Molly

What's wrong with it is simply practicality. We already (rightly) spend a great deal of money on language accommodation, but universal multilingualism is .... not within reach. There's not enough money in this country to accomplish it, and absolutely certainly not the will. I'd go farther and say it isn't even desireable, given what would be lost in the process. I have reply to a couple of your comments... primarily the suggestion that a monolingual would be wise not to move beyond their own borders. That is false. To be disadvantaged and to choose to remain so... not wise at all. But equally false is the assumption that one should be able to move beyond ones borders and remain unilingual. Those who would choose not to learn to communicate with their fellows well deserve such disadvantage as that inability visits upon them.. yet your comments are full of that assumption. The doors are open to us all. We choose individually whether we walk through them or not. And this: " One thing that frustrates many Quebecers is foriegners who get their citizenship in English outside Quebec and try to settle in Montreal's English suburbs. This forces the market to know English, and thus puts pressure on Quebec schools to teach english too." To which I reply: 'And the problem with this is...? ' And: "After all, all is not equal in pilot and ATC applicants. English speakers clearly have the edge." Since English is the language of air traffic well beyond Canada, isn't that insanely obvious? English speakers do NOT have the edge when it comes to working oilpatch in Niger, or reading the French language news, or getting a job at the post office! Either you have the tools to do the job or you don't. Get them, or be poorly qualified!

But where, Machjo, does all of that place the onus? Is it LESS disorienting and off-putting for an Anglophone to hear their prime minister speaking in French? Would I, a unilingual anglophone, be more employable in francophone Quebec than a francophone would be in anglophone Canada? Is the francophone worldview less dissimilar to the anglophone worldview than the anglophone worldview is to the francophone? Is it easier for 25 million anglophones to learn French so as to understand the issues of 6 or 7 million francophones than it would be for 6 or 7 million francophones to learn English, and so grasp the iperspective of the 25 million? I still insist that language isn't really the barrier. Language is merely a communications tool, a useful skill set. It can be set aside and lost in less than a single generation; where usefulness is concrete, it can be picked up- more easily for some than for other, but functionally, in quite short order. It has been falsely elevated. Language is, as Argus suggested, a tertiary or beyond, concern, and IMV, the greater 'segregation' problem lies in a worldview that demands artificial segregation. .... As well, you identify yourself as an exception to an assertion that bilingual folk would feel a greater sense of national identity. I truly doubt that you are the exception, but rather share the common experience. My own experience, anecdotal as it is, would suggest something of a transcendance from nationalism goes with multilingualism- an abandonment of tribalism/parochialism in favor of global citizenship- a casting off of local identity.

Machjo... where to begin? Boy, do we EVER start out with a different set of assumptions! Top of mind things: a century of hard effort would not make Canada on the whole as francophone as Ottawa is today, so if a unilingual francophone can't go to Ottawa and find a job, then that person is just plain unemployable, and should be seeking those skills that would make them employable. This area, near the GTA, has many, many people who are fluent in neither official language. I am more likely to hear German, or Tamil, or Dutch, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish... on the street than I am to hear French, even though my next door neighbour and dear friend recieved much of her education just outside of Paris; even though family members work internationally primarily in French; even though one of my oldest friend lives and works (in French) in Quebec; even though family members are languages instructors; on and on.... Quebec already controls much of its own foreign policy, and fully controls it's own education system. Bottom line: Quebec's isolation, , both the language based parts and the the culturally espoused parts, is 100% self-imposed. French itself is not an especially useful second language for most of ROC, official or not. That makes it something of an irrelevancy in terms of net personal gain for seeking it out to learn. Those combined facts render much of the whole French/English thing into more of a local, rather than national, issue.

Well expressed, Tango.

This is a definite thread hijack here, but 'Alberta' is developing a serious reputation for being out-and-out obnoxious- rude, obstructive, arrogant, no pretence to either civility or rationality.... no pretence to fair play. A bit of a snarling dog, aware only of the moment... tied absolutely to the conduct/attitudes of our current federal government, particularly to the most odious, off the edge parts of it... (This too shall pass.) I say this not to offend, but to ask whether Albertans are aware of it, and if so, whether they cultivate it (I suspect they do. Some anyway.) , to suggest that it also invites a lot of blowback, since so much of politics is emotional and reactionary, and to wonder why it would be so cultivated? Fact is, it's running provincial credibility into the dumpster.

Aye, Hydraboss. From where I sat- just across the border in oilpatch Saskatchewan, the anger was directed specifically at Trudeau, and more generally at that central Canadian complacency and overwhelming sense of entitlement- less at the Liberal party. My own feelings about Trudeau are mixed. I admire some of his actions, but his grasp of and concern for the well-being of Canada ended at Wawa. The fact is Mulroney wasn't better on that front, and this current Conservative flock, the pendulum overswing, aren't even mainstream at home. I'd happily have Chretien back, warts and all. (What odds that much of Canada would?)

Um ... let's just say that I saw enough of it before the turn of the century to last me a lifetime. Honestly, you really only have to watch the NEP saga one time. I have a lot of sympathy with that sensitivity, and the long-standing anger that rose from it. (The most dramatic incident, but still only one instance on a long list.) I have a standing theory that the real reason the long gun registry hits such a nerve has much less to do with guns than it has to do with reasonable comments/proposals/objections being dismissed out of hand- damn the torpedoes and call you a name. You don't really p*** people off by honestly disagreeing with them. You rile them by dismissing their POV as irrelevant. It has a familiar feel to it.

Do what you have to do, but be sure to plan on that Montreal /Sarnia line flowing west at dead full capacity for as long as you are priced out of all the markets that reverse maneouvre was intended to reach.

I'm no darned expert on pipelines, but I believe you are mistaken, Hydraboss. Yes, western gas comes this way, but yes, western oil comes this way, too. In fact, if the line connecting Montreal and Sarnia is reversed again, as Enbridge was proposing, then Ontario runs the risk of being almost entirely dependent on western oil in general, Alberta oil in particular. I wouldn't stake my life on that understanding, but I'd put a fiver on it. Google time.

Or just offer a provincial fuel tax rebate to residents, if you are picky about Albertans directly getting cheaper fuel, instead of just having the benefit of that money in provincial general revenue... Either way, seems pointless to me. Albertans are already getting the benefit of local oil--- why reinvent the taxation wheel just to drive that point home?

I find two-price systems problematic, regardless of which end they are intended to subsidize, Hydraboss.

That's the 'pipeline' that would somehow force the folks in Sarnia to pay Alberta price, instead of world price, for oil. THAT's the one we should shut down. ;o)

That's the usual 'every province for itself/every man for himself'. Typical. A random, piecemeal approach isn't exactly efficient, especially when you consider the potential scale of energy projects. It was, for instance, federal involvement that built the pipeline to Sarnia to provide a market for Alberta oil, back when the world wasn't so thirsty for it as it is now. The federal government also has quite a bit to do with nuclear power generation, and needs to have a great deal to do with green energy programs. Any new large hydorelectric projects would likely use a great deal of federal money and organization and be built on federal land... The feds have a big hand in R&D, and even consumption standards.... Be that as it may, just the question of assured energy supplies, and what environmental and lifestyle price we are willing to pay to have it means that some serious thought ought to be put into it-- nationally, not piecemeal provincially/locally.

LOL We could always shut down the pipeline, and buy it from Venezuela... or Newfoundland.

But even you, Hydraboss, must admit that a healthy portion of the venom coming from Alberta is just a filthy habit in the style of 'Damn the CPR!' Some portion of the bitching is justified-- I could even say well justified, because the (tyranny of the) majority really comes from a position of blissful unawareness of western concerns and/or hardships. It can be very difficult to break through central Canadian complacency and self-importance to create awareness that Canada extends far beyond, and is much more diverse than the GTA. But some of it is just bitching for the sake of bitching. Alberta is a far shot from 'picked on'.

There's a lot more to 'energy' than oil, Hydraboss, and the national government has a big role to play.

A two price system for an export commodity? So who takes the hit on the difference? I'd be seriously PO'ed if forced to take less from you for my product, than from the guy just behind you in the line. Albert/Sask/NL would take mighty unkindly to it, and be well justified. Or an export tax to force down domestic prices? NAFTA pretty much precludes that, but even if it didn't, see above.

The strategies you cite, Machjo, would be great, if applied exclusively in urban areas. (That makes them a more likely local, not federal, issue. ) Gasoline is not a luxury to be heavily taxed to discourage its use (like alcohol, or tobacco)... but many of the machines that use it, are. I could certainly see a very, very steep urban-address surtax on vehicles and fuel, and an equally steep surtax on gas-guzzling 'toys', like snowmobiles and jet-skis.... The truth is, urban planning leaves a LOT to be desired. Segregating the places people work from the places they live-- which clearly is normal practice-- creates the need for personal substantial- distance-transportation. It's not the rural people who have an hour and a half daily commute to work. Their workplace is just outside their front door! The schools, hospitals and other services that are unnecessarily concentrated in some town or city ? miles away, though... they must commute to those.

Yes, CAW does say, and think, that it's 'just a negotiation', but I figure they've fatally misread the situation. But, Historybuff... some investments pay back handsomely, and the auto industry is one that has done so.

Oh, get REAL!!!! CLASSIC delusions of credibility!!! Irrelevancies that have no credible foundation, and no supporting evidence often get ignored. Call it 'resort(ing) to institutionally silencing the opposition' if you wish... but no one is much bothering with the green cheeze moon hypothesis, either.

Mcguinty's number was $22 billion per annum from Ontario. I figure it's the price we pay for being part of a nation. (I can see it now--- the landlocked nation of Alberta, 3.5 million lonely souls- 2.5, if all the Saskatchewanians go home- operating on the principle of 'every man for himself', all that overwrought insularity and obstructive grumpiness fully expressed... A ch-ch-ch-charming place to visit. )

How many scientists do I know, Betsy? Quite a few, actually. Father-in-law had a design role and a working place in the control rooms during the Apollo missions, for one. There's a couple of upper atmospheric phsyicists I count as friends, a bunch of geologists and a whack of paleontologists... a handful who are into nuclear energy. I know a whole collection of soil scientists (my brother being one) , and plant geneticists.... a few chemists.... an increasing number of environmental researchers: son-in-law was engaged in fisheries research until recently for example, and daughter took part in an ecological survey of the Grand Canyon a few years ago... so yeah, I know quite a few scientists. But no, I have never met David Suzuki-- though just like you, I know OF him. Now that I've answered the question, why is it of interest? Any fool who is at all interested in the world is AWARE of the work of any number of scientists, none of whose lifes work even faintly addresses the ID 'camp', or responds to it at all unless they are directly asked- maybe not even then. The people who actively oppose ID are those who are particularly interested in education and or politics (rather than specifically science) , and don't want our system hijacked (and trashed) by religious zealots, trying to replace evidence-based critical thinking with ignorant, fanciful guesses and resolute faith in myth. Can you show an example of scientists who make a career of debunking ID, to play foil to the likes of Behe? ..................... Science seeks truth, so intelligent critique is not just welcome, but sought out. It is as much a victory to discover that a premise is incorrect as to have it confirmed! That's the very nature of the beast-- to question everything, to happily abandon that which is disproved, and in peeling away that which is false, hopefully to find those things that are true. In many ways that IS antithetical to religion, which presumes to know everything in advance of the question. You address science as though it is founded in the same principles as religion, but the two are a universe apart. Science bears scrutiny, and thus is meaningful to all. Religion cannot bear scrutiny, and thus is meaningful only to those who practice it.

Two camps intensely at one another? That sounds like delusions of credibility to me. Religion masquerading as science convinces no one but the religious, and only those among the religious community who wouldn't know science from football. In the end they effect the science community only as an annoyance-- after all, they are as persistent as they are preposterous. While we can all think of religionists devoting all their energy in attacking science (Behe, for instance) I can think of no scientist who devotes more than a heavy sigh and a roll of the eyes to the creationists, swatting away those falsehoods when they are presented, but not, by any means, seeking them out. They have better things to do, more interesting things to deal with. The real enemy/opposite number of the ID folk are the ones like me, who will never be convinced, and find the attempt as intrusive and offensive as finding another brand of unwelcome religionists knocking at my door. They are courting backlash. (This is some of it.)

LOL Did you understand that authours message? That the ideologically-driven ID team, by critiquing intensely, more solidly flesh out and confirm the very thing they are trying to tear down? Your choice of excerpt was amusing.