CANADIEN

I mean two NATIONAL LANGUAGES. Unlike you, I don't need to be reminded of what I wrote half of the time. The fact that they are also official languages is simply a recognition of that reality.

Except for the FACT it proves you wrong. Well at least you have the common sense not to deny FACTS that prove official bilingualism was not born with Trudeau. Not all hope is lost.

I would recommend against it. You would be missing some great (involuntary) comedy routines.

To be added to the list: starting in 1849, all laws of the Legislature of the Province of Canada where published in English and French. Warning to Leafless, the link is both English and french And in case Leafless is tempted to dismiss all that you mentioned because it was before Confederation, there is of course the Constitution Act of 1867, the Manitoba Act of 1870, the North West Territories Act of 1877. Actually, the Britsh Government did follow Lord Durham`s program. the Union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841 was designed to bring the assimilation of the french-speaking population. Both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were given the same number of members in the new Legislative Assembly in order to put the Francophones in a minority situatuion, even though the French-speaking population of the United Canada was (until the 1850's) higher than the Anglophone population. Use of the French language in the Legislative Assembly or int he laws of the new colony was prohibited. (Un)fortunately, French-speaking members of the Legislature just kept igoring this disposition and the rest is history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_the_Affairs_of_British_North_America Too bad for him (and for you) that it didn't work. French speaking CANADIANS just wouldn't get along with being assimilated. Yep

Clueless once again. Except for people to use English only when conducting business, English to be proclaimed the sole Official language of Ontario, no government services whatsoever in French outside Quebec, etc., etc., etc. Apart from the fact that very idea would be a violation of the rights of English-speaking CANADIANS living in Quebec, I don't believe that's your position.

Indeed, how dared anyone ask you to know our country two NATIONAL languages when you already have a hard time using one.

Nice way of NOT responding to the FACTS I wrote. and as I said countless times before, I am actually an extra-terrestrial bent of destroying Canada as a first step in conquering your pathetic little planet. MWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Now, let's be fair to the man. That was written two years ago... He hardly has a clue of what he wrote two days ago.

Correction... She is a lawyer who is famous for being a polemist... including making absurd statements, more often than not hateful or bigoted.

I am not an immigrant and my language is not foreign, but that's beside the point. I too have seen plenty of people perfectly capable of speaking English (or French) who revert to another language when having a private conversation, even in such public spaces as the subway, the water cooler or the grocery store. And guess what, unless I have reason to believe it's about me or unless I want to involve myself in their conversation, I don't care what language they actually use. Because it IS NOT MY FREAKING BUSINESS. You don't have a clue about it? Your problem. About 23% of the population of Canada is Francophone. Yep, I know you don't like it, but Quebec is part of Canada. As for the one thing here that would qualify as Nazi-like, or more exactly as something out of 1960 Mississippi, it is your belief that members of minority groups are inferior. Unfortunately (for you), I am your equal.

Actually, it is because he does that he, and anyone who has a clue, cannot see the non-existant corruption you whine about. The one person here who has no concept, or clue, about what actually hapened, it`s YOU. There was nothing free in legislation that banned the French language from schools or provincial legislature. That you won't even try to challenge that FACT is telling. Most importantly, close to one quarter of Canadians are proving each and every day that English is not the only language of business and communications in Canada.

Me neither... And there were probably more in the past. looks like one case where the parents just like the school (maybe not even for religious reasons in some cases), while other ones may have fallen due to lack of enrolment or just deciding to join the public system. That being said, the guarantees under section 93 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 seem to apply to Roman Catholic School Boards only, not (technically) to a Protestant Board. That being said, I doubt that the Government would go and cut funding to one Portestant Board if they are not willing to do anything about the Catholic Boards.

It does. We could play semantics about what is the exact meaning of equal funding. Let's the facts talk from themselves. Actually, the reason why Separate boards could levee money through property was that public Boards already could do the same, under the Education Act of 1859. Actually, it is very clear what the share is to be, that is proportional to the school population. If, let`s say, provincial funding for a public school in a given municipality with 50 students was $250 ($5 per student), provincial funding for a separate school in the same locality with 20 students had to be $100. The problem here is that you ignore (or don't know) what Davis did exactly, and the historical background to it. There is a (painfully long) explanation in the reference heard by the Supreme Court in 1987 on the extension of dunding, but to summarize: Under the Act of 1861, and therefore under Section 93 of the Constitutional Act, guarantees regarding Catholic schools in Ontario applied to ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS only, that is up to Grade 6. In a 1929 judgement(Tiny vs the King), the (British) Privy Council decided that, since Continuation Schools (that is, Grade 7 to 9) were (at the time) a continuation of elementary schooling, the provisions regarding funding had to be extended to those grades as well; the same judgement, though, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement for funding beyond Grade 9. What Davis do was to extend funding to Grades 10 to 12. (BTW, in the SCC decision in the 1987 reference case, the majority concluded that a right to funding of separate schools up to Grade 12 existed in 1867 (I disagree beyong Grade 9) and that in any case nothing in the Constitution prevented funding up to Grade 12 (and indeed, there is nothing preventing it). In 2010, funding for one (or more) religious school systems but not other systems in indeed discriminatory. One cannot ignore, however, why this was done in the first place - to protect a minority against what was, a the time, a clearly hostile school system. That this kind of protection is no longer needed today - therefore removing the one justification was keeping the status quo - does not change the fact that the rights and priviledges granted in the Constitution should be interpreted and understood with their intent in mind. As for the isue of what rights and priviledges were granted exactly, it is not irrelevant as it impacts on the way the public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario (or separate schools in Alberta or Sakskatchewan) can be terminated. If there were no Constitutional guarantee regarding funding, all the Provincial Legislatures would need to do is to cut funding all together (and face getting the majority of Catholics voting against any party proposing this). Since there is a Constitutional guarantee, the Constitution has to be amended through a vote of the Provincial Legislature and the Federal parliament.

Indeed, my bad. I was under the unfounded impression that there was no separate system in these two provinces prior to 1905. I've learned something. The only weight the UN opinion carries is that they happen to be right on the mark, amongst with many others, regarding the FACT that funding situation is discriminatory. So feel free to find ways to dismiss them, it will not change the central fact - they are right.

He already has trouble with the English language. As for the thing about jobs... The real thing is that Leafless, and those like him, cannot accept the fact that French-speaking Canadians are no longer considered by law (federal, at least) to be second-class citizens. Too bad (for him that is).

For the interest of space-saving, I won't copy the string of letter again. That being said, the letters are indeed an insult to the intelligence. If they were to be believed, there would be a sinister plot to make New Brunswick an unilingual French-speaking society or even (wait for this) annex New Brunswick and eastern Ontario to Quebec by stealth or by force. Letters from Santa Claus to little children are more credible than this. My favorite complaint though is this: (warning to Leafless: the following is meant to make fun of what is a most ricidulous complaint) Two individuals talk to each other in French during their break, and that's part of scheme to chase Anglophones from their workplace? And all those years I was mistakenly believing that it was just, oh the naiveté, having a conversation in French. Such injustice cannot go unpunished. New Brunswick, and Ontario, should have laws guaranteeing the RIGHT to an English-speaking only workplace, including penalities for anyone who dares using another language. But wait, doesn't Quebec has such a law already? And aren't such laws Nazi-like? Oh well, there is no need for this kind of laws in Ontario or New Brunswick... as long as the Frenchies know their place and keep their language to their homes.

Provinces other than Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland did not have a separate school system at the time of Confederation. As for Quebec and Newfoundland, they had to get a Constitutional amendment to abolish confessional school systems.

Nice, coming from the clown whose every posting is an insult to intelligence. Soo... French-language signs at post offices are the reason for your problems with the English language?

Soo, somebody who points out to your poor handling of your own mother language is gay by definition?

Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867states. So indeed, the word money does not appear. That being said, sub-section 93(1) states: .As for the rights of priviledges existing at the time, and therefore protected by the Constitution, the Act to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada certain rights in respect to Separate Schools (S. Prov. C. 1863, 26 Vict., c. 5 (Scott Act)) stated: It is clear that the Constitution guarantees Catholic schools in Ontario the same level of government funding as as for Public schools.

The extension of the funding to secondary schools was contested in court, and upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada

The treaty of Paris guaranteed the right of Catholics to practice their religion "as far as the laws of Great Britain permit", at a time when itwas illegal to be a Catholic in Great Britain (!) (text of the treaty) TheQuebec Act of 1774gave freedom of religion to Roman Catholics, but said nothing about school rights.

I mean discriminatory against non-Catholics. Indeed, section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867protected Roman Catholic schools in Ontario, and Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in Quebec. But then, there is also section 93(A), an amendment dating from 1997, which removed that protection in the case of Quebec. Since then, Quebec`s Catholic and Protestant school systems have been scrapped. An opinion from an UN body carries no legal weight, that's a fact. Does not change the fact that they are right... what we have here is discrimination. You want to dismiss their opinion, come with something much better than "they carry no weight".

Actually, it is not empty, since it demonstrates that the current situation while constitutional, is clearly discriminatory against non-Catholics.