Leafless

Quebec is forcing the ability to learn and speak French mandatory as a prerequisite prior to immigrating to Quebec. Let's not also forget Quebec is simply a province in Canada and is NOT a country. They are forcing the superiority of one culture over another culture as a conditon to immigrate to Quebec.

I agree that this warrants the action of a new thread. If you don't initiate it, I will.

This proposed piece of legislation does not only fly in the face of freedom of expression but also discriminates and is racist. The 'notwithstanding clause' is designed as a temporary piece of legislation. No federal government in their right mind would allow Quebec to proceed with this type of draconian legislation. I think most immigrants learn English or French anyways. The problem here is forcing potential immigrants to learn French as a conditon of immigrating to Quebec. Governments could overcome this language problem by choosing immigrants from countries that are already familiar with the languages of Canada.

Looks like new immigrants immigrating to Quebec will have to sign a declaration promising to learn French and acknowledging that they understand men and women have equal rights, and political and religious powers are separate. This in my IMO contradicts Canada's Charter of rights and Freedoms relating to 'freedom of expression'. Does this mean that Quebec's Charter of the French language trumps Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom's? In any event Quebec's immigration minister Yolande James admits there wasn't much the government could do if immigrants refused to abide by Quebec values once they have settled here. So why go to all this trouble if this Quebec plan is not legally binding? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...5e-4f2c48dbbb51

So are you trying to say foreign culture has no place in domestic politics? If you are then I agree with you 100%.

The only change snake-oil salesman Obama will give you, is three quarters for a dolla.

The only part of the charter that should have been included was the original 'Bill of Rights'. The rest of the charter reflects socialistic ideologies that seriously conflict with a free and democratic society.

No of course not. Traitorous/threats demands, are not illegal as they only undermine the foundation of the country.

Quebec was included because it did not have a choice in the matter. But in saying this Quebec should have been kicked out of confederation at that time or the Charter scrapped. Neither happened proving Trudeau was indeed looking out for Quebec, thus making a fool of the ROC.

Of course it is new. The constituion is now on Canadian soil in the hands of parliament and in the process of being amended at that time and uninhibited from the polical actions of the British parliament. What you are taking about is the necessity of a patriation 'reference'. There was no way the provinces would have allowed the constitution to be patriated by the PM unilaterally. Constitutional convention required this and the PM obliged. He really had no choice. Could you provide a link or proof to back up your statement: "Quebec was included under the new act because the province never left Confederation." This is contrary to my information that states Quebec was included only because of majority consent resulting from the 'kitchen accord'.

Quebec would never be able to survive such a drastic change relating lack of federal financial aid and their reluctance to allow English speaking companies and investors to re-develop what is left of their resources. Ha-ha-ha-ha.

"We" refers to people who are intelligent enough to understand that it was the Costitution Act 1982 is what I am talking about. It is a NEW Canadian Constitution. You know the foreign one, that was repatriated from England which now makes it Canadian. Quebec did not sign the newly repatriated Canadian constitution in its entirety but was included by 'default' because the large majority of provincial legislatures voted for it.

Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982 but by default Quebec was included regardless. We are referring to the Constution Act of 1982.

It is for this reason a regional party will most likely never be successful. If a regional party did spring up out of the ground, national federal parties would be first to shoot it down with claims of trying to break up Canada. Another reason is, Ontarians it appears, vote with one hand on their wallets which means supporting a regional party could be risky. Your idea is similar to my thoughts on a regional party being developed and I would without question support a regional party.

Please provide proof to back that statement. As far as I know immigration powers equal to what Quebec harbours has been denied to other provinces by the federal government. Quebec is out of control harbouring powers other provinces don't have including being recognized as a distinct society... courtesy Mr.Harper relating to Quebec is a nation within Canada. Currently we have a two- tiered Canada with Quebec on one level and the ROC on the other. How can you possibly say separatist are the minority when the Bloc won 50-seats in the recent federal election? Regardless people are tired of hearing the same old Quebec federalist/separatist conflict.

Quebec is part of Canada by default. Quebec to this day has never signed the constitution and flaunts Quebec nationalism and has more powers than any other province in Canada. Is there anything else you would like to know about the pretend country of Quebec?

President Nicolas Sarkozy should know that currently Canada is NOT united as proven by the recent federal election. Quebec made certain a Conservative majority would be next to impossible to achieve. When President Sarkozy makes silly comments like this: This gives an underlying impression that Quebec is a country separate from the ROC. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Well, it looks like Wal-Mart got tired of being pushed around and showed who is the BOSS. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/b...0d-87716cb1b4c2 Looks like it is quite clear Wal-Mart wants nothing to do with unions. Although this closing only affected the tire and lube shop it wouldn't surprise me that eventually Wal-Mart could close all stores in Quebec rather than be confronted by lawyers and charter related arguments.

The ROC can and will take any corridor it wants. What are you going to do beat up on the ROC and the U.S.? Basically this thread serves no purpose as getting rid of Quebec is not as easy as it sounds.

You are defined as a 'pagan', unless of course you are subscribed to anyone of the main religions.

That is the MAJORITY dominant language and NOT minority language or languages. Canadian politics is dysfunctional because it allows two official languages resulting in major conflicts. Tyranny of minority has stiffled Canadian politics. One need to look no further how Quebec stiffled yet another federal election. Certaintly. That is laws that REPRESENT the MAJORITY. I know what demographics are. But it seems you don't. This is what you wrote: You are speaking in a federal sense and not one that represents communities in either Ontario OR Quebec. Make up your mind and tell us what demograhics you want or are talking about relating to cities or towns in individual provinces? Again Ontario has nothing to do with Quebec and Quebec has nothing to do with Ontario relating to normal demographics. You have your wires twisted. What I was saying about French flowing freely, is that the French language in Canada NEVER assumed a dominant role thus enticing Canada's population to speak French. The English language freely accomplished enticing Canadians to speak the English language.

They are entitled to make laws that do not discriminate and oppress. And I wish they would get off of their culture pot and empty their bowels in the proper place, namely the toilet. In reality this means nothing as they are simply a part of confederation BY DEFAULT that is. There is no French majority period. What you have is a cluster of Francophone nationalist within the province of Quebec that support separatist ideologies. I would say 40 out of 75 seats proves my point. Yes. I find it very disturbing that with the right mix of corrupt politicians oppressive and discriminating policies can be implemented by a mere minority with no safegurds to prevent this type of undemocratic manoeuvre. There ARE NO demographics for the Ottawa-Hull region outside of federal democraphics and the fact that Ottawa is in the province of Ontario and Hull is part of Gatineau Quebec. What I am saying is that the French language never progressed like the English language in Canada to establish a commanding identity. This is what you wrote: And I correctly implied.

So what. Francophones are a minority in Canada. They have the power to create laws but not laws that oppress and discriminate. More commie talk. Canada is a free and democratic country. But if you want to ruin our fine country with minority language laws then I say make Ontario officially English. It is apparent the time has come. That is the fear of oppression and discrimation by a 4% French minority. Okay how about the reality that a majority English speaking person in Ottawa Ontario is discriminated upon by being refused employment in the private sector because he or she cannot speak French. French is NOT a free flowing language. Up to now French in the federal pubic service and associated French services has cost the tax payer since bilingualism in the federal government was initially implemented...1 trillion dollars. There are Francophones in Canada. But like I said: I don't know how you come to the conclusion that quoted statement suggest that there are no Francophones in Canada.

Nevertheless it is still a belief. Anyone who is agnostic probably has many convictions that act as a sustitute or replacement for a god in that persons mind. The downside of of not beleiving in a god makes one a pagan. This is a word most agnostics and atheist steer away from. No it would not. Anyone with a faith needs no logical proof that their god exist.

What you are saying is ridiculous. Francophones are not the majority ANYWHERE in Canada, not even Quebec. It must be remembered Quebec is a province and is not a country. Therefore when establishing linguistic majorities and minorities all of Canada must be included in calculations. I have maintained my position throughout this thread. The confusion is related to your inane suggestions that tiny townships have the right to supersede the language of the land which is the English language. It is not the sole language of commerce but is by far the largest and most common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Canada We are talking about freedoms being taken away from users of the majority English language by tiny French enclaves utilizing force via language policies and sign policies. Obviously you have little or no respect for languages that are freely propagated and favour draconian linguistic legislation to punish users of the free flowing majority English language by taking away their right to speak any language one chooses to speak. If Francophones cannot naturally entice Canadians to speak French, then I would describe their linguistic situation as simply unfortunate. o