CANADIEN

Let's talk about the American who thought his ancestor came on the Mayflower then walked all the way to what is now Ontario during the American Revolution (yep, the same ancestor). He went through the US education system.

Less we forget... Ontarians are forbidden to have English on their business signs, They are denied access to provincial or municipal services in English. There are limits to access to an education in English in Ontario. Whatever.

Considering the garbage you post (remember when you were planningto tell the family of the Greyhound murder victim immigrants were to blame for their loss), I easily understand why there more than a few immigrants who would feel superiror to YOU.

Why bother to reply if you cannot read what you wrote yourself. (...) how you keep writing the same non-sense even though it is debunked each time. But don't worry, I understand you'll never get it.

And YOU support adopting the same type of law in Ontario. The only one supporting implementing Quebec-style language laws on this thread is YOU. Like the Quebec Legislature has done time and time again with French in Quebec.

So... English is not threatened, yes it is under attack... Whatever. But thanks for revealing that the same kinds of laws that exist in Quebec also exist in Alberta. Who would have suspected parking tickets over there were in English only?

Thanks for admitting it. A law that forces people to comply to itself... Whatever. And we'll ignore the fact that the Russell by-law also force users of the French language to have English on commercial signs, right? What is apparent is that English is most definitely not denied equality with French in Ontario. Acting in accordance and as mandated by provincial laws. Acting within their powers, and discriminating (to use your words) against French-speaking residents by mandating that they use English alongside French on business signs Finally, something new. You acknowledge it exists As proven again and again and again, the only thing that looks like Quebec language laws is the type of English-only legislation YOU are promoting, and you are right on one thing - we do not need it in Ontario. That it knows its job, which is to determine the LEGALITY of a government action. The French Language Services Act has never, to my knowledge, being contested in court, for a very good reason... There is nothing in any provincial or federal law or in the Constitution that prevented the Legislative Assembly from passing it. As for the Ottawa by-law, people have gone to court arguing the same non-sense you serve us again and again (that it is discriminatory and beyong the powers of the City Council) and they have lost.

Same old same old Leafless... It is not because YOU are under the false impression that the English language is under threat when another language appears alongside it on a traffic ticket that such threat exists. English is not threatened in this case. And it is most definitely not what the Alberta government is arguing in appealing the judgement. It is arguing whether or not it has an obligation under law to have traffic tickets in both English and French.

The separatist movement really have only four tools they can use to convince the 20-25% swing voters: - "the Anglo hate us and want to destroy and assimilate us": not as popular as it used to be - coming with a question uncleear enough it means many things to many people: came close once with that once, will be more difficult next time - a chraismatic leader: Pauline Marois and Gilles Duceppte are NOT René Lévesque and Lucien Bouchard - making people believe that things will be better after separation: people don't buy separation as the solution to unemployment, global warming, problems in the health system, etc. etc. etc. These are bad days for people who want Quebec out of Canada

Immigrants from Europe would be... immigrants, right? whatever. But feel free to move to Europe right away... and stay there.

Canada has been built through the hard work of people born here and people coming from outside. And about everyone knows that the Liberal Party had historically had a much open policy towards immigrants. Everyone except you, as usual.

They were ordered abolished by Roman EmperorTheodosius I, a Christian, as part of a policy to abolish all traces of paganism. The old Olympics, with their pagan rituals and nudity, were viewed by Christian authors as incompatible with a Christian life.

Canada is not a democracy and we should stop its "immolation" by ending its existence as an independant country. Whatever. But if you ar4e so bent on an European passport, nobody is stopping you from moving there.

Agreed. It is one thing to hate the Olympics and international sporting events. It is another thing all together to blame the modern Olympic Games for atrocities committed during the 20th centiry. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, mao didn't need Lympic Games to do what they did. PS: The first Olympic Games officially recorded were held in 776 BC, and they may be even older than that. They were abolished in 394 AD, and restaured 1502 later. Interestingly enough, one of the numerous attempts at reviving the Games in the late 18th and throughout the 19th took place in... Montreal! The Athletic Games of 1843 were renamed Olympic Games for the 1844 and 1845 editions.

I do not believe that the Government should be the sole founding source for such undertaking; TV networks, private foundations, private business should be inbited and encouraged to pitch in. But should it happen, and should our Government be involved? Most definitely yes. This gives us the opportunity to get and make public more knoweldge on an epic yet tragic chapter of our history. Information gathered may also help us understand even more our Nordic environment and how climate change affects it. Finally, it would help bolster both our presence in the Arctic and our territorial claims.

I personnally don't care if a dictatorial regime (talking about the Chinese Government) feels offended that our PM didn't show up. That being said, the next Olympics are in 2010 in Vancouver. It would make sens for Harper to be in Beijing wooing and smoozing the IOC and foreign press and officials.

Making the process easier for people who have proven they have what it takes to become Canadians is prostituting the country... says the guys who thinks Aboriginals don't have a language... whatever. For once, here's a move on immigration that makes sense. If the person is already here in a temporary status and has skills needed and is obeying our laws, it does not make sense to tell them "leave for six months, then we'll tell you you can come back". Next steps - reforming family class immigration and streamlining the refugee process so that it takes months instead of years.

And the NDP is so cluueless they don't even know it.

You hate China that much?

And it is exactly from reading it - instead of interpreting through anti-immigrant filters that most of us don't think he's blaming Canada.

Let's not get confused here. YOU are the one who has blamed Canada, or more exactly the immigration system, for a senseless tragedy, Bad ebough that you bring immigrant-bashing to new low (to propose writing to the famiily of the victim to tell them the immigration system is to blame... cannot be a lot more disgusting like that).

What's wrong is using a senseless tragedy as an excuse.

Wal-Mart is the world largest public corporation by Revenue (Fortune Global 500, 2008). Looks to me like they are making money. On the other end,, members of the Walton family (who own most of the shares) seem to be falling on hard times. At least three or four of them used to be among the top 10 on Forbes' magazine list of American billionaires, and the top 20 on Forbes' worldwide list. Nowadays, they are barely in their mid-teens and early thirties respectively. Must be all those unions. And Wal-mart has a long history of bending and even breaking the rules to avoid unions at all cost, short of actually pulling out of an entire market (even then, local labour laws and relations is one possible reason why Wal-mart pulled out completely from the German markets, and there were rumours in 2005 that Wal-Mart was considering pulling out completely from Quebec unless there was a change in labour laws.

Not sure on that one; you may be right.

The Canada Labour Code applies to federally regulated employers (such as the bank). In the case of Wal-Mart stores in Quebec, the Quebec Labour Code applies. Mind you, it basically says the same anyways. As for the key issue at hand, I, like most people, do not believe the closure of the Jonquière store just after its employees unionized to be a coincidence.