Second-class Canadian

How would they enforce that if they support autonomy? At best, they could recommend it. But I think once they have more autonomy as nations, they would also become more assertive as individuals. That would have to come gradually over time.

But taking myself as an ecample: Federally aside from casting blank ballots, I'very previously voted NDP and Green, never Liberal or Conservative, and am now willing to consider the Libertarian Party. It does lead to the very legitimate question of just which party's votes a full slate of Libertarian candidates would actually split. To be fair though, more than half of my Federal casts have been blank ballots, so losing my vote is a small price for the NDP and Greens. I can imagine true blue died in the wool conservatives voting Green being a much grater threat to the CPC. But it still doesn't thane the fact that the Libertarian Party could cost the NDP and Greens at least some votes.

They also intend to give them more land and sovereignty over their resources and membership. Depending on how much land and the quality of that land, it could work. They also propose the ability to sue for damages caused by polution. Corporations beware.

That said, I won't deny that the Libertarian Party's opposition to official bilingualism can attract francophobes, but we should also consider that I'm a French-speaker willing to consider them and that they have French speakers running for them in Quebec. In the end, I'm more concerned about my local candifate's policy statements than the xenophobic rants of a member of the same party in a different riding. In the case of the NDP, indifference to separate schools and support for the right to sue for a 7-Up in French on an international flight in spite of the fact that many other linguistic communities are not afforded the same benefit is a matter of official party policy.

That said, I could possibly end up voting Libertarian Federally for the first time depending on my candidate.

Actually, though I'be cast my share of blank ballots in the past, when I have checked a candidate, I'very checked NDP and Green candidates Federally and NDP, Green, PC, and Libertarian candidates provincially. The fact that I vote candidate and not party probably plays a role in this diversity of voting patterns, but it does lead us to question where the Libertarian Party votes are coming from. I don't doubt that some come from the Conservative camp, but I could also imagine more than a few from the left protesting it's ethnocentrism. Then compound that with social corporatists finding the NDP to be too labour socialist and though not opposed to tax increases, better public education, and a better social safety net, still want the structure of these to still be conformant to the laws of economics, efficient, and evidence-based as opposed to blindly ideological and ethnocentric.

In fact, it might be legitimate to ask ourselves just how many Ukrainian, German, and other social corporatists (and maybe even labour socialists) might be voting CPC or Libertarian more as a protest against the NDP's ethnocentrism. I don't know the answer to that question. They may be few indeed. But then again, maybe not. If the NDP were smart, it might want to try to gather statistics on this.

Increasing or reducing government revenue or expenditure is one discussion. The structures within which such increases occur is another. During an election, I tend to cringe at any party that promises expenditure increases (e.g. NDP universal childcare) or revenue reductions (e.g. Libertarian Party tax cuts). What if things change and they can't afford it? I don't mind them saying it's in their plans, as long as they don't promise it. Now as for revenue increases (e.g. NDP cap and trade) or expenditure reductions (e.g. Libertarian elimination of official bilingualism), that's fine t promise because we know the government can afford it. That said, I could agree with funding increases to health care in principle, with caution. Adding dental would be a nice touch. Universal daycare is a nice idea in principle too, as a plan, tentative if conditions are met, but not as a promise. I find the Libertarian promise of a maximum 15% income tax and raising the tax free limitequally cringeworthy. Sure have it as a goal if you want but not at the expense of the national debt. Now back to the question of structures veris funding. In Ontario, why would I be motivated to increase funding for a school system which the UN High Commission for Human Rights has found o violate the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, referring to the separate school syatem. Prior to WWI, German Ontarians could send their children to school in German. That right was abrogated after WWI and never returned to this day. Don't you think a German Canadian would be more motivated to support increasing school funding if we introduced a voucher program so as to allow them to regain their prior right? Scott Reid, now a Conservative Backbench in Parliamt, had proposed this on in his Lament for a Notion. There is plenty of evidence to show two-tiered health care is more effective than totally public. Don't you think people would be more motivated to poor their taxes into a more efficient system? Prior to the CBC/SRC, media funding was mostly private, resulting in many alternative media, especially Ukrainian in the prairies. Scott Reid had proposed in his book Lament for a Notion, that we could introduce media vouchers which could help to break the Anglo-French monopoly in media funding. Why make it so exclusive? In the same book, Scott Reid had also proposed abrogating the language provisions of the Labelling and Packaging Act which would also help to allow more culturally diverse competition in the market. The Bloc Québécois has long requested that Federal offices in Quebec serving only residents of Quebec be officially monolingual. Given that this cold open government jobs to all French speakers regardless of their first language and so end the Anglo-French monopoly in Federal government hiring in Quebec, why not support this. I remember Preston Manning in his day proposing that Federal Institutions in the prairies could function bilingually in English and Ukrainian instead of French. Though I'd prefer official monolingualism, Ukrainian would still be more logical than French in most of the prairies. We can ask the same about Federal Funding for dycare. Would it be constrained by the Official Languages Act or would it allow Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial linguistic communities to establish their own schools? And if so, what would be the checks and balances in place to ensure the market decides and not an ethnocentric bureaucrat? I think the above examples are more than enough to distinguish the discussion between funding and structures. Sometimes it's not that the person opposes funding increases in principle, the real question is what it is that we are funding. A system that seems to benefit only the two dominant ethnic groups could easily push even a social corporatist to the Libertarian Party in the idea that that way he could develop his own culture free from the ethnocentric constraints of the separate school system or official bilingualism. It also frees him from the dogma of a one-tiered health care system at all costs independently of the evidence. In other words, he'd likely support a Libertarian government to purge the system from its ethnic entries and to really shake the NDP up, and then go back to voting for a new NDP that is more welcoming of the non-French and non-English.

Sorry but I'm not going to pick on a politician over a comment over one of the most informal if media. Now if questioned about it and she sticks to it, that would be a different matter.

I'd read about the decline. It's difficult to isolate one cause though since many changes had occurred alongside the vouchers. It is interesting to note though that though the first political party to support vouchers was the conservative-leaning Christian Democratic Party, the first to start campaigning for it were language rights activists and indigenous and other linguistic minorities. This adds to the confusion since then they had an unlikely alliance between conservatives and language-rights activists supporting the voucher program but likely for different reasons. I agree with incrementalism. For example, start by raising the GST somewhat for this election. Introduce co-determination laws, eliminate the minimum wage, and the Canada Health act. That might be a good initial start for the first mandate. The Ghent system? Maybe, though the NDP might want to give it a few years to get people used to the idea. The important thing is to ensure the structures are responsive to the arket. For instance, Swedes have been known to negotiate their wages downward in the past through a very efficient collaborative sysyem. This is unimaginable in Canada except only when companies are at the brink and then it's too late. Most NDP policies are more bureaucratic and rigid and in conflict with the market.

Yes, but Sweden was smart enough to legislate the appropriate laws to create a social-corporatist structure withing the non-government sector, thus still allowing to respond quite efficiently to the whims of the market. Much of their system involves regulation of the private sector, not the expansion of inflexible one-size-fits-all national bureaucracies. The NDP could learn a lot from them.

Yes, but the Libertarian Party might actually have a full slate of candidates come this election.

For a an incumbent party, the CPC platform on its website is even more vague than that if the Libertarian Party. The Green Party's is impressively detailed compared to the Libertarian's, though that of the Libs and NDP are detailed too. It'shameful for the incumbent party really.

A full slate of Libertarian candidates nationwide could threaten some precarious Conservative ridings through vote splitting. If a Libertarian, without winning his seat, can cause a Conservative to lose his in a few ridings, this could pressure the CPC to become more cautious in dismissing the Libertarian movement too easily.

Again, it further illustrates that Swedish social democrats have really thought social democracy (or should I more accurately say social corporatism) through to ensure that it functions alongside the free market and not opposed to it, the two being intrinsically combined.

I actually like that idea as it takes even more control out of the hands of the government

The Libertarian Party is already well on its way. It already has a candidate for my riding and might, just might, have a full slate this year nationwide.

http://bciconcoclast.blogspot.ca/2015/02/2015-might-election-to-pay-some.html?m=1 Interesting article. Should the Libertarians have a full slate this year, even if they don't win a seat, they could still win enough votes to worry the CPC concerning vote splitting.

It just means that an employer is legally prohibited from making union membership a condition for employment. But yes, somehow in spite of this legislation, unions are strong in Sweden. Then again, whereas many unions in Canada tend to be more labour-socialist, those in Sweden are usually more social-corporatist or Christian corporatist, so far more ideologically moderate. A perfect example, when the CDP had proposed school vouchers, the teachers union questioned many aspects of it but no more. In Canada, unions would be fighting in the streets.

I stand somewhat corrected on that point, but not totally. It sounds like the NDP is trying to do it through union membership. Sweden has right to work legislation prohibiting employers from requiring a worker to join a union. Therefore they needed a system allowing all workers to vote independently of their union so as to ensure all workers are represented and not just union members.

Learn from Nunavut. A non-partisan FPTP consensus-based system.

I've not voted for a winning candidate yet. I've always voted for the best local candidate independently of party affiliation. Again, remove party names from the ballot and that's the first step towards a viable solution. Prorep simply enslaved the MP to his party.You might be voting strategically but I'm not. If you're voting strategically rather than on principle, then you're part of the problem. Besides, prorep tends to benefit the extremists on the fringes more than anyone else.

Though that is true, it is not unique to the Deaf. Finland recognizes Finnish Sign Language as an official language along with Saami. The Swedish voucher programme allows education in any language as long as students sit the national tests in Swedish. Studies in Canada have show that indigenous Canadians who first learn in their own language perform better in English or French later. Remember that since the written language is based on the spoken, speaking the language reinforces the written. A sign language doesn't. So yes, we need to catch up to other countries and allow children to learn in their own language whenever it is logistically reasonable to do so. Instead, we'be done the exact opposite by abrogating the right of German and Ukrainian Canadians to send their children to school in their language, though granted the research came out after that action. But yes, learning in the mother tongue first strengthens the learning of the second language later. We ignore the research so as a result the deaf, indigenous, and other Canadians fall behind in literacy. And dyslexia simply compounds the problem for dyslexics, deaf or otherwise, whose parents do not use the school language in the hime.

What minorities? The last thing we need is to give parties more power. I even support removing party names from ballots, so why would I support prorep?

True, but loss of power forces the losing party to reflect on what went wrong.