Leafless

Stephen Harper no sooner gets elected with a minority government and Ralph Klein immediately moves the politcal spotlight to Alberta and his planned "third way" concerning health private care legislation. I guess in Canada there is no such thing as patience and Mr. Klein can't wait to compete head on with with Quebec's grey area medicine an area though I must admit is quite successful and due to this requires immediate federal intervention to rewrite Canada's Health Act to prevent doctor's capitalizing in a PRIVATE WAY. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0127?hub=Canada

BubberMiley You wrote- " I think if I wasn't a white gut myself, reading leafless post would make me leary of them 'considering irregular motivations." The fact is the country is officially multicultural. This is what multicuturalism breeds in a country that is encouraged to fractionate and that is interior motivations on how to screw the Whites for self gain concerning their own culture. Think Quebec as an example except along linguistic lines and what they have accomplished. When unity and dedication to a country is removed in favour of setting up your own little cultural camps you can expect a dysfunctional country with massive problems and don't worry the winner will take all. It's called human nature.

Tml12 You wrote- " Yes the situation is that bad where we judge a PM's worth based on how well they deal with the Americans." Why Mr. harper has chosen the Liberals poorly thought out soverignity issue to defend Artic waters I find hard to understand. The high cost concerning military expenditures and equpiment make the feat of Canada controlling and protecting Candian Artic waterways a fiscal impossiability due to the fact of our military being fiscally ignored so long by the Liberals. In the end though dollars to donuts some deal sharing Northern waterways with the U.S. will probably be the outcome.

Black dog You wrote-" It wasn't the question that makes you a bigot, so much as the fact you view the prescence of ethnic volunteers as a cause for alarm, to the extent that you'd continue voting." To label one a bigot you must prove that I am incorrect when I say that the level of normal tolerence has been exceeded by actions and abnormal lifestyles of a higher than normal percentage of their population to make one leary considering irregular motivations. And of course this includes politics to further ones cause to obtain as much as possible out of the system as many of them already have ---high profile cases I might add and nothing to do with ballots. You have not proven what I said is unreasonable and I don't think you are in any kind of positon legal or otherwise to label any one anything. You also wrote- " Which imply that all members are gang affiliated and untrustworthy, would support the bigot label." You quoted the post but did not get it right as I said " in that area" and any reasonable person would not translate that meaning all ethnics or attach the bigot label again with no proof. You wrote also- " Which is exactly what your doing . Way to go" No sorry, I am not sizing any ethnic individual by simple conversation. What I am doing is arriving at my conclusion from first hand information from media reported gang type incidents involving ethnic minorites including first hand reports what is going on in the neighborhood and including ethnic minorties heavily involved in our political and legal system basically to bleed as much as they can out of the system. I am glad to know BD you think all other members of society other than White are SQUEAKY CLEAN and I want you to know reverse discrimination is alive and well something you seem to know all about.

mar You wrote- " Why precisely did you feel uncomfortable? Are you saying merely being in the presence of non-caucasions makes you uncomfortable." This is exactly the type of reaction I expected and that is what I am complaining about and that avenue is the aspect of SUSPICION. I think it is relatively common knowledge that ethnic minorties tend to size you up by simply looking at you if you are pro or against ethnic minorties in simple conservsation. I will not go into detail but have proven this to myself by doing my buisness in in places of high ethnic representation and as a result being treated as not one of the gang simply by just being there. So if I am casting my vote I don't want to be looked at or presumed as a person who dislikes minorities--- there is simply a potential bias there--real or imagined it is speculative but like I said I proved this to be fact in places of high ethnic representation. I am personally not biased against ethnic minorties in general but I am against the aspect fractionating Canadian communities into cultural ghettos as this will enforce cultural divisons based on colour and will contribute to bigotry and racism.

seabee You wrote- " The Candian federal Dominion is indeed in big trouble" Surely you are not suggesting that in fact you are not part of the Federal Dominion of Canada? The last I heard Quebec is a province within the country of Canada.

seabee You wrote- " Try anglo-supremacist" Must have took a lot of thinking to fiqure that one out concerning numbers on the North American continent-- but out of all the minority cultures in the WORLD to-day being led or influenced by some majority, you actually see yourself as being mistreated at the hands of the horrible English?

seabee You wrote- " Try anglo-supremacist" Must have took a lot of thinking to fiqure that one out concerning numbers on the North American continent-- but out of all the minority cultures in the WORLD to-day being led or influenced by some majority, you actually see yourself as being mistreated at the hands of the horrible English?

geoffrey You wrote- " In a parliamentry system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interest, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented." And why geoffrey does this regionalism exist in the first place???? Could it be that federal governments have created this regional monster initially in their QUEST to BUY votes. Provinces are distinct and that is why we have provincial; governments to apply a little responsibility a look after their OWN requirements. PR is a wonderful concept in a country like ours that would remove the federal regional onus off of the federal government and redirect that responsiability to the province. I have not seen the complete official results (riding to riding) but glancing at the numbers on television many ridings were very close equating to many LOST unrepresented Canadian votes all lost so to speak, counting for NOTHING. THis aspect makes me feell especially good (grin) going to all the trouble of voting only to learn later my vote COUNTS FOR NOTHING. PR is coming to town.

Correction: The previous post should have been addressed to Blackguard not Blackdog.

Blackdog You wrote-" By the god's, you are very funny or ignorant, I can't decide which." All I have to say to that if all Quebecer's political perception of Canada is the same as yours, this country is in deep trouble.

Blackguard You wrote- " Trudeau imposed bilingualism on Canada because he wanted French and English Canadians to be at home and receive services in both languages throughout the country. Canada never became bilingual (but bilngualism became one of the myths of Canada.)" Trudeau was never in the positon to impose bilingualism on Canada as it is bad and discriminatory enough that he IMPOSED bilingualism in our Canadian tax payer funded federal public service. But what he did accomplish with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is include sections so Quebec would never have to be assimilated by the English and force provinces to accomodate francophones in certain area while IGNORING Quebec's linguistic responsibilities concerning it's committment to the English. Nice socialist guy in a democratic society bordering the confines of a communist type country. I don't know how Mr. Trudeau ever expected bilingualism to work with such a narrow one sided view concerning bilingualism while ignoring all other languages in an OFFICIAL MULTICULTURAL country.

Blackguard You wrote- " I agree with you Leafless: we need not argue any further if your definate conclusion is that the people of Quebec need to thank the rest of Canada because they are allowed to speak French. In fact I think that is an hillarious preposterous proposition." It can't be that preposterous as you are still a province within the country of Canada so the propositon must have worked. The only thing is your language is commercially dysfunctional and does not do much to create investor confidence in Quebec. Keep this up and you'll keep the apron strings on forever. You should be grateful to Canada for that as your part of it.

Seabee You wrote- " The federal Supreme Court has ruled time and again you are wrong." I'll bite ---What did they rule???? You also wrote- " The genocides of the Acadians 1755-1763 and the Canadians in 1759-1760 were absolutely unjustified" How far back do you want to go and what does this have to do with Canada??? Fact is France claimed a big parcel of land and could not defend it.

seabee You wrote " Law-101 a very long and technical law, though respecting the intentions of law 22, was essentially a rather successful attempt at removing the ambiguities." And I might add freedom of speech, through oppression and discrimination. You also wrote- " The fact what is now called Canada has any anglophone population is the result of British violence, many aspects of which can be considered as crimes against humanity." Give me a break, England and France had been going at it for a long time. Maybe if France would have populated New France instead of simply pursuing fish and furs to send back home to France, French perhaps would be the language of North America. Don't forget it was John Cabot who after discovering America returned to England and after France learned that then sent an expediton under Jack Cartier back the same way of Cabot and claimed the land. There was an initial argument all along concerning ownership of what is now North America.

geoffery You wrote- " Let's give these people the tools to do their job or let's stop pretending to be soverign." Actually if border crossing are this dangerous this is a job for Canada's military to have a small detatchment based nearby to deal with these unprecented life threating situations that could also involve terrorist activity. There are different aspects involving sovereignty and as far as Canada is concerned DEFENSE is not one of them! I don't think Canada really was never sovereign.

Blackguard While acknowledging you have certain constitutional rights in your province you fail to acknowledge the tremendus support the federal government has put into Quebec to support the use of your minority language but fail to express any gratitude for this. You should remeber it is your province that is the minority language not the ROC. Some estimates have ranged as high as $600-billion dollars to support everthing associated with bilingualism since it's introduction on top of a multitude of policies and programs within Quebec . If you fail to see the prime ministers and the tax payers of this country as being Quebec's salvation then there is no use even attempting to debate this situation any further as as far as your concerned you are masters of your own destiny despite the help of the ROC and will rule as you choose according to you.

Argus You wrote- " Yes, but it would surprise me given my area is 80% White, and all the workers at the polling station are non-white." This is what happens any time you ask a reasonable question is raised such as this one concerning a disproportionate number of ethnic workers in relation to the general population of Canada , you are labelled a bigot. The point of the matter is under the conditions of voting for a prime minister in your country Canada you could or you might feel a certain degree of intimidation or just plain uncomfortable when the staff at the polling station is over represented by ethnic Canadians and you happen to be White especially if you have an ethnic gang type problem in that area. But Argus brings up a good point and that is does anyone know what exactly what is the criteria and qualifications necessary concerning the recruiting of polling station personnel and obviously ethnic representation has a bearing.

fellowtraveller You wrote- " Not only is that a nasty and bigoted statement, it is incorrect. While a relitively high proportion of Catholics, Quebec also has the lowest church attendence in Canada. Quebec is the most secular province in Canada." Nasty and bigoted to hit back on someone labelling the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper a religious nut? Statistics concerning religion is what religion you identify yourself as being part of --not if you go to church or are actively participating in whatever religion you belong to. BTW- Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario provide funding for the Roman Catholic school system and for the public secular education system.

YankAbroad You wrote- " The traditonal definiton of marriage is a giant government registry which is used to deny single people, gays and others who aren't politically favoured a whole host of immigration and taxation rights, while erecting a special welfare program for individuals who register their opposite sex partners with a government office." NO sorry, the traditonal definiton of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman or if you prefer along with a ceremony establishing this fact which in most cases has been the traditonal way in this country since it's beginning. If your saying society is biased it simply proves the system is working and that small groups cannot cause major disruptions in an organized society. Don't fight it, join it.

scriblett You wrote- " How does one define a religious nut" If that is the type of terminology normanchateau uses, so be it as I guess up until recently a lot of Quebecers were kicking their butts for being so religious and not more actively involved in politics up until recently. But with a name like normanchateau which = French with a home province like Quebec which has the highest population of Roman Catholics in Canada, I wouldn't really be calling anyone else a religious nut unless of course that person has a personal vendetta against religion in general which is certaintly a tragic situation.

I don't know about you but the polling station I voted in was staffed by a disproportionate number of ethnic Canadians. In fact I felt uncomfortable to the point I was not sure this was Canada. In fact if this is the type of representation we can expect to receive in the future I might not vote at all. Did you experience this?

BlackDog You wrote- " It seems ridiculous and heavy handed to destroy the concept of civil marriage for everyone just to keep gays out" Not really as marriage was never meant for gays unless you can prove that point. The fact is the Constitution Act of 1867, capacity to marry falls under federal jurisdiction, while the solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility. It was Jean Chretien who opened the door to SSM by NOT APPEALING SSM provincial challenges in both Ontario and Quebec but instead allowed provincial courts to take a phased approach to do this. I believe if the feds originally would have challenged SSM they would have won which would have forced gays to choose an alternative as there are a number of avenues the feds could have pursued to do this.

BigGunner You wrote- " I am in favour of it, because it's not up to goverrnment do define what my family structure is and if Dave and John want to be married, it's neither mine nor anyone elses buisness." But that's the whole point, the government did get involved and made it THEIR BUISNESS. Family structure must be upheld by all of society or we possibly could wind up all being bastards.

My take is not on your list- And that is advocating a system similar to communism begining with Trudeau! Isn't it amazing that the Liberals lasted so long and whats even worse is the people who made them last this long.