Kapitän Rotbart

IMHO, multiculturalism is a phenomenon and not a value. I'd be quite willing to abolish all cultural funding in Canada... we should pull the plug on public funding towards the CBC, aspiring Canadian artists, etc. and most certainly abolish the Canadian Content media law. If Canadians cannot produce culture/art without subsidies, then Canada is not worthy of having its own distinct culture. Subsidized culture is not genuine IMHO. If Québec wants to celebrate their own culture, that's fine by me. I don't live there, and it is not their responsibility to identify nor to celebrate foreign culture. If minority groups want to celebrate their culture, they should be free to do so. Why does anyone care to value and/or measure multiculturalism? Official multiculturalism (in Canada, Australia and Sweden) is a cute title to make us sound pretty, however at the end of the day, official multiculturalism means nothing, because we must learn to integrate into the mainstream society of our locale, live with those in our communities regardless of nationality/ethnicity and we ought to have the freedom to celebrate our culture if we choose to do so. Discrimination based on nationality is bigotry. Discrimination based on language may or may not be bigotry. If it's a required skill, it's understandable that one would discriminate against those who are not bilingual where bilingualism is required. If it's a question of first language, that could be considered as discrimination based on nationality/ethnicity, and that is grounds for filing a complaint.

w00t! Well said. Lord Durham is not the only historic figure who is not worthy of being idolized, but it's a start.

Yeah, I probably could hold something against just about anyone. But who has a man who came up with a theory and admitted it was false on his death bed, a vegetarian and a racist on one of their notes? Other than the English, I can't think of any. Fortunately no one has Lord Durham on any of their notes yet to the best of my knowledge. I just wish the US currency would have Norman Borlaug on one of their notes, yet I don't know if it's the opportune time to get a new face on such an unstable currency.

Lord Durham was quite wrong for claiming that another (an officially recognized Canadian) people was inferior... especially due to language. Canadians are quite sensitive about the issue. It's not a matter of catering to QC, it's a matter of catering to all Canadians of all provinces who understand that glorifying a bigot is not a good idea. IMHO, Mackenzie King on our 50 CAD note is also a terrible person... he was an anti-semite and a nazi sympathiser prior to WWII and forced Canadians to help the British (even worse, forced Canadians to help the French, considering most of Québec sees no need for any ties with France to my understanding). However IMHO the English are terrible for honoring terrible people... they have Charles Darwin on one of their notes! Thank heavens I don't live in England! IMO, we should not honor any terrible person. I guess it's a start by removing Lord Durham's picture. I'd be more sympathetic to the English victory of the plains of Abe had the English properly claimed their victory. The winners only win what they claim and whatever they leave is lost. Why did the English not change the language of instruction in schools in Québec? Beats me. It appears to me that the English did not properly carry out their colonization, and now we have to live with the results. Welcome to Canada, a country with two languages.

Asking people to not vote for a given politician is almost as silly as asking people to not vote. The provincial Tories are quite unrelated to the federal Tories. Stephen Harper is not bad a PM at the end of the day. Then again, I'll admit that I find George Bush a decent politician, unfortunately no government in this world today is capitalistic enough for my likings. The SPP petition is, IMHO, terrible. It's Green Party propaganda against free trade. Free trade allows fair trade. And who are you to determine what is fair? Despite "exploitation", non-fair trade is normally better than domestic alternatives. I can't blame Harper for this. The war on drugs is irrelevant to whether or not John Tory will be elected. The USA has carpool lanes, Canada only has 'em in the GTA. I want Canada to be more like the USA in at least a few aspects. Those websites are quite biased... I wouldn't defend the war on drugs, but it's the least of my worries. Despite your political preferences, it's tough to label an entire political party... it really depends on the elected candidates, IMHO.

Correct. The issue here is the nonsense in "you are what you speak". If you insist on going by "you are what you speak", then I insist you supply me with a citizenship for every language I speak (other than Canadian, because Canadian is not a language, yet it's presently my only citizenship). I think you should get a different dictionary. I looked up the definition of 'Anglophone' at www.askoxford.com, the online Oxford English language dictionary. The result was: I looked up 'Anglophone' in WordWeb and it gave me "Someone who speaks English, esp. as their first language". If you look at Wikipedia, they also do not comply with your nonsense definition. Wikipedia's definition of an Anglophone "is someone who speaks the English language natively or by adoption. As an adjective, it means English-speaking, whether referring to individuals, groups or places. As such, it is related to the Anglosphere, the group of countries that mainly speak English." Sounds like all definitions I've found are irrelevant to English-speakers living in regions where English would be a minority language. I honestly recommend you get another dictionary, or at least verify at least two dictionaries before making such silly quotes. I have trouble believing your dictionary actually states "where other languages are usually spoken". I would appreciate a URL to a website where this can be found, otherwise I refuse to acknowledge that bizarre (and most likely false) definition. Yeah, I am fully aware that it's not a preference issue. The rest of your statement is going off tangents. Stick to the point. To you, my humble opinion is clearly false, and I'm sure you have great evidence to back this. You think the example of one person is enough to put down a hypothesis?! Ontariarian French language quotas have little or nothing to do regarding the private sector, and that wasn't the point at all! My point is, people are becoming more tolerant to the French language being supported in provincial offices, in other words provincial services provided in both languages provincially where there be a sustainable community. The rest of your post was irrelevant in attempting to knock down my hypothesis, but I will comment anyway. Oh, I love how you start your statement "We know for a fact"... you can state this, but stating this doesn't make it a fact. The federal gov't is responsible for the entire country, a country of two languages. This topic (which you started) has little to do with the federal gov't, but if you want to state that the Francophones went after the feds as opposed to the provincial parliaments, this "fact" has little or no value as an argument, even if it is a fact. Then you end your post with how bilingualism in Canada is unfavorable. In reality, there is a guaranteed proportion of wasted monetary resources in government. If this money isn't wasted on bilingualism, it will be wasted on other things. In the American USA, a country with no official language (and little or no federal funds are spent on translations or ensuring services in a minority language), money is constantly wasted on various government programs. Same thing goes on in Canada, and bilingualism is one of those things our government throws money at, yet removing that would not stop the gov't from tossing cash. Back to my point. IMHO, Canadians are becoming more tolerant and educated, and therefore are becoming less likely to oppose to French language support/quotas in Ontario's provincial government, and therefore the odds of enough people who share your views decide to overthrow the provincial government over the language issue, if anything, are becoming less and less likely. As it is, no revolt is going to happen any time soon based on this issue, and people working in English in Toronto really don't care how much of their tax money goes into hiring bilingual people to provide them provincial services in their preferred domestic language, all to say if I were you, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. If you want to suggest otherwise and defend the likelihood of a revolt against the provincial government on the issue of language, you'll need at least one relevant and compelling argument. Citing the experience of your sister in Toronto's private sector just isn't compelling.

If you accuse me of fighting, you'll have to accuse me for fighting for and against both sides. I believe my choice of words is fine. I'll agree that "to fight" can be summarized by "to struggle" (but not limited to war). The definition I have for struggle (noun): "An energetic attempt to achieve something; An open clash between two opposing groups (or individuals); Strenuous effort" (verb): "Make a strenuous or labored effort; To exert strenuous effort against opposition; Climb awkwardly, as if by scrambling; Be engaged in a fight; carry on a fight". Even the definition you have of to struggle is not limited to violence. Well, that depends on whether you go by "you are what you speak" unilaterally. If you want to refer to Anglophones as "the English" and Francophones as "the French", then you better give me two, three or four Western European citizenships. So far, I am neither English nor French, just Canadian. French is not limited to France... I've already stated that languages are not limited to federal boarders. The Francophones in Canada can speak French just as authentically as the French, the Luxembourgers, the Senegalese and the Haitians. No emulation is required. Not much of a preference issue. Canada's evolution is independent of your preferences or mine. A more segregated country will still have to conform to competition. Nice! We're friends now! I guess I'd add you as a friend if this were a social networking website. I haven't used the word never. Being realistic, though, it will become less and less probable. Canadians are becoming more tolerant towards each other, despite the war on languages. Monolinguals will have fewer job opportunities within the government, and fewer will live tragedies such as losing one's job due to language requirements (because they wouldn't be hired for such a position in the first place), the worst events that occurred during the quiet revolution will soon be forgotten, and Québec's nationalism might actually cool off as they are granted more power from the federal government (possibly sovereignty-association). With globalization, the Interweb brings people together, prejudices are lessened and people have easier access to learning and continued education (facilitating acquiring a 2nd language), meaning we are moving towards a more educated and more tolerant society, meaning it will be less and less likely that enough people in Ontario advocate that French language quotas in Ontariario be abolished IMHO. The absence of a loud outcry is likely the result of partial satisfaction.

@Leafless: B.S. is Brittney Spears, however the efforts invested over time for the support of the French language in the 613 are not. Seems like I must remind you what a fight is. WordWeb tells me a fight is "The act of fighting; any contest or struggle". Does someone struggling need an opponent just to struggle? Only low-level people need an "opponent", in other words someone to blame, for their every struggle. The English are in England for the most part. The Anglo Ontarians would have little or no interest in defending their language, because it's the majority language and requires little or no effort to support, especially when there's little competition (consisting of one linguistic minority who convinces local politicians to grant them public funding for French-language schools). The Anglophones could have fought against this, but seems like most Canadians are more pacifist than you are and believe there is enough room in this country for two languages. Looks like you're going off on tangents. My point was that a majority of Francophones and residents of Canada more comfortable in French than English would be more inclined to supporting the French language than not supporting it, and because they're such a sizable minority in the 613, it seems to make sense that the French language would be fully supported to the point where one could carry out pretty much all day to day activities in their preferred domestic language. As seen in various parts of the world, language is not limited by federal boarders (there are French-Canadian communities in Maine and Vermont who still speak French, Belgium is a perfect example of how a language spoken by its community does not just "end" at the boarder). Québec and Ontario do not even have a federal boarder yet, so there's no need to limit the 613 to English. In most of the RoC (for instance the prairies), that's the case. You'll hardly ever see an urban Francophone from the prairies. The 613 is not the prairies. If you like the idea of segregated Francophones, be my guest and move to Saskatchewan. Yeah, fully supported by a sustainable community of extremists. There are not enough Ontarians who share your views to motivate any Ontarian politician to carry this out. I acknowledge we are ruled by a democratically elected government who will be stopped by the Queen if they ever turn on us. A totalitarian government who is free to do whatever it feels like doing would just maybe be more effective... at least things would get done.

I'm kind of skeptical when it comes to the greens... IMHO, the greens are just as guilty as everyone else when it comes to poor politics... always putting down the other parties' ideas and proposing something different. If the Tories propose something leftist (like subsidizing more schools), the Grits will put it down. If the Grits propose something "right-wing", the Tories would put that down and propose something alternative (typically anything but leaving things as they are). The only thing "green" I want for Ontario right now is carpooling lanes... is that too much to ask? They have it in the American USA, it's nothing new, but to my knowledge, the greens don't seem to be proposing carpooling lanes anywhere in Canada because they weren't the first to suggest it... apparently we have carpooling lanes in the GTA, aka the Center of the Universe http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...pool-lanes.html, but I want them everywhere in our massive country (at least everywhere in Ontariario). The greens want to comply with the Kyoto Accord... something I object to. IMHO, the Kyoto Accord is just a happy club allowing countries to match quotas, gain points and bragging rights for "improving the environment". It's really easy for small European countries to, say stop contamination from flowing into a river in an under-developed country, then they look like a world leader in environmental friendliness, something they should be doing just because it's the right thing to do, not for the bragging rights. Also, most people I've spoken to about global warming say that it is very important that the governments increase measures to fight global warming... but what if global warming is just a myth? Not only many predictions stating our planet only has another x amount of years of existence have been proved false (thanks to time), but in many cases the environment has greatly improved in the last century. Global warming sounds like more nonsense from paranoid hippies to me. Should we really invest government funding into fighting against what is likely to be a myth? I'd like the greens if they were to open more carpooling lanes and if they were to reduce nocturnal public transportation. I mean, keep the same schedule for public transportation, but replace those buses with micro-buses or large vans for routes running past 23:00 for the half-a-dozen passengers who rides public transportation during the really late hours. I'd really like them if they would admit that global warming is probably just a myth. Until then, I doubt I'll be voting green.

Oh I understand quite clearly that this is legal. History plays a strong role in this... Russian-Canadians, for example, have never fought for their language to be supported at all in the 613, whereas Franco-Ontarians have. Other linguistic minorities do not have the same interests in supporting their language to such an extent of exclusivity (not like it's really all that exclusive anyway, everyone raised in Canada has at least some comprehension of the French language). Notice I used the word "likely", meaning I was suggesting a tendency to make a point. A statement suggesting a tendency using such a logic such as "most people will live their life in their most comfortable domestic language" seems like common sense to me. It doesn't have to be. There are language quotas and a sustainable community. To my knowledge, no political party in Ontario would have the intentions of abolishing services in French, so this is unlikely to change soon. Well, what does it matter how I would describe Canadian citizens' democratic rights? My description wouldn't change what they really are. Here's a quote from the Human and Constitutional Rights website: Appears to me that we have the right to vote and to be a member of a political party. Those are our democratic rights. If you do not vote, you do not contribute to Canadian democracy any more than any person who does not have Canadian citizenship. Granted, it is up to you whether you vote or not, however your vote is your voice in Canadian democracy. It's up to you whether your voice is counted.

I'll go with the latter based on the few Liberals with whom I am willing to converse... they either don't surf the Interweb or they smoke dope, meaning they don't surf the Interweb often or at least not for politics.

I wish immigration were made an easier process. The main reason why there are so many illegals is because legal immigration takes a while and costs money. I'm impressed by those who have the courage to immigrate illegally. It may not be the "right thing to do", but sometimes it's the easiest way to a much better life.

Franco-Ontarians choose to use a fully supported official language. Francophones and people who speak more French than English living in Ottawa will likely prefer to do everything in French. Other linguistic minorities don't have much of a choice because their languages are not officially supported. Also, they were probably not involved in the colonization of Canada, so it makes sense that they would have to use at least one of the official languages. I'm quite indifferent about the fact that you think I think I am the supreme authority. This is quite vague, so it doesn't really mean anything to me. I am accused of not knowing the meaning of democracy by someone who has announced to me in a past post that he doesn't vote. I don't appreciate the personal attacks. You have been reported.

@Argus: They don't have to announce it to the city, they simply have to register. I don't recall announcing the Coop's working language being required. If we are to refer to Ottawa's history, it has historically been more French-speaking prior to the 70s if I recall correctly. Downtown was very French-speaking (much more than now), but many Franco-Ottawans have moved to the Eastern suburbs or Gatineau (due to cheaper housing). Chauvinism? There has been a war on languages in Canada since day one... the colonization was so poorly carried out (no thanks to the English) that ever since, there has been spite and hostility on both sides. From what I gather, Franco-Ontarians want their sustainable French-speaking community at home without having to go to Québec. It makes sense, if someone were to move to say, a Vietnamese Coop, unless they speak Viet, they would feel excluded from the community who wants to be living in their language in the comfort of their own home, and wouldn't be able to communicate with the recent immigrants who get cheap labor in the Coop because they wouldn't have learned either of the domestic languages yet. Though Franco-Ontarians may be able to speak English for the most part, they should not be expected to speak any language but their own in the comfort of their own home/coop (meaning they should be able to assume everyone living in their coop speaks their language). @Leafless: Correct, and any legal resident can choose to live in any given Coop in Ottawa or not. Sounds like freedom to me. Oh, 1 out of 60 is less than 2%, yet Franco-Ontarians represent a much higher proportion of Eastern Ontariario's population than of the whole province, which is 4%. According to what I just stated, proportionally, French-speaking Coops are not funded enough. Not adequately explained indeed. Did she file the application directly or did she apply through the city? Maybe she can understand terms in French on an application form such as "nom", "age", "adresse", "méthode de paiement", etc. without too much difficulty. (Most people raised in Canada are actually taught their second domestic language in school, meaning claiming to have no understanding of their second domestic language is denial for the most part.) Writing one's address and credit card number does not mean filling out an application in a given language IMHO (unless a cover letter is also required). Well, as suggested by the article, that's relative. Definitely corrupt according to Leafless. Definitely fine according to others. Thank the Lord for democracy

@AngusThermopyle: True, however there are bigger motives for Québecers to learn English than Westerners to learn French. Based on what Americans have told me, they find less of a language barrier in Québec than in mainland Europe. You won't get provincial gov't employees in Québec to speak to you in English, however a large portion of private sector employees are bilingual, plus there is a sustainable Anglophone community in Québec. My point was that, charter or no charter, bilingualism is much more important in Québec than in most of the RoC, and therefore does not require any effort on behalf of Québec's gov't to advance bilingualism in that province. @Leafless: Name me one other French speaking province with its own language charter. There is none. Québec may have its own charter, but it's not a language charter, but rather a charter of rights. The only language content in the charter of rights is that one can get a court hearing in either official language. Sounds favourable for the Anglophones if anything. Québec may have language laws, but these laws are not part of the charter of rights. I could say any and every of them, depending on the context. Québec does not discriminate specifically against the English language officially. In fact, they simply choose to use French. Most other provinces choose to use English. Think about it, if a WASP is hiring and does not need a bilingual candidate to fill a certain position, the employer may actually prefer to hire a monolingual candidate if this employer is either a xenophobe (to even the slightest degree) or maybe just doesn't like Francophones. This may occur quite often in the RoC and the gov't is doing nothing to stop this. Québec is just as much to blame for language discrimination as the RoC. Yeah? Will Alberta allow their residents to do their K-12 in French, even if neither of their parents speak a word of French? Will Albertans make an effort to speak to Francophones in French if these Francophones visiting or living in Alberta cannot speak sufficient English? Does Alberta even have French language schools providing public education until the 12th grade? Sounds like Alberta is no less discriminating than Québec. Ontario won't even let children do K-12 in French unless at least one of the two parents speak French. Québec is not really doing much these days in terms of getting rid of the English language. I haven't seen much change with regards to reducing the English language in Québec since the quiet revolution. Québec does not seem to expect anything new from using French... apparently they have what they expected... a place where they can do everything in their own language. Would you submit your idea to the government of Québec that they use English as a local commercial language and limit their use of the French language to the comfort of their own homes? Are you nuts? Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. Say, you live in a city of half a million, absolutely everyone in that city speaks the same language as you and can hardly speak any other language. Then when you apply for a job, you're expected to converse in your second language, and building up patience while everyone else tries to communicate with you in that 2nd language... it will never happen! Ever! Keep trying, but you'll never convince the Québecers to have their meetings, do their phone calls, send their emails, etc., etc. to each other in any language but French.

The article itself explains this. Coops are publicly funded yet privately run. Like any private organization in Canada, regardless of locale, the organization can choose to operate in English or French. I'll admit I was surprised that these people were not linguistically capable of helping this woman in English, yet it was her choice to live in that Coop... Gee, well who wouldn't move into a place with a name like "Côté Est Inc." administered in Orléans hoping that service will be available in English. I suppose these Coops' working language should be identified, however IMHO, it was pretty obvious that a Coop run in Orléans with a name like "Côté Est Inc." would do everything in French. No discrimination was made, actually. The Coop DOES have the right to do everything in either language, and that woman DOES have the right to live in that Coop, regardless of the language she uses.

Whether Québec has its own charter or not, it can still choose to only use one of the two official languages if it chooses to, just like most provinces chose to do so. Québec can choose to use French only, just like Alberta can choose to use English only within their provincial gov't... there really is no difference. Oh right, because Vancouver is forced to promote bilingualism, and Montréal isn't... MDR! Seriously, bilingualism is much more important in Québec than in most of the RoC by nature, no gov't intervention required. Out west, no one needs French unless they want certain positions in the federal gov't or in certain international positions where it would be required... that's pretty much it (whereas is Québec, so many jobs require bilingualism because the English language surrounds them). The provincial governments out west don't seem to be advancing bilingualism regardless of federal gov't pressure but rather not doing anything with regards to the language issue. Québec having its own charter doesn't really change anything, because Québec cannot abolish the necessity for bilingualism within their province.

Francophones never 'traded God in'. Sure most Francophones are much less practicing in terms of religion since the quiet revolution, but they haven't gained anything from the quiet revolution... only nationalism. We could go on and on about this, but I'll agree that the quiet revolution was not favorable, and losing faith to nationalism is quite terrible, but all this is quite irrelevant to uOttawa. uOttawa is still a Catholic university in the sense that at least most at the top of the hierarchy are Catholic, however it is not a "Catholic University" in the same way Catholic primary, middle and secondary schools are faith-based, because no uOttawa student is required to take faith-related classes, professors are not required to be Catholic, etc. Oh, according to Time Magazine, Canada scored 94.2% regarding how free the given country really is, whereas the USA only scored 83.7%. (TIME Canadian Edition, September 17th, 2007 page 8). Maybe that Charter of rights and freedoms works in your favor too.

Fancy that, uOttawa is not a faith-based university since a really long time. If you hate McGuinty so much, maybe you should consider voting against him. The only solution to this if you're paranoid about tax dollar distribution (which you clearly are), maybe you should vote libertarian. They want to abolish public education. Brilliant! The libertarian candidate is kinda weird though, his big beef is the seat belt law, something I don't feel strongly about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Serge_Brisson

@Wilber: Yes, if I'm in another part of the world where I do not speak the language, I will gladly accept any help I can get. However, when I'm in my locale, I expect the professional to be able to communicate with me an a language in which I am comfortable, especially in case I would want to contact this professional in the future. Clearly in a case of life or death I would love to be treated ASAP, but in my locale, I should be able to be treated in one of my languages. If those professionals on the West Coast can pass the examinations in English, I would imagine that their English would be up to par. @jbg: I hear you, but this was after several language tests. He's been working in West Gatineau for a while, he could be fluent in French by now. @Mikedavid00: Then maybe they should increase the difficulty of those language tests! MDR! @kimmy: From my understandings, geologists report their findings to governments and academic institutions, not to rocks. One would have to be fluent in French in order to report to Québec's gov't and to most of their universities (at least to the provincial universities where I gather most funding is granted, which would oh so likely be in French... mdr). @Leafless: Québec simply chose to use one of the two official languages provincially, the same thing all provinces except Neu Braunschweig chose to do.

Ottawa U is in Kansas and it is no where near being bilingual. uOttawa has always been bilingual. It does not depend on the province's language status. uOttawa's bilingualism pre-dates the McGuinty's. It is indeed a university of two languages, and most courses only available in French are in social sciences anyway (and most people with social science degrees would like to work for the government or at least in the public sector)... uOttawa used to require bilingualism upon enrollment, but they've loosened up on the language requirements. It still makes sense that one be bilingual to fully benefit from what uOttawa has to offer.

The 60% minimum grade to pass is a nonsense argument. I have studied in a few systems, with varying required levels to pass (as high as 70%). You'll still get the same proportion of a class who will pass, so if a higher percentage is required to pass, the passing proportion's grades would be inflated. If the dentist can't get at least 60% in a language examination, written or oral, his/her language skills are weak and should be brushed up if the language skill is required. Regardless of to whom this dentist caters to, if I need to see a dentist tomorrow in my locale, he/she better be able to communicate with me in the locale's language (I don't have time for language barriers if my tooth has urgent problems). Yes I can blame this dentist for catering to Anglophones in West Gatineau... Why live in West Gatineau when this dentist could easily work in the RoC?

I disagree... it's not really an issue of segregation. If a Jewish school is publicly funded, they will be required to accept non-Jewish kids. People will go to the better schools, regardless of their own faith. A friend of mine went to a Catholic school in Jamaica despite not being Catholic (Catholics are a small minority in Jamaica) because it was a better school than the other ones in her area. Some public schools around here are predominantly Muslim anyway. If public funding is granted to faith based schools, these public schools with high muslim student populations will most likely become Muslim schools. The four caucasian kids per academic year will probably stay at that school out of convenience, and no one will notice a difference in terms of segregation. As for the neighborhoods, the ghettoes have been around and publicly funded faith based schools are not going to change them. Despite having a really awsome name (Tory running for PC... who would have thunk it?!), I don't think he's won my vote, but McGuinty isn't worthy of my vote either. I'm still debating whether to cancel my vote or to vote for one of the little guys.

I'm for publicly funding faith-based schools. To compare, we've so far made an eception for Catholic schools... the only faith-based schools with public funding. There are pros and cons to public and private schools. I'd personally abolish publicly funded education beyond the 6th grade, but that's not gonna happen, so if I am to choose for or against publicly funded faith-based schools, I'll be for it. The plus side is that there's more control (accountability). Teachers will be required standard qualifications (minimum of a BEd and teachables in the case of 11th and 12th grade education) and the curriculum is guaranteed to be followed. There would also be accountability in terms of approaches to the curriculum and such. The other cool aspect is that a school is not required to accept public funding. It can choose to remain private. The downside to publicly funded faith based schools can be seen in our current system with the Catholic schools... a) Teachers are only really in it for the money (most teachers in Catholic schools are rarely practicing Catholics and are only there because it's cash in their pocket for doing what they're qualified to do) Rivalry (Catholic schools only hire Catholics... what if we had many evangelical schools who would only hire Christian teachers from select denominations? What if a given teacher doesn't get hired at a Baptist school because he/she is, say, Anglican?) c) Student behavior (private schools have their perks... students in the private schools typically behave better) I can't say that the Catholic school system is great, I just like the idea of the gov't putting its nose in faith based schools who would accept public funding. There's been talk about the school board issues... they'd have to restructure the hierarchy, otherwise too much money will be wasted on redundant administration. Then again, in some cases, school boards wouldn't be needed... Ottawa is probably only large enough for two Jewish schools and one Muslim school and I doubt you'd find publicly funded faith-based schools outside the 613, so if it's for the sake of one or two schools, the school wouldn't need a school board! Either that or have one school board for all faith-based schools that aren't Catholic (or even merge it with the Catholic school boards... then there could simply be sub-sections). Religion and bias will be discussed in the classroom anyway, so I see no need in not funding faith-based schools. People are going to teach religions in schools, so it makes sense for parents to be able to send their children to publicly funded schools where their children can learn in an environment where their views are hopefully shared just as much as public education makes sense (if it does).

Kind of like Canada, uOttawa is a university of two languages (though a large proportion of uOttawa students are bilingual). uOttawa is the only university in Ontario offering full post-secondary programmes in French... shouldn't cost those poor Anglophone tax payers too much proportionally speaking (the money going into funding education in French at uOttawa is a small proportion of funding invested in post-secondary institutions throughout Ontariario). In this case it is not a matter of discrimination. There are some courses not available in English, and some courses not available in French. Most courses are available in both languages, however many courses (mostly engineering) at uOttawa are only offered in English (I'm sure francophones consider this discrimination aswell). It's not discrimination, it means if one wants to truly benefit from what is offered at an institution of two languages, one should know both.