Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Oh groovy baby... yeah... | Main | Blood on the tracks »

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Dean calls a spring election?

Did I hear that correctly? Howard Dean in his remarks to the Canadian Branch Plant Party of the American Democrats, also known as Liberals, (thanks Paul Wells) kept referring to an election in the spring. I was actually  away from the living room TV in the kitchen doing stuff, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Did the date for the next Canadian election come from the House of Representatives or the Senate?

Update: I just checked the published speech released by the Liberals and didn't see a mention of what I thought I heard. Anyhoo, peeps can comment on the speech.

Update: CTV video link. No biggie, but I was right. Dean breaks off script after "Nor should we ever cede a single voter. Not a single one." And after applause, at moment 8:40 on the CTV tape he says, "I can tell you guys sure are going to win in spring, you are... we're going to win." At 16:04 Dean says, "Whenever there is a big election, and particularly one where there is a big power shift--the kind we had a few weeks ago, and the kind your Liberal Party is going to have in the spring elections..."

Posted by Kevin Steel on November 29, 2006 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dean calls a spring election?:


Was he frothing at the mouth?

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-11-29 8:39:53 PM

"Did the date for the next Canadian election come from Congress or the Senate?"

If it came from the Senate, then it came from Congress. The Senate is a part of Congress. You likely meant to say, "Did the date for the next Canadian election come from the House of Representatives or the Senate?" But to say that, one would have to know how the American government is structured.

"Update: I just checked the published speech released by the Liberals and didn't see a mention of what I thought I heard."

One more reason, then, that you should really stick to washing dishes and leave the political commentary for those who pay attention and those who know something about the structures of governments.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-29 8:57:35 PM

Maybe you're right, Mark (about sticking to doing dishes). So I chopped my little joke off the post (just to let people know what Mark is referring to in his first quote). Thing is, I really thought I heard it.

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2006-11-29 9:02:23 PM

Its just too bad that Ms Parrish wasn't at the Libfest (I couldn't bring myself to calling it the Libin for the obvious reason that I have too high a regard for WS's founding editor)
I'm sure it would have been quite an imaginary spectacle to see her throwing Dean to the floor and trouncing all over his head in the true fashion of one of her Liberal Anti-American protests.
Ahh,I do believe that I suffer from an overactive immagination!

Posted by: Simon | 2006-11-29 9:10:40 PM

Dean said "Spring election" twice that I heard.
Dullest speech I ever heard. Noticed many never clapped once.
Nothing new for the Liberals to edit the printed version . Of course the Liberal Propaganda machine , the MSM will follow tomorrow that it was not said.

Posted by: Fred Clark | 2006-11-29 9:39:48 PM

Right you are, Fred. I have just updated the post to include a video link and my transcription of the quotes.

[Update: and in honour of Mark Logan, I have reinstated my joke with his correction. See guys? This is why we welcome critics; they actually help correct my stupid mistakes.]

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2006-11-29 10:06:06 PM

Thank goodness for Logan, the fact/typo checker of this site is on the job, appreciate your fine efforts Marky my boy, thanks again.

Posted by: Loganville: Home of the Ass | 2006-11-29 10:20:20 PM

Mark Clouseau ... Blog inspector and knower of all things political. One boring guy.

Take a page from Trudeau's late life discovery and try getting laid. You can do it with a girl.

You might like it and spend less time pissing everyone off around here.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-29 10:28:23 PM

If the Conservatives tried to run a crew like these Liberals running for leadership, and had an American give the opening blessings no less - they would be vilified by the Red Star in Toronto, the Mop & Pail, the Commie Boredcasting Corp and CTV snoozenet. But alas, they're all trying to pretend it's a meaningful love-in. Eeeew!

ps. Watched Boob Rae on TV being asked about Afghanistan - and he reveals for everyone that he professes to know absolutely nothing about the mission - he doesn't seem to know why they're there, why they were sent, what they're doing - nothing! Completely ignorant! He dribbles on about questions he has, wants to chat in Parliament etc.

Bob Rae could be a moron, or completely naive, or perhaps he just doesn't follow the Canadian political scene - in any case, like the voters of Ontario found out, he is not a competent leader.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-11-29 11:50:03 PM

I am as shocked as everyone else must be in Canada. United States is now calling our election dates!! In Canada...in the nation of the Quebecois...in the city of Montreal...I am not making this up...I heard it at the Liberano$ convention! Are the Liberano$ so broke that they are selling our sovereignty to Howard Dean's country? We should be very afraid....

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-11-30 12:25:33 AM

Did Dean happen to mention the fact the liberals were ousted in disgrace less than a year ago?...or is he also pretending the past never happened.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-30 12:56:56 AM


Mark L. is technically correct on his point and it is good that you have corrected it. Yet when most of us saw your post, we, like Mark, knew exactly what you meant.

In US print media, the title is almost always given as "Rep xxx D/R StateName". However, in asking questions, reporters will often ask "Congress(wo)man xxxxxx, will you comment on...". It is true that a House Representative is a Congress(wo)man; it is also true that a Senator is but a Senator is never addressed as such. Much less frequently, it is also true the term Congress used by the media erroneously refers only to the House; it is possible you actually did hear the term "Congress" used in that context.

Therefore, your error is real, yet fully understandable by those who not only know about the US Constitution but also are aware of US current events as reported by US media.
One example of my point: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-30 4:27:44 AM

Dean was Governor of the State of Vermont and a world champion class shit disturber, also well known to the former New Brunswick Preem Frank McKenna - Executive Director Liberal Party Of Canada was a flunky in McKenna's offices in Moncton NB and went into Ottawa directly from ACOA. Dean is doing exactly what the Liberal Ottawa Crowd are focused on
an obscure U.S. Politician making media headlines
in Canada, but no media in the real world will bother to report any comment Dean makes.In fact in New York and Boston I don't think they are aware of "Canadian Politics
one of my kids who works in New York thinks Harper played guitar for Blue Rodeo. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-30 4:51:19 AM

There won't be much room left under the table after these phony hacks and hangers on get through with their speeches. No mention of the corruption and lies of course. All we can hope for is the voters don't suffer from mass amnesia when/if Dean's prediction of Spring election comes to pass.

The Libranos don't have a very high opinion of the average voters when they assume they can be duped by crap spewed from the mush of American Howie Dean of all people.
Rae says "we can't afford Stephen Harper in office any longer than he's there", WHAT THE HELL DOES HE MEAN BY THAT ONE?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 6:10:28 AM

Liz I think the Liberal Party of Canada will be badly fractured after the Montreal Debacle, now they are having a fight about who speaks first tonight Chretien or Martin! As Oscar Wilde said of "Little
Nell" - "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh" The worst moment for any political party is that early morning after, when they realize the
Public who are after all the final arbitrator, "do
not trust us" - which in November 2006 is indeed
a fact!. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-30 6:23:56 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Brent. Truth be told, I was yakking on the phone to this guy
an American, as I was typing out the post (as I've said before I should really stop doing that, talking on the phone and writing at the same time). So I could have easily checked with him, but didn't. The fact that Dean was even addressing the Liberal convention Lott found hilarious, so that was kinda distracting. (So my excuse is typically Canadian; when in doubt, blame an American. :) Damn you! Jeremy Lott!)

btw No one in the Canadian MSM this morning seems to have quoted Dean's spring election remarks, or his "we're going to win" line. The spring election reference, well, Dean could have picked that up in the hallways, or quickly asked someone on the way to the podium, "When's the next election?" to which the reply would have been "Probably in the spring" based on various news reports that have carried that speculation. Then Dean may have just been improvising based on habit built up from the certainty of fixed American elections dates.
The "we're going to win" is the more telling remark, in my opinion. It does underscore some of the criticism that preceded the speech, that the Liberals have always accused the Conservatives of being too close to the US, and here they are cozying up to Americans in a way the Conservatives never have.

"We're going to win" shows a closer affiliation of political parties than I previously realized. This is not an affiliation necessarily of values and ideologies--note the resurgence of conservative Democrats in the November US elections, or the fact that Dean himself has been consistently endorsed by the NRA (which the Liberals apparently loathe)--but seems to be one of politics, strategies of striving for power.

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2006-11-30 6:27:23 AM

'Caught the last seven minutes or so of Howard Dean's speech to the Liberal Leadership Convention delegates last night. I'm afraid it's all I could stomach, but I may have to buck up and watch the Convention this weekend, just to find out and counter what lies and damned lies the Libs are likely to tell.

Dean didn't seem to have a clue about our politics here in Canada. He dissed Canada's and the U.S.'s engagements in the ME, to approving applause from the hypocrite Librano$, who sent our troops there in the first place, and then went on and on about opposing parties "working together." 'Guess he doesn't know the Librano$, a Party not in any way interested in working with the CPC for the good of the country.

As Dean droned on and on about being less partisan, something the U.S. politcos are talking about, I had to laugh, or I would have cried. He obviously has NO IDEA about the Libs going only for power, AT ANY COST.

To add insult to injury, the Commie Boredcasting Corp (LOL, Philanthropist) were in the bleachers cheerleading all night for the Liberal contenders. Diana Swain, while interviewing a former Liberal Cabinet Minister ('can't recall his name), had a comradely arm on his shoulder through the whole interview. I was trying to picture her interviewing Stock Day or Peter MacKay with the same chummy gesture: only when Hell freezes over.

This Convention feels like a fake, which is what happens, I guess, when a see-how-great-we-are gathering is just a phoney facade to hide the depths of the Librano$' corruption and the total dearth of policies of any gravitas during their 13-year-long rule.

The CBC ran a whole "let's look back at the Liberal Party's past glories," because it's obvious that with this Party, it's pretty hard to look forward given their lack of principles and policies. They dragged out footage of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's crowning in 1968, reminding me once again, if I needed reminding, why I never voted for him. I smelled a rat way back then and I was not yet 20 years old. Something I can be proud of!

Who will rid us of all of this chicanery?

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 7:02:46 AM

Belinda's tresses are getting blacker by the day, do we have a Rona Ambrose wannabe here?
Don't know if Rona would be flattered by the imitation but it'll take a little more than a dye job methinks, including $$$$$$.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 7:04:21 AM

Liz, speaking of BS: Her vacuous stupidity never ceases to amaze me. She has a one-track "the Liberal Party is compassionate and reaches out and we need one delegate/one vote," yada, yada, yada. Don Newman was very careful not to ask her any question she'd have trouble answering which, I guess, is why John Manley was on with her. Babysitting.

Bimbo Stronach, and I'm not stretching a centimetre for this one.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 7:16:34 AM

Give me a break:

This is a headline posted on CBC's Web site vis a vis Justin Trudeau: "Delegates stop to chat and buff the crown of the Trudeau crown prince."

That's rich: son of commie, anti-monarchy PET being groomed to be the new "crown prince."

Excuse me while I go and throw up.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 7:19:18 AM

How about those Social Justice workshop delegates voted to lower the age of consent for anal sex, (13/14)? and legalize marijuana , it passed, we'll hear not more about it THEY HOPE, the dirty bastards.
No doubt the two go well together, one takes the pain from the other.
What kind of front page coverage would the Conservatives get for such depraved stuff?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 7:20:48 AM

And, as someone somewhere pointed out, not one word about ensuring accountability and preventing corruption. They are un-reconstructed and thus doomed in the elections this spring.

Posted by: Gord Tulk | 2006-11-30 7:34:37 AM

To all of you making jest above, keep in mind these shrieking clowns and their useful idiots the MSM, just finished conning the American public into putting them in power.

Central Canada has a long history, from Trudeau up to Martin, of being easily conned, so do not discount them.

Although it will put the last nail in the coffin of this rapidly failing country, and as laughable as it may seem, this absolute blatant clown act who has never wavered in the polls has a real chance.

Although it makes one sick to the stomach, particularly the coronation of baby Trudeau as the new messiah, this is what central Canada envisages as the future of this country.

Still feel good about the future of this grand "nation"?

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-30 7:36:05 AM

"Belinda's tresses are getting blacker by the day, do we have a Rona Ambrose wannabe here?
Don't know if Rona would be flattered by the imitation but it'll take a little more than a dye job methinks, including $$$$$$."
Posted by: Liz J | 30-Nov-06 7:04:21 AM

Q: What do you call it when a Blonde dyes her hair Brunette?

A: Artificial Intelligence!

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-30 7:42:42 AM

deepblue, 'am in agreement. Just because this carney convention is such a pile of crap doesn't mean that the duped, sleep-walking, zombie-voters in Canada won't re-elect the Librano$ in the next election.

Sad, isnt it? Sad Canada.

'Just to let you know that there are a handful of us, here in Ontario, who don't go along with the central Canada BS. There are a few of us who have been awake and trimming our wicks, and we're just wondering where we go after the next election if the Liberals are voted back in. I've told my husband we'll have to get outta here if that happens.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 7:42:54 AM

As much as you might hate it, we need you to stay there and take one for the team. Living in Ontario, your vote counts more than those of us out here west of T-Bay. I guess if you *have* to leave, try finding some space in Cowtown?

Posted by: Smarty Pants | 2006-11-30 8:04:47 AM

Smarty Pants,
Alberta will leave Canaduh if the Libs even get a minority government.

There are plenty of homes for sale in Calgary.

Take one for the team?
What team are you referring to?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-30 8:12:41 AM

John Ivison in the National Post reports on the Liberal convention,

"(at) the Soclal Justice workship, delegates voted to lower the age of consent for anal sex and legalize marijuana."

Apparently this scandalous action of a large number of Liberals isn't newsworthy enough for the mainstream media. Imagine if it had been a CP convention.

Posted by: JFJ | 2006-11-30 8:44:49 AM

Stepping out of the Canadian media twilight zone! Well, momentarily anyway. Someone else mentions the Howard Dean "spring election" call and offers a decent interpretation, that this is coming from the top down. Robert Sheppard's CBC Liberal leadership blog: Deconstructing Howard Dean

"Egged on by the applause at one point, Dean said "Boy, you guys are really going to win in the spring." What that means is that his hosts, the most senior people in the Liberal party and the backroom organizers who invited him, are pretty well set on the idea that they will force a spring election. And that's the message you have to presume that's been going out to the delegates to help them focus their minds on the leadership question."

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2006-11-30 9:01:13 AM

The only question is who will I vote for in the spring?

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-11-30 9:05:31 AM

Although it is technically incorrect, American journalists and politicians frequently say "Congress" and "Congressmen" when they mean the House of Representatives and Members of the House of Representatives.

I had to chuckle that Dean was introduced by Frank McKenna. Doesn't McKenna go fishing with Bush 41 and sit on the Carlyle Group's board?

Dean aside, I thought the ass of the night was Patrick Graham, son of Bill and erstwhile National Post scribe. When he started talking about people in Iraq who have power and no knowledge of history, I assumed he was talking about Saddam Hussein. Turns out he meant Bush. Then he made a reference to "the year of Karl Rove" which just made no sense.

Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-11-30 9:25:00 AM

And another thing, the Libranos can't rebuild themselves from within so they're reaching out, far out, to an American politico and picking a loser at that. Do they know his ties to the NRF?

They were probably looking for a screamer, just like Paul Martin on the election stump, policies didn't matter he wanted to tell us he had Canadian VALUES and Harper did not.

Let's hope there are not enough ignorant, uninformed and die-hard Liberals to give these guys power. Can anyone imagine Bob Rae and Ralphy Goodale as a team?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 9:36:57 AM

One word describes the Dean speech: FLAT. No substance, no style. His big applause line seemed to be "Call everyone...everywhere...always" or something completely simplistic like that. He's a lightweight, and it figures that the Libs of Canada haven't figured out yet that he is now completely marginalized in the US Democratic Party. Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer now run the show.

Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-11-30 10:34:52 AM

You people got it all wrong. Dean didn't call an election. He called for an erection.
Pay attention, eh!

Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-11-30 10:39:10 AM

Ralph, if the word was "erection" in the Spring does that mean they're all impotent until then? Geez, we better keep close watch for Spring high jinks.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 11:23:30 AM

If JFJ is correct and Policy # 45 has been adopted then the Liberals have one more badge of honour 'Canadian Value' to their credit .
Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity."

The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-11-30 11:30:38 AM

Joan, do you suppose Graham's son wrote his own speech?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 11:53:54 AM


"'We're going to win' shows a closer affiliation of political parties than I previously realized. This is not an affiliation necessarily of values and ideologies--note the resurgence of conservative Democrats in the November US elections, or the fact that Dean himself has been consistently endorsed by the NRA (which the Liberals apparently loathe)--but seems to be one of politics, strategies of striving for power."

That is actually quite accurate. Let me add a few more details. Before the Reform Party was founded all 3 of Canada's Federal Parties could fit quite comfortably within the Democratic Party. To be sure, some members of the old PC Party would have been at home in either party but they were not out of place with the Dems.

Reform changed that. Although Manning/Harper are not quite the same as Thatcher/Reagan, the new Conservatives offer a hope to Canada that Britain and America had a generation ago. When things moved too far to the left, both countries chose strong leaders to bring things back to more normal. While Canada did choose Mulrooney's PC's during a similar time, Mulrooney did not have the strength of character to bring things back from the far left as far as he might have. In short, although Dems historically aligned more naturally with Liberals, they found the old PC's were not a threat.

Harper changes things for Dems. The natural fit with the Liberals remains; the comfortable fit with Canadian Conservatives is gone. This presents a threat to US Dems because they see Canada as the model place they want to take the US on a number of issues. If the labratory/model country now decides these ideas are not really what it wants, it makes it that much harder to bring it out of the Canadian lab (from the Dem perspective) into the US and so much easier for the GOP to say "we were correct". Therefore a defeat of Harper in Canada is very important to Democrats. The stronger alignment between Liberals and Democrats is to be expected by my way of thinking.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-30 12:00:31 PM

Joe, I thought that the Tories raised the age of consent from 14 to 16.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-11-30 12:20:54 PM

Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity."

Trust the no-morals Liberals to bring up this policy statement. Whatever the the age of consent is now--and I believe the CPC has brought it up to 16, or intends to--there is a clause that exempts young people who are close in age to engage in sexual activity (not that it's good for them) without being prosecuted. So why would the Liberals want to change this, except to allow older gay men to engage in anal sex with legal minors?

The main impetus behind raising the age of consensual sex from 14 to 16 is to protect young people from falling prey to just such sexual predators who are looking for "chicken."

I think it's utterly reprehensible that the Liberals are propsing that a 14-year-old person can legally "engage in consensual anal intercourse." If this policy passes into law, then the Liberals are putting young Canadians at risk of being sexually exploited by older men on the prowl, and there will be no way to prosecute these predators.

Way to go, Liberals!

What is so disturbing about all of this, is how little outrage there is: no comment in the MSM and parents not on the warpath about the possible exploitation of their children.

Of course, we have an entire industry now that deals with sexually abused children. Perhaps the people employed in this therapeutic enterprise don't want their client banks to dry up. The very people who should be screaming "NO WAY!" to this proposal are mute on the subject.

Canada: The Perverted Kingdom. Parents, protect your kids, because the State, under the Liberals, sure as heck doesn't intend to.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 12:55:16 PM

Hey Logan. While you are technically correct, "Congress" normally refers to the House of Reps. Yes, it's true that both the House and the Senate are, in fact, houses of Congress. But, Americans refer to their lower house reps as "Congressmen" and "Congresswomen", as distinct from Senators. Just as in Canada, we call our lower house reps "Members of Parliament", even though technically both the H of C and the Senate are part of Parliament.

In the everyday American vernacular, "Congress" refers to the House of Representatives. Just like the word "Parliament" here, when used in everyday language, normally refers to the H of C. Next time you might not want to be so quick with the snitty little corrections.

Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-11-30 12:56:33 PM

Beats me why anal "intercourse" is considered an acceptable, normal behavior at any age, it's more in the realm of perversion, religion and morals aside.
It appears the Liberals are bent on "screwing" up our children as early as possible.
It's gifting the children to abusers in the world of pedophiles and other sexual deviants.
Shame? They don't have any.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-30 1:24:14 PM

You hit on a key point.
If the liberals regain power and try to enact this law,us conservatives will scream bloody murder,write compelling letters to editors and clever blog entries.
But,like every other change the liberal movement has made to this country,we will ultimately just let it pass,then complain some more.
When will we watch and learn from the left and get out in the streets and PROTEST?
It seems to have worked exceedingly well for gay rights,pro-abortion,anti-war,unions,etc.,etc..

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-30 1:46:30 PM

Speller & Block,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was suggesting we need all the Right thinkers/voters to stay in Ontario to make sure the Librano$ don't get back in. Take one for the team and "live in the forest" to try and affect change.

Posted by: Smarty Pants | 2006-11-30 2:41:32 PM

Canadian Observer, I agree with you, "When will we watch and learn from the left and get out in the streets and PROTEST?"

But I think the issue for a lot of us is "'been there, done that," and "once bitten twice shy," because we not only get NO support from the MSM (or from very few others, else, for that matter), the MSM also underestimates our crowds, actually lies about any successes we may have, or doesn't even report them.

The reality is, it's much more difficult to launch a protest--'getting easier with the blogosphere, though--if you're on the right of the political spectrum rather than the left. All the government grants, under the Librano$--often earmarked for helping favoured groups get their message out--have gone to the left/libbers: feminists, gays, environmentalists, "peace" activists, etc.

Now that the CPC is in power, those grants, thankfully, are drying up, but up to now, the left has been well-funded for any protests they launch.

Having acknowledged the difficulty of little to no support where it counts, that doesn't let us on the right off the hook. I've found, much to my disappointment, that many people who agree with decent, moral, responsible, and accountable behaviour and government, too often take the easy way out: They remain quiet and quiescent, because they don't want to be seen to rock the boat. They don't want their neighbours, friends, cousins, and aunts to think of them as trouble makers.

What we have to realize, if we are going to make an impact, is that the truth often hurts, lots of people don't want to hear it, and if we speak it we'll lose friends (but, quite probably gain our lives--and other, better friends!). There's a cost to truth, and that's something that our comfortable generation doesn't seem to want to deal with.

The group that's really paying right now is our children. When parents and other grown ups don't protect them, they fall prey to every kind of deviant and deviance. I see it every day in the classrooms I'm in--and it's reaching critical mass proportions.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-30 5:18:38 PM

You articulated that very well.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-30 10:35:54 PM

Re-write headline:

Canadian military throws bilingualism, English-French, into the trashheap of Canadian history.

Good riddance/bon voyage.

Next: Multiculturalism.


The military is giving up on the idea of a fully bilingual army, navy and air force. Nearly two decades ago, the Canadian Forces adopted what it called “a universal approach” to bilingualism.(national newswatch)

Posted by: maz2 | 2006-12-01 10:30:31 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.