Sean Hayward

Thank you for a considered response without any insults or accusations of communism, dictatorship, etc. I don't think official bilingualism amounts to state control of culture in any way more than any other government policy. I believe I have supported my arguments with substance and you may not acknowledge that, but my previous posts contain much supporting reasoning for official bilingualism. The agenda I am referring to is the English-only agenda among some Canadians outside Quebec, an agenda which seeks to eliminate the use of French in Canada through policies such as making English the sole official language of Canada. I understand your position on the non-ratification of the Constitution by Quebec, but I profoundly disagree with it. By the way, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that no provincial consent was legally required for the patriation of the Constitution. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Canadian people are, or were, strongly opposed to the patriation of the Constitution? I agree that English is the linguistic backbone of most of Canada, but I also believe that French is the linguistic backbone of Quebec, a significant part of Canada. There is no evidence to suggest that the French language is still widely used in Quebec only as a result of official bilingualism. Here are the facts: the British established rule in Quebec in 1763; official bilingualism was introduced by the federal government in 1968. That means that French existed as the dominant language in Quebec for 205 years without official bilingualism. Indeed, the policies of the British government in the century or so following their conquest of Quebec were designed towards assimilation of the Quebecois, and the replacement of French as the primary language of Quebec, with English. You have to realize that the Quebecois feel the same attachment to the French language and its associated culture as you feel towards that English language and its associated culture. English is not the "chosen language". Each people/nation has the right to maintain its historical identity.

This is ridiculous. There are so many self-contradictions and desperate twists of logic in your post that I find it hard to respond. You try to smear my arguments by calling them communist and undemocratic. There is clearly no link between communism and official bilingualism, and if you think something done by the elected representatives of the Canadian people is undemocratic, then I have serious questions about your rationality. I am not opposed to allowing the people to express their will via referendums, and I think the people would agree with myself on official bilingualism, but it's fine if they don't and I would accept the results. I think your insistence on a referendum is not based on a desire for democracy, but instead on a desperate hope that people like you could use it too further your agenda. You contradict yourself by saying that official bilingualism should be scrapped without the support of the Quebec government. Your contradiction is as follows: you say Quebec shouldn't be given any special treatment and you say that official bilingualism amounts to special treatment for Quebec, and then you say that Quebec should be able to cancel official bilingualism unilaterally (clearly a special treatment). How is this an abuse of legislative powers? You said "English is the free flowing majority language of Canada, it was NEVER dictated. Canadians chose to use it for reasons you and Quebecers do not understand." This is such a flawed statement for so many reasons. What do you mean by free flowing language? You seem to think that English has some special qualities that distinguish it and make it the "chosen language" for all people to speak. I understand why most Canadians speak English, it is the same reason that most Quebecers speaker French, because it is the language that their parents spoke and the language they grew up using, and the language that the society has used in the past and continues to use as an expression of identity and community. I cannot possibly express my frustration at your comment that you are a communist if you believe regional languages should continue to exist. I would say you are closer to communism (more of an economic ideology than a social ideology anyway) if you think other people should be forced to use English rather than their preferred regional language. That way of thinking seems a lot more like social engineering than official bilingualism to me. "I do not believe in communism and do not support unilateral, dictatorial, discriminatory FLAWED social equality government policies." Good. Neither do I. Now can you please answer the questions rather than throwing out ridiculous smear attempts?

OK I can see now that we will never agree because of your hardline attitude and your "dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory, undemocratic" comments. You say there was no national consensus on official bilingualism. True, there was no referendum. However, the federal government and the governments of nine out of ten of the provinces did support the Constitution Act, 1982, including it's provisions regarding official bilingualism. I realize that the majority language of Canada is English. To use that as a reason that the federal government should only use English as it's language of operation is like saying that global organizations should only operate in Mandarin because it's the most used language of the world. There has to be recognition for regional languages that, while not having a majority of speakers overall, have a majority of speakers in some regions. Can you please explain how you think having English as the sole official language of a country with over 20% of it's population primarily speaking French is fair? I understand your opposition to these federal programs to push the French culture on the rest of Canada, but how can you disagree with the most basic equality of the English and French languages in Canada?

That'll be popular. Sure to win them a lot of votes in Ontario and Quebec.

Can you explain how my statement is nonsensical? No, of course not, that's not the way you do things. We will never be able to come to any kind of agreement until you accept that official bilingualism can be implemented to different levels. Apparently you think that giving even an inch to official bilingualism means having french packaging and English-speakers being pushed out of federal jobs. I am trying to show you that we can have official bilingualism without that, limited official bilingualism. If you want to see what limited official bilingualism means, read sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Official bilingualism to the level described there and no further is what I support. Read those sections and then, if you oppose anything contained in them, state your specific concerns.

Good question. The Conservatives have really dug a hole for themselves this time. It'll be interesting to see the final numbers later on.

Yes, but my point is that we can have official bilingualism, as I have stated my support for it, without all this additional nonsense about packaging requirements and affirmative action for francophones. Those are not necessary consequences of official bilingualism. To me, official bilingualism means providing services in both languages, and allowing both languages to be used in Parliament and the courts. That can be done without all of the expansive federal programs that many English-speaking Canadians, myself included, are opposed to.

No. I think it's perfectly clear. If you were trying to run a legitimate government on the world stage, would you want some opposition groups following you around, embarassing your government, second-guessing your decisions, and being a general nuissance? They are trying to avoid a situation like the climate change conference in Bali, where Dion followed John Baird around and constantly criticized his positions.

"Non-cash transfer". Hmm. So we can create loopholes for the sale of drugs by allowing the seller to "give" them to the buyer and the buyer then "giving" cash to the seller. Doesn't sound rational at all to me.

Good. I agree with your comments. You have to remember that this situation of francophones getting disproportionate numbers of jobs in the federal government is a side issue and is not necessarily a consequence of official bilingualism.

"This woman is no better than the Lebanese Canadians of convenience that we saved from Lebanon. Some complained the ship sent to save them was not air conditioned and the food they were given was below par. Then a few months later when things calmed down, almost all of them returned to Lebanon." My thoughts exactly.

Whatever Harper has done or said, that shouldn't tar all Conservatives, who may have much more moderate views.

This is a publicity campaign by the people associated with Brenda Martin that has gone too far. From what I've heard, the consular officials have visited her in prison many times and have assisted her to the best of their abilities. MPs have visited her, and what is her comment, that she is being used as a political football. Isn't that what she wanted, to use the political system to her advantage? What can the government do to help her? She allegedly committed a crime in Mexico, now she will have to go through the process to clear her name. The Prime Minister can't tell the Mexicans to release her, and why would he, if she is charged with a crime?

No I do not realize how silly I sound. I don't see how "Quebec's demands" are "ridiculously traitorous". The economic union would benefit both Quebec and Canada. And what do you mean by "set Quebec straight"? Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country? First of all, they do have that option, if they can pass a referendum. Second, with any province other than Quebec, the answer would be an overwhelming NO.

I agree Harper is one of the obstacles for the Conservatives right now. He plays into the socon image the Liberals have so successfully crafted for the Conservative Party. That said, I think Harper is a good leader.

Technically, the Liberals still would have lost the election even if the hadn't lost any seats in Quebec.

It's part of the budget bill, C-50. It will be passed unless the Liberals want an election (which they don't).

But you are only furthering my point that Quebecers don't want seperation because they voted against a proposal that wouldn't even have been full seperation. So if the proposal was for complete seperation, the level of support would have been even less. In my opinion, the best solution to the question of Quebec is probably something along the lines of the 1980 referendum proposal, seperation with economic union.

Are you an idiot? Your logic is that if the liberals do something that you consider wrong, the conservative MPs should pay financially for it. Give me a break. You said "some people you just can't please". Sounds like you were describing yourself.

Everyone thinks they represent the workers. As a Conservative, I think I represent the workers because economically conservative policies allow those who work to keep more of the product of their labour. Socialists pursue the same goal, but through more government intervention, not less. The businessman is a worker just as much as the miner or fisherman.

This is the best possible situation for the Conservatives. Dion stays as leader, but just barely, with Quebec liberals mounting coup attempts and leadership rivals taking pot shots at him behind the scenes, as well as an unmotivated and unorganized campaign machine.

The Liberals are so afraid of having an election that might give the Conservatives a majority that they are willing to give them a de facto majority without an election. It's a win-win for the Conservatives, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Sounds a lot like the PQ/BQ philosophy. Sometimes I too believe that Quebec should not remain within Canada, but there is the little fact that the Quebecers themselves voted against seperation twice.

You say someone "stuck a French nation right in the middle of an English nation". I think even a cursory look at any reputable account of the history of Canada would show that the French nation (Quebec) was there long before most of the English nation (Canada). I assume the rest of your post about disrespect, misplaced christian sympathy and rule by iron fist is just a frustrated rant demanding no response.

This is by far the most off topic discussion I've ever seen, on this forum or elsewhere. A debate over the Canadian dollar and natural resources somehow became a debate over same-sex marriage, hate speech and Stephen Harper's definition of sexual orientation.