Leafless

Problem is Wilber, we don't have an English speaking PM with guts enough to allow other Canadian provinces the same rights as Quebec. Quebec PM's and Quebec itself take all the risky constitutional chances simply because they have nothing to lose. There is no way Canada can ever shake Quebec to dummy up or kick them out of confederation without raising other serious issues and it seems Canada fears that prospect, terribly.

English and French are FEDERALLY official only. Even though Quebec declared itself 'officially French provincially, it is not recognized as such by the federal government, just as it is not recognized federally for any other province in Canada to become officially English speaking on a provincially wide basis as this would destroy federal bilingualism and its promotion across Canada. Quebec therefore is discriminating against immigrants to speak French as Quebec does not posses those powers to force French provincially on anyone as a matter of fact. The 'Notwithstanding Clause' Quebec uses (relating to the use of French) has to be renewed and approved federally every five years, discriminates against other Canadian provinces who do not have federal permission to do the same thing to protect the 'de facto' majority English language from abuses from the French language. The federal government has failed to deal with this problem in a democratic manner and is the direct result of a dysfunctional federal government due to political interference from PM's from Quebec who are sympathetic to Quebec. ideologies.

Trudeau made a main issue over the reason for the Charter as a reason to quell Quebec's 'Quiet Revolution'. But I think this was all part of Trudeau's plan to forcefully advance Quebec's national interest at the expense of Canada since not much was ever mentioned during that revolution relating to advancing Quebec's political demands on the rest of Canada.

That's called common sense relating to personal responsibility to safeguard negative actions other countries might take in order to preserve their national interest. Arar flaunted his perceived freedoms a little to freely.

The U.S had their own their own file on Arar and like you said and Canadians cannot arrest a person without nothing to arrest him for. Let's be clear if Arar was not also a citizen of Syria he would have been deported to Canada. The U.S was under no specific mandate not to deport him to his homeland Syria. 2) Expedited Removal under INA § 235© INA § 235© states that “f an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible … [for a security-related ground], the officer or judge shall … order the alien removed.â€62One security-related ground is when “the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, [that the alien] is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity.â€63The Attorney General must review this order. If the Attorney General finds that the noncitizen is inadmissible for a security-related ground, and that “disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or security,†he may “order the alien removed.â€64The Attorney General’s decision is not reviewable by an immigration judge.65INA § 235© does not explicitly provide for relief under the Convention Against Torture, but the regulations do.66The regulations state that the immigration agency “shall not execute a removal order under [iNA § 235©] … under circumstances that violate … Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.â€67The regulations, however, do not specifically set forth the procedures for considering Convention Against Torture claims in the INA § 235© expedited removal context. They simply state that the immigration agency will “assess the applicability of Article 3 through the removal process to ensure that a removal order will not be executed under circumstances that would violate the obligations of the United States under Article 3.â€68The regulations add that the normal asylum procedures “shall not apply.â€69Thus, it is unclear what procedures the U.S. immigration agency had to follow to consider Mr. Arar’s request to avoid being tortured

Give me a break. Arar's problems were created by his own hand by remaining a citizen of terrorist country Syria. The man is a fool. Obviously if his love for Syria is so great then perhaps he should have migrated back with those morons rather than remain a citizen in a civilized country like Canada and in turn blame his self imposed problems on Canada.

You can thank Harpers last budget for that one increasing transfers to the government of Quebec by 20% in one year representing $2.2-billion dollars and by Quebec creating a family support program, which equates to less taxes owing. I don't understand where you get your 13.5% as this amount varies with income.

With the passage of the Statute of Westminster, Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain: She was a proper country in her own right. In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the Constitution home. The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made several key provisions: British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the Dominions. Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws. British law no longer applied to the Dominions. I agree and the contributing factor to that was the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation and implementation of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' a purely dictatorial piece of legislation created by politicians and ratified by politicians in the spirit of British law. So what do you propose to do?

How can reclamation be well and good relating to tar sands and the tremendous WASTE of energy to achieve this reclamation?

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy. In Canada we have a 'liberal democracy that does not RESPECT majority rule except when electing representatives that do not in any way have an honourable system that represents the issues of the electorate. A liberal democracy is merely a decoration over an 'oligarchy' which is is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). Your damn RIGHT were not perfect and are much closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

No need to strain your brain over this one. Climate change or disease will probably conquer all.

Good question, but probably to get the yapper off of their backs by an inquiry started by Paul Martin and the Liberals.

What point in principle? A point that risked Canada's national security (or possibly even did) over a current citizen of Syria, a terrorist harbouring country by a case that was still under investigation by Canadian authorities but was interrupted by the U.S. deporting Arar to Syria. LOL- Now we have the Canadian government trying to drag the U.S. down to the same level of Canada's incompetent security (by an inquiry that should never have been allowed initially) and is begging the U.S. to remove Arar from the security list preventing him from flying in the U.S. Arar it seems, is out to prove to the U.S. 'you can't push me around'. http://www.canadaeast.com/front/article/108897

Your link is defective and so are you.

There is no proof to what you are saying, either from Arar's lawyers nor the federal government or the payoff could have been $400,000,000 million dollars, eh? http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/field100406.htm

Why risk Quebec's French dominance with risky English investment and catering to tourism that forces them to communicate in English that could further jeopardize the nature of what they perceive as their French country. They feel much more secure blackballing the federal government for more power and control and federal (tax payer handouts) to accommodate their insatiable linguistic demands providing them the comfort of their federally created artificial country. If Quebec had political integrity they would have separated a long time ago to cater to their own French linguistic desires. The only problem is they do not have any political integrity and choose to force the federal government to spoon feed their French linguistic desires that have created a no risk linguistic venture for Quebec.

Quebec has been pretty well doing what it pleases recognizing and utilizing its 'official French language' in Quebec. Unfortunately though, it is not recognized as that by the federal government and big Canadian companies such as CN, the large banks and Bell Canada are not subject to the French-language charter. And since Mr. Harper officially "recognized the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada late last fall", it seems Mr. Duceppe will also challenge federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to take a stand on the language law. Poor Stephane Dion and Mr. Harper surely must be giving second thoughts about recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...uceppe1011.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language

That is still a considerably low figure considering the U.S. accommodates 200-million visitors per year.

Canadian government are idiots for paying out that kind of money without established proof. IMO the most they should have offered Arar is 'a cash for life job' as a junior computer consultant in the federal government.

What makes you think we are on the right track? PM is responsible for maintaining Canadian interest. Kind of hypocritical I would say although I might not agree with it: http://archives.cbc.ca/400d.asp?id=1-71-703-4122&wm6=1 Is this the same man that said "the U.S. is a threat to world peace'?

That is only in one region, the Wallon region which harbours 3,360,000 French. The Flemish or Dutch region harbours 5,900,000. But the problem or argument is: This is the problem when a 'country' defies the definition of 'country', relating to NOT having its OWN language, becomes as volatile as religion.

Canada has two ideologies English and French built into its dysfunctional government and Canadians had 'no say' that has allowed these two Quebec provincial referendums on sovereignty. You can say for arguments sake that Quebec allowed itself two referendums on sovereignty. What does Harper have to do with China and Tibet, two separate feuding countries? To act (or could be seen) as some sort of mediator for one side only infuriates the other side, China. Unless of course Harper is prepared to take some kind of action on behalf of Tibet.

French is the common denominator of linguistic problems in both Canada and Belgium.

I am certain then you felt the same way when DeGalle visited Quebec and shouted this famous statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle

Oh, you must mean exacerbating. Of course dear sir, this is an impossibility unless we scrap the Charter. No?