Stoker

Nah, I'd prefer it being private funds.........that way we wouldn't have to worry about some tree hugger objecting to the caber toss Joking aside, i wouldn't want an Indo Canadian having to pay for my "cultural day", for the same reasons that i wouldn't want to pay for his.

I too would like to see the East further stick it to us out West........not because I'm sadistic, but because that could be the final straw that breaks the back of western federalists and put in motion Western secession. That would make my day. I, on behalf of the Albertain government, would like the martimes provinces to pay, retroactively, an equal sum to the West of all the benifits they received from the Grand Banks.

Yeah, crystal.......so whats your point? That the Queen (and other past Monarchs) that sits on the throne of England allowed the French colonists to keep their culture? Perhaps you should go read the paragraphs where I refer to the Queen, so as to understand the context that they were used in. No I don't.........You see, call me crazy, I don't believe in forcing my culture onto other people. I also wouldn't feel right having other people (not relating to my culture) paying for the annual Highland Games or any other Scottish event............. Never suggested that Quebec should pay for services across Canada........just in Quebec and the ROC shouldn't have to pay a cent towards maintaining their culture. What would make me happy, would be that all the money that is spent on bilingualism across Canada at the fedral level be stopped, given back to the provinces, and allow the provinces to pay for any bilingual programs on their own.........Hell if you could do it, I'd even let the descision making go to the level of the municipality and school district. If the Provinces were allowed to keep the funding that they pay towards bilingualism, how many of the ten provinces do you think would maintain bilingual programs or instead put that money towards say, healthcare?

And English helps define me as a Canadian, unlike French.......I reckon we covered that. The doesn't change the fact that our Head of State is the Queen of England, not France. Canada was given it's independence form the British Parliment, not the French Republic......and so on. So as a Canadian of Scottish heritage, I should have the right to see Gaelic "reflected in federal institutions and to receive services in it if I see fit"? (that being if I spoke it) I'd hope you wouldn't cry about it.......being and all that the majority of Canadians speak Enlish as their mother tounge, we being a part of the British Commonwealth, and having the majority of our economy rely on our big English speaking neighbour. What purpose does French serve again? Sure you do But I've yet to see why the ROC needs to pay for it..........couldn't French language training be a Province of Quebec expense?

Economically deprived? Define deprived. Would you call Chinese family from Hong Kong, that now lives in West Vancouver deprived? It's called forsight. Which do you think will be a more important language in twenty years, French or one of Asian languages? Sure. How does French define who I am? The only effect the French culture has on me, is that my tax dollars are going to support it. Now if my tax dollars were going to a more useful language, I wouldn't mind as much, but spending money on French language/culture, is about as useful to me as add scam and Canadian film board giving out grants to make movies on how sand fleas mate. Couldn't you substitute French with an Asian language? As I said before, English is useful, French is not. Let's get our priorities straight. Regardless, I've been attending post secondary institutions and have in no way felt "left behind" because I can't speak French...... Disunity? I think it's too late for that. If anything, we should have taken a page form the American book and took on the melting pot approach when it came to language laws Well boo frigging who I'm not saying to force French speaking Canadians to give up their language/culture, infact I'd encourage them to keep it, I just no lnoger wish to pay for it, namely when we have more important maters. Why do they have no merit? Infact, I'd be just as happy with having English as the only official language, then allow families to discuss, then choose the option of what second language (if any) they wanted their children to learn......be it Chinese, Hindi, or French. Why is it that French didn't "spread" across the rest of Canada, in the same mater of English? Could it have something to do with that little old lady on the back of the twenty that wears funny hats? Now explain, as I've been asking, why it is that Canada "must be a bilingual country"? I've got so far the following reasons: Keep Quebec happy, Allow for a more enjoyable vaction to France, and the fulfillment of French books, movies and music. IMHO, none of these reason justify, billions of dollars wasted. And what exactly are you refering to when you mention mataining what we have as Canadians? Defence, debt reduction, education and Healthcare are more important then maintaining one groups culture with government funding. Why should we promote and support French?

Couldn't all that be said about an Asian language? So if we as Canadians are intrested in learning a second language (added to English) why teach French instead of an Asian language? What is, and what has French done to "enhance and enrich" my life, and the lives of most other Anglophones? So far, the reasons for focusing on French in Canada have been to plan for vacations, keep Quebec happy and so we can "enjoy" French movies, books, music........do any of these reasons justifiy the billions of dollars spent on "teaching" a dying language? If we are so intrested funding training for dying languages, why not teach Latin? Cree? Gaelic? Now I ask anybody that is intrested to pretend that they are on the Homeshopping channal or an infomercial, and sell the French language onto this heathen, uncultured redneck.............

I agree with August1991 on this one.......it is kinda pain the arse. I understand the need for feedback.......perhaps a poll or thread?

Very little, I've Indian Friends and a Chinese aunt, but thats about it.........Can't say the same about the "French culture". WRT to "boxed languages" you make it sound as if French is the "kraft dinner of languages", well Chinese and Hindi are a more "complex dish". Should Canadians focus on eating KD because it's easier to make? I don't see the need to learn "another Euro language".........perhaps if vast amounts of immigrents to this country were from Europe, or if Europe made up over one third of the worlds population (China and India), then there might be a case.........the fact is, European culture, namely French is passé, and Asian cultures are the future......... WRT the "large body of literature, cinema and music"........we can translate it. So far, MS made the reason to teach French in our schools to plan for holidays, another person made the case to keep Quebec happy, and your advocating it so as to allow us to read "enjoy" some books, movies and music...... Anymore reasons? And does anybody know how much money has been spent on "making Canada bilingual"? I've heard that it's in the billions........but hey, who needs timely Healthcare or a well funded armed forces, when we can watch French movies on Bravo without the sub-titles.

Simple, look at the little old lady on the back of the twenty.......is she French? When we start exporting over 85% of our goods to a latin country, then I'll be all for increased funding for latin langauge classes...........With that said, I still fail to see the reason that we should focusing on learning a dying langauge. As I said alluded to above, relegating English to a third language won't, nor should happen as long as our Head of State is English and our largest trading partner is English speaking......... So to get back on topic, why should we be teaching French as opposed to a more useful language?

Why? And if we do need a "bilingual education", wouldn't one of Mandarin, Cantonese and Hindi be a better choice than French ? I don't think being bilingual is a bad thing, and I've no real problem with my tax dollars going to langauge classes in schools, but why should we focus on French? Other then, well France (and some of the low countries) where else, other then Canada and the third world, is some French spoken......... If anything, I'd think that our left-wing comrades would be pushing a Chinese language program, so as to project solidarity and help flourish an increased avenue of trade with a growing, socalist economy (and to slowly move away from the great Satan)..... What's French needed for again? To try and annoy the yanks perhaps?

I see what you are saying, but in the case of American requirements vs. ours, I'd rather go for any "overkill" on the cheaper American product, then "underkill" on a Canadian one. I see your point here also, but as I said above (for the most part) the Americans are one (or more) generations ahead in most areas. I rather not buy today's equipment tommorow......... I see what your saying, but I guess we must agree to disagree on turning defence spending into government hand-outs. Are they not safe now? Have we payed more money then it would cost us to build a German or Swedish design? Outshine Aegis? What version? Why are we replacing our current fire control system with a complete different one, as oipposed to upgrading it like the Americans are doing with Aegis? Target tracking? The current radar, unlike Aegis, can't track ICBMs and I'd question if it could track next generation super sonic Russian cruise misslies. Fire Power? The CPF at 5k + plus tons has/will have 16 ESSMs, two quad Harpoon launchers, 57mm gun, CIWS and torpedoes. The Burke at 9k + tons has 96 mk41 VLS cells that can equiped with Standard SM-2 and SM-3, Tomahawk, and ESSM (with just ESSM, the total would be 384!), a 5 inch gun, 2 CIWS, 2 25mm guns and torepdoes. Whats to compare? Such as? .......but still cheaper then buying new and most likely if we didn't get them, our Navy would have none today. Define seconds? We were the first forgein operater of the Hornet.

.........or the idea behind NATO standardization could be that it was to simplify the logitisics train in the time of war Call me crazy. And what needs would those be? We need a Destroyer designed to counter all threats posed towards it from the air, land, surface and sub surface of the sea, and added to it's list recently, the ablitiy to defend against ICBMs. The Americans have that destroyer, and it just so happens to be the best of the best and cheaper and more capable then anything we could build. To be honest, I don't care if there are any "fringe benefits" when it comes to national defence if it means that we are/would be paying more money then nessary on a piece of equipment that is inferior when compared towards an American counterpart. The numbers/results don't lie. The Americans make the best of the best in almost every defence system. You spoke of European defence contractors.......case in point the "new" Eurofighter. This aircraft (along with comparable French and Russian aircraft) have only now been able to start competeing with the American F-15......The F-15 was desigend in the early 70s..... Now perhaps we could arrange some form of industrail offsets if we "buy American". That would be good, but shouldn't be a deal breaker that will force us to "buy Canadian".

And my point still stands........they are fine after a refit, and even if they are 200 million over budget, thats still 2.5-3 billion dollars cheaper then if we purchased "new" subs. How? We set-up a production run for 3-4 Destroyers, how is that going to even match the effeciencies from an American run of over 60. Not to mention the fact that we operate with Americans often, so why not use the exact same equpiment, for the ease of training and logistics (not to mention the increased capablitiy) as the Americans?

Have they not been fixed? HMCS Victoria has just finished her sea trails on the West Coast with no apparent problems. Once the shps have been "Canadainized", I've heard of no problems and any delays in getting the subs into service on time have been caused by tight budgets and lack of crewmen due to the war on terror. And the fact of the mater doesn't change..........they were cheap and we now have three (soon to be four) modern submarines at bargin basement prices....... Why? None of the major Canadian shipbuilders could hold a candle to Northrop Grumman.........infact, all Canadian shipbuilders combined couldn't match Northrop's production...........As I said above, thats why the United States can build cheaper, more capable ships then Canada. I think it was a Polish firm, regardless the point still stands, in that if a private company deems it cheaper to build a flat bottom ferry in Eastern Europe, I can't see how anybody can justify building something as complex as a warship in Canada anymore.

Please explain further. Whats rotten? Whats dangerous? Thats the government's estimate, based on past purchases and current labour costs. Iraq bought and has Soviet tanks and aircraft What hand me downs? What factory seconds? Has there been any major problem reported with the current Diemaco design? 5.56 is the NATO standard.........get over it.

I still don't follow...............over 80% of the planet is water......so?

By all means explain further.........Do you mean the long line-ups were fine? Lousy customer service? The near obsolesces of the entire fleet maybe? I got it, turning a tool that is vital to Islanders into a form of welfare to BC shipbuilders and a pawn for the Unions, is that it?

But at what cost? IOW, whats cheaper paying out EI to ship builders and buying ships overseas or paying additional costs to build them at home and keep a few thousand workers employed? The estimates for the program (CADRE) to replace four of our destroyers are in the ballpark of 5.2 billion dollars CDN or about 4 billion US. That translates into about a billion dollars (US) per ship, in the 5K-6K ton range. Now compare that to the price of an American Burke class destroyer, which are more capable surface combatants then we plan to build, which has a price tag of about 900 million. I'm all for getting a person that wants to work to work, but not if it means paying hundreds of millions (Billions?) of dollars, to purchase an inferior Canadian built product when it comes to defence. We have payed under a billion dollars for four Subs, if we had of built our own or bought them overseas, it would likely have cost close to a billion dollars per sub. We got capable subs for close to 75% off. Whats Ironic about it? I'd call it prudent if we bought cheaper, more capable American ships........

Actually it was the Rainbow and the Niobe. Why should we do mandatory service? Conscription is on the way out in first world nations armed forces. I agree 100%

Alberta NDP

Slander To add to that, I've noticed (just got back from the mainland) that since the BCFC has been privatized that the service is way better........Came home today on the Spirit of British Columbia (and was on her sister last week) and I noticed that the ferries are on time now, I've seen increased safety drills among the crew, the bathrooms are cleaner, the food is better, the terminals and ferries interiors have been improved, and above all the fares have not increased (I think infact that they were slightly cheaper). I've yet to hear any negative stories about the BCFC other then it wants to purchase cheaper ships........

What other defence priorities? The United States Navy is retiring a class of Destroyers slightly earlier and will most likely see a reduction in their SSN fleer and their new Stealth Destroyers. The Air Force will see a reduction in it's F/A-22 Raptor purchase. The Army cancelled the Crusader field gun. The USMC was forced to find cost savings in rebuilding their Huey fleet instead of purchasing a new fleet of Helicopters. Now a single SSN is in the ballpark of 2.5 billion dollars, the new Destroyers over 1.5 billion per, F-22 Raptor well over 150 million per......etc So could the case be made that perhaps additional funding for NMD is coming at the expense of certain conventional weapons systems and opposed to counter terrorism? I wonder if teamed with the Tories, what the number of male voters within the Grits would be? How thick is that limb?

I would like to think so..........there is already talk of Alberta leaving.........I can't see how this feeling wouldn't be compounded into a greater desire to leave.

Was just flicking through the program guide on my TV, and noticed that History Channel is showing a program on the Bre-X scandel tonight at 10pm Pacific time.

Or a bank loan......... How's that? If you choose to believe that the Iraq war was fought over Oil (which I don't), wouldn't it stand to reason that by funding the military, the American people are revieicing the material beneifits of (cheaper) Oil?