave as if it's the nineteenth." Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1953 was barred from the U.S. because of his communist affiliations? Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1956 led a communist delegation to Peking for a Red Victory celebration??? The constitution was patriated from Britain to make amendments if required. AMENDMENT= " a minor improvement in a document (esp. a legal or statutory one). What Mr. Trudeau did (again) was without the permission of the citizens of Canada included as an amendment The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which included sections containing discriminatory and undemocratic legislation in esp. sec. 16 -(1-3) esp.(3) and 16.1 which in fact undemocratically changed the face of this country concerning the promotion and advancement of a minority culture directly imparing the rights of others in a free and democratic society. This was No amendment ---This was rewriting the Constitution of Canada in a very discriminatory and undemocratic manner almost as if the Liberal government coupled with Quebec political aspirations initiated a rebellion against English Canadians free and democratic established society and WON. You also wrote- " My advice to you is to let go . You have a much bigger concern as local services start to get added in Cantonese, Mandarin, hindi and a host of other languages that were heard in the colonies as you would call them". I'am not worried as the tiny percentage this represents means nothing officially speaking. My advice to you is to stop acting as an arbitrator and debate properly or don't participate.

Argus You wrote- " Most of the clientelle at the Montfort are either Quebecers, or transplanted Quebecers who got jobs with the federal, provincial or city governments here in Ottawa specifically because of the need for bilingual emplyees. I can't imagine that type of requirement for bilingual employees since the most recent census showed that 97% of Ottawa citizen's COULD speak English. I think the FACT Ontario is NOT OFFICIALLY BILINGUAL should set the standard to provide protection to the majority English in this province against job loss to what can be seen as an illegal bilingual movement to force English in many cases, to be forced to learn French to apply for jobs in their own majority English province. I like to see what would happen if the reverse were true in Quebec. Quebec also is the only western government since Nazi Germany to place restrictions of an individual language on commercial and private property , and written and oral communication between employees and mangement of private buisness.

Michael Harding You wrote- " This is twisted logic. Federal services are provided across the nation, and official bilingualism dictates these services are offered in both languages." You are correct when you refer to official bilingualism in the federal governement since outside of New Brunswick that is the only place bilingualism is official. With that being said again you refer to 'federal services' as the medium pertaining to 'official federal bilingualism' when of course this is not the only factor. The other important criteria (discriminates against the common majority English language) concerning the 'purpose of offical bilingualism' in the federal government is to (1) Provide the right of employees to work in the language of their choice. (2) Provide the participation of English AND French speaking Canadians in federal institutions. This is immoral and unethical concerning the imposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Canadians in provinces that ARE NOT officially bilingual and clearly shows the federal contempt againt provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected 'official bilingualism'. You wrote- " Excluding Quebecers from federal employment simply because separatism exist in Quebec would be grossly unfair, obviously." Why, they reject all forms of any kind of bilingualism policy in Quebec. And what does separatism got to do with it ....They never signed the 1982 Constitution so that means THEY NEVER REALLY JOINED. You wrote- " But how can you demand on one hand surrender it's jurisdiction in the provinces, then on the other hand claim the federal government ( who received endorsement for the constitution from the provinces) was outside it's jurisdiction in that case." Something as important as our Constitution should have absolutely have been be left in the hands citizen's of Canada to agree to and not left to the whims of provincial premiers to ratify. The British and the Queen over a war gave us our original BNA Act along federal and separate provincial rule. In 1982 Trudeau and the Liberals with Quebec political aspirations and the premiers gave us a linguistically doctored constitution WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITIZEN'S of the country.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Nonsense. you can't discriminate by offering additonal services in French." I'd be inclined to agree with you if what you say is factual but is not. Bilingualism within our federal public service is mandatory for the bulk of clerical positons and managers. The bulk of federal jobs is in the province of Ontario a province that is not 'officially bilingual' along with Quebec a province that is not 'officially bilingual but a province that has declared itself 'officially unilingual French'. This would automatically appear to view Quebeckers as unsuitable for federal employment due to the rejection of bilingualism at the federal level and in their own province since they do not believe in any kind of bilingualism policy. Ontario residents who are majority English are being forced to learn French for employment in the federal public service despite their province not being 'officially bilingual' but always did freely offer bilingualism policies where numbers warrant in the province of Ontario. This is outright federal discrimination against the English since the governments positon on 'offical bilingualism was never qualified by Canadians at large through some external process. Now we will go over the facts again concerning Trudeau and his Liberals with significant representation from Quebec within the Liberal party who initially were responsible for the inclusion of the Chater of Rights and Freedoms which benefitted Quebec enormously under federal control and interpretation. What happened Michael was that new Constitution Act of 1982 was imposed on Canadians without parliamentry debate of any kind and without a national referendum making it totally undemocratic. This Michael makes this Constitution fraudulent due to the fact no government has the ethical and moral right to do this no matter what the reason as we already had a legal and binding constitution. And relating to the fact the British won this country is important relating to the BNA ACT and the FACT that the Queen is STILL Head of State and Queen of Canada.

lost&outofcontrol You wrote- "The riverside is not being closed down." What good is a hospital without Emergency care like the Riverside once had, which in fact could cost someone his or her life on wasting a trip to the Riverside not knowing it has NO emergency facilities. In all practical aspects Emergency care was transferred at least in part to the Monfort and the Grace which specialized in maternity and associated care was transferred to the Montfort with the Grace being torn down. The point is the Montfort Hospital is not English friendly and also serves as a French teaching hospital for Quebec doctors at the expense of majority Ontario English taxpayers. Also both the Civic and General campuses provide bilingual services. In fact a doctor I was dealing with at the General campus ( which also has a high number of French personnel )was a French Canadian who could not understand more than a few words at time nor could I understand him. Minority linguistic interest are now destroying the functionability of English hospital care in Ontario again an in a English majority province with no 'official bilingualism'.

Michelle Malkin has been compared to " Aunt Thomasina and a sell out and race traitor" and also as an Asian Ann Coulter. She appears to trouble all around. Another cultural freedom fighter and or plain cultural trouble maker? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

Canadian provinces are NOT officially bilingual with the excepton of New Brunswick and federal implemented bilingualism under federal entities badly discriminates against the English majority. You quoted a typo in a single paragraph that should have read 'not officially bilingual' as the same as the preceeding paragraph and quoted in several of my post in this same thread as Canada being 'not officially bilingual'. In fact I don't agree with you in anything as your replies did not disprove any of my posts with any type of intelligence other than cheap trolling/flaming which is against this websites guidelines.

Provincial restructing of Ottawa's hospitals resulting with the closing of the centrally located primarilly English Grace hospital and Riverside hospitals with more funds and existing services directed to the so called bilingual Montfort hospital. This hospital is also pleading for even more money from the Ottawa public to satisfy it's grand expansion to serve all of Ottawa's residents---so they claim. In a letter to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen, Fri. April 7/2006, Pg.-C4 does not agree the Montfort is a bilingual hospital. In this letter the writer claims her father was rushed by ambulance to the montfort hospital in January and the family had concerns about his hearing and his lack of ability to speak French but had no choice but to go to that hospital based on where he lives. Arriving at the hospital the next morning asked the nurses in the emergency department what was wrong with her father but they began chatting to each other because they had difficulty telling her what the problem was in English. After he was admitted she visted the Montfort to check on him and was treated with disdain by hospital staff when I asked questions about his care and condition. When she went to the cafeteria with her mother they were again treated with disdain and scowls because they spoke ENGLISH. She says she did not notice one English speaking staff member the whole week he was hospitilized. She only found out what was the matter with her father after picking up medical treatment and found out her father had pneumonia. she goes on to say she believes the Montfort Hospital is not bilingual and some staff are hostile to English speaking parents families. That's it folks another example of what majority English tax-payers dollars are fiancing in a majority English province that is NOT officially bilingual by a Dalton Mc.Guinty Liberal provincial government.

Hardner and his latest 'FACTS' in his last post. 1- Facts on separation...I suspect separation is a fad that comes and goes. 2- Facts on what a Quebeckers political loyality and ideology is...Someone from Quebec. 3.- Facts further describing a Quebecers political ideoligies... And the only province that thinks themselves as Canadian first is Ontario, as has been posted here. 4. Facts on what constitutes proof concerning the constitution as fraudulent.... Sorry, Leaf but I do know the difference between opinion and facts. 5. Facts concerning Hardners politcal mentality... Watch your spelling when your deriding my English skills. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant and so informative and factual that I can't stop LOL. Oh, and concerning your 1999 article ..it's outdated. CTV had a poll Oct.23/2005 with 49% of Quebecers in favour of another referendum and 48% against. And the last Quebec referendum the results were very close with 85% voter turnout voted 51% against and 49% in favour of separation. So in fact all is not well relating to the Quebec separation problem.

Michael Harding You don't even know what a Quebecer is. Most Quebec federalist or separatist are Quebec Nationalist and mostly fly their own flag the 'Fleur de Lise' and not Canada's flag the 'Maple Leaf' and being Canadian is second to being a Quebecer. Your reply to my post is senseless and I believe you can't even read right to where as you are changing the dialogue to suit your own thoughts. In fact I don't think your even an English Canadian or French Canadian but some kind of 'citizen of the world' with confused politcal thoughts or maybe even some type of lefty crusader. Have a good day Monsieur Harding!

GreenWhiteandPink You wrote -" Why should people on welfare get money for having children they can't even afford to take care of themselves." The fact is hopefully when the children are grown they will be responsible tax paying citizen's contributing to the country. This in fact beats the cost of an orphanage or similar where the children are not only detached from their mother but would cost considerably more to tax payers. People are on welfare for many different reasons and does not prove all are irresponisible like you are suggesting. The world is not a perfect place and you should know there are unwanted, neglected children from all walks of life though no fault of the children involved.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Absolutely what? It's not clear what he's saying. There were two official languages when the constitution was drafted, so your saying they presumed that the policy in place was indeed in place." There are two official languages but they are not 'equal' and never have been equal. What I am saying is I agree with what was said that the constitution being drafted by bilingual French politicians who acted on behalf of a minority French language with the interest of French Quebec and it's ideologies even though the country is not 'officialy bilingual' or the fact a national referendum was never used to qualify or establish the fact that a constitution can be drawn up without the consent of Canadians utilizing a national referendum and also on the fact Canada is an 'unofficial bilingual country' with two separate official languages that are not equal by law or numbers to any single binding Canadian constitution. The fact this was done despite the country being offically bilingual and without a national referendum constitutes proof in my mind that our constitution is fraudulent and not worth the paper it's written on. BTW- Cleary explain what you mean when you said " so your saying that the policy in place was indeed in place". What policy are you talking about or are you simply trying to confuse the issue or do you even know what you are saying???? You also wrote- "They were working to unififying the country. If you want to prescribe some kind of conspiracy to that then prove it." Who was working to unify the country---French minority politicians acting in the interest of Quebec who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum as it was the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec. If that's not proof I don't know what is.

This move is outright insanity and is just as bad as promoting French ACTIVIST Madeleine Meilleur to minister of community and social services and still retains ministerial respnsibility for francophone affairs in a majority English province that is NOT 'officially bilingual.' The anti- English, anti-Conservative bias in this Dalton Mc.Guinty provincial Liberal government is clearly detrimental to the welfare of mostly it's majority English Ontario residents. English paying tax-payers should take note on both these astounding moves.

iamcanadian2 You wrote- " To assume all the bilingual bureacrats and bilingual politicians to draft the new constitution of Canada did not weigh in the self interest of the bilingual French speaking Canadians like themselves is absurb." Absolutely, and only proves that 'offical languages' were presumed by particularly French politicians 'equal' in nature despite all provinces not being designated 'officially bilngual' and without first being qualified by a 'national referendum'. This is ample proof in itself to suggest the constitution is fraudulent and is not worth the paper it's written on.

Michael Harding You wrote- " Personally, I don't think I could live in a country that was run by evil people." Evil= "Morally bad; wicked." Cheer up your not anymore, the Conservatives are back and will rearrange this country accordingly back to a proud democratic country.

theloniusfleabag In response to the article you quoted relating to a biology professor and his thoughts that the world would be better off if most humans were dead is no doubt accurate. With religion set aside one could argue if this earth was ever meant to support life at all and our species simply evovled by sheer luck from the amoeba stage to the stage where humans think we are supreme concerning most aspects of our existence. Yes, worldly resources are running in short supply to maintain our existence in the fashion we have developed and are accustomed to. But with populations increasing so are our distant cousins viruses, constantly changing in order to preserve their form of self survival which is made easier by masses of humans unable or willing to take the necessary precautions relating to all forms of leading sanitary lifestyles to avoid contributing to the mutating of killer viruses. I think killer viruses are inevitable and disease will probanly contribute to the destruction of mankind thanks to uncontrolled population growth and the lack of resources necessary to control killer diseases.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " If you don't think the Liberals of the 1970's were trying to build a better country, then you must believe them to be evil." Agreed!

Michael Harder You wrote- " No I can't disprove a far reaching conspiracy of any sort, nor can you." It was not I who said " let's understand it was attempted with the best of intentions" relating to bilingualism. Anyone who makes a positve statement as this obviously has no doubt whatsoever that this is the truth, which is overstating or exaggerating and could very well be considered false without proof. There are other ways to express your approval. You wrote- " the fact that Quebecers are highly bilingual is taken by them as proof of cultural dominance from Anglos on every side." So what! Again Canada is not 'officially billingual' and the emphasis is not on the English to change their majority language. And if this is happening in Quebec it proves Quebec is unable to manage and support it's French culture with French jobs. Without resorting to discriminatory French Charter tactics ( which incidentally the federal government continues to do nothing about) Quebec should come to it's senses and admit the prospect it's French society is a failure on it's own and should sucumb to linguistic assimilation. This cultural blackmail as gone on long enough and as only succeeded in the sense of forcing the federal government to continue to support Quebec's French linguistic cultural infrastructure within the confines of Quebec at the very high cost of all tax payers in Canada particularly Alberta and Ontario. You also wrote- " If you think your being taken advantage of then I suppose futher more that you want Quebec out of confederation." Quebec as been seeking this without my coaxing. Quebec is a 'big boy' now and should recognize it is their responsibility to look after, attract investment to finance their own culture. Cultural blackmail is not exactly 'the man's way out' of Quebec's unsolvable internal cultural problems.

Michael Harner You wrote- " Official bilingualism or dual bilingualism-may have failed but if were going to agree to abandon it, let's understand it was attempted with the best of intentions." Is this simply your opinion or can you supply proof that bilingualism was implemented not to obliterate the English language that could result and has resulted to a significant degree with a minority language advancing it's French language and ideoligies into a majority English culture to basically control the job market in the ROC on a linguistic basis similar to the discriminatory 'official bilingualism policy' in the federal government. Bilingualism has always been a one way street with the emphasis on English Canada with Quebec free and not encouraged by the federal government not to participate. I've always found it confusing French bilingual speaking Canadians always enjoyed identifying themselves as 'francophone' which means 'French speaking person', when in fact their are few French speakers that are not already bilingual unlike their English counterparts who are English speaking only. This in reality destroys the necessity of majority English speakers becoming bilingual as the natural demand to influence English speakers to become bilingual does not exist in the province of Quebec like it does in the ROC to encourage minority French speakers to learn English. The French did not learn english out of the kindness of their hearts---they did it to obtain English jobs.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Ok. Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between two offical languages and officially bilingual." The provinces that contain the people that are supposed be designated 'offically bilingual' are in fact non-existent, except for one New Brunswick that is classified 'officially bilingual'. Two 'official languages' do not speak anything and cannot communicate with one another without provinces and people designated as such and who possess those capabilities. Canada is simply a country with two separate offical languages with a single province designated 'officially bilingual.'

The real problem is Canada's military was totally ignored to the point it could carry on no other duties other than peacekeeping. The Liberals ruined our military and left it a shattered image of it's previous self while spending ton's of money to create the perfect multi-cultural image and support it's ludicrous social policies no other country in the world can afford to do. We now have no completley functional air-force, army, navy or modern weaponery and are military still peacekeepers with permission to shoot with what weaponery we have under the guise of combat troups.

seabe You wrote- " Perhaps it would be more appropiate to refer to the 20th of April, 1760 Battle of Sainte- Foy." That battle was meaningless not in the sense of lost lives but rather to the fact General Levis retreated to Montreal and surrendered regardless, to the British and their overwhemling forces.