Second-class Canadian

You seem to have a habit of confusing threads, don't you. But yes, requiring language tests to reside in Canada might raise the literacy rate in Canada. I say might because it could also result in literate Canadians leaving Canada, which would lower the rate. So depending on which is greater between literate emigration and illiterate immigration (always referring to official languages of course), such a policy could either raise or lower official language literacy rates. Of course another way to raise literacy rates would be through a combination of measures. Prohibiting foreign nationals who don't know an official language from residing in Canada would raise literacy rates, but to prevent literate Canadians from leaving as a result (which would lower literacy rates), one hypothetical option would be to add an easy official language to the constitution, thus increasing the likelihood of the foreign partner learning that language as the official language. This would also raise literacy rates on reserves and the far north where many speak an unofficial mother tongue. I say hypothetical because I don't see that happening within my lifetime, but still interesting as a hypothetical scenario.

We can also include deaf, dyslexic (or at least severely dyslexic) and other Canadians suffering fetal alcohol syndrome, PTSD, etc. Though I don't remember the precise statistic, I remember reading that PTSD rates are extremely high among both children and adults on reserves.

So how best to address poverty? Social assistance always risks being bureaucratic and arbitrary, refusing a needy person or accepting a well-off one on a technicality. The Green Party has proposed cutting much of the bureaucratic overhead by replacing the current system with a guaranteed income. Though the simplicity of the idea attracts me, my concern with that is that money then being used to buy drugs, etc. I'd once proposed some kind of coupon system, but others responded that this risked stigmatized the poor. Anther possible idea would be the provision of a government-issued debit card to all Canadian adults regardless of income level that could be used only at companies (shops, landlord, real estate agents, etc.) that sell only approved categories of products, such as food, clothing, toiletries, transportation, whether a bus ticket or a car, etc., maybe even with quotas whereby so much money can be used only for shelter (whether rent, purchase, mortgage, or property tax, etc.), so much for food, etc. all programmed into the card. Since the poor and the rich would be using this card, that would eliminate the problem of stigma while still making it difficult to use it to buy drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, escorts, etc.

That puts us in a vicious circle. To adress poverty, we must address jobs. To address jobs, we must address education, and to address education, we must address poverty.

But allowing foreign nationals to work in Canada is a Federal jurisdiction.

In practical terms, it's highly unlikely you could replace teachers that quickly though. Having an open teacher market would have its advantages, but would still not be a panacea.

Alternatively, having a teacher-immigration policy that allows a foreign teacher to automatically obtain Canadian citizenship after five years of employment should the teacher apply for it could be a way to attract more quality teachers.

If declared an essential service, they would legally not be allowed to strike. That said, if teaching is not an essential service in any other country, the party proposing this could face harsh criticism so might want to leave it to another election. That said, right-to-work legislation would mean that no teacher could be forced to join or remain in a union. To clarify, I wasn't thinking immigration but rather just a more open labour market policy. That said, a foreign national who ends up getting hired by a school could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but would naturally have an advantage in being employed obviously.

Sorry, I overlooked your point one. As for your point 2., you're right, but even domestically resistance would be significant and even if reform were accepted, that would be a very long term strategy. You'd have to combine it with a short term strategy if you went that route.

Declaring teaching an essential service could work too.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 (3) states: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." The Christian Democratic Party of Sweden, knowing full-well the Social Democratic Party's rhetoric concerning its respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, quoted this article repeatedly in the election campaign to establish the voucher school program. The SDP, not wanting to look like hypocrites by opposing the UDHR, tried to find other flaws, but the CDN had all of its bases covered: All teachers must be qualified. Schools must accept students on a first-come-first-served basis. Parents receive an electronic voucher for each child. Students with disabilities receive an appropriately higher-valued voucher. Schools cannot charge more than the value of the voucher. Though schools could choose the language insyruction, they must teach the curriculum and students must sit the national exams in Swedish. Etc. In short, language rights groups backed the CDP and the SDP and teachers unions couldn't throw any hard hits at the proposal. So yes, beat them at their own game.

http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/CanadaLiteracyAndNumeracyChallengeWorsens.pdf49%, not 50%, bearing in mind that we are not referring to complete illiteracy but rather literacy below level 3, in other words below the OECD compulsory education completion standard, for those between the ages of 16 and 65.

By importing foreign teachers? What if the Federal government required all who were hired to teach in universal compulsory education in Canada to own a valid passport and appropriate teacher qualifications, but no need for a work visa? Suddenly if local teachers don't possess the knowledge we need, our public schools could hire teachers from the world over. Immigration is a Federal responsibility. Provincially, the government adopts the IB curriculum, right-to-work laws, and school vouchers. Suddenly union power is weakened and our public school teachers are competing with the world. Any other idea? Maybe ask our candidates where they stand on opening Canada's education market to foreign teachers?

By importing foreign teachers? What if the Federal government required all who were hired to teach in universal compulsory education in Canada to own a valid passport and appropriate teacher qualifications, but no need for a work visa? Suddenly if local teachers don't possess the knowledge we need, our public schools could hire teachers from the world over. Immigration is a Federal responsibility. Provincially, the government adopts the IB curriculum, right-to-work laws, and school vouchers. Suddenly union power is weakened and our public school teachers are competing with the world. Any other idea? Maybe ask our candidates where they stand on opening Canada's education market to foreign teachers?

How do we break the unions? School vouchers, right-to-work laws, a combination of these, something else?

Eb Even if we did that, Stats Can 2011 shows an adult literacy rate of 50% Canada-wide. And with English and French being less of a common mother tongue on reserves, that alone would therefore not likely improver the national average much it at all. If provinces can't produce decent literacy rates, is it time for a co-ordinated national strategy?

Given that education on reserves is a Federal responsibility, how do we make this an election issue. Sorry, but for me Canada's literacy rate really is that fundamentally important, especially when it's 60% on reserves. Do we start a campaign asking our candidates where they stand on a national literacy strategy?

Not every parent can home school, so how do we improve public school education? Increased funding, school vouchers, a combination of these, something else?

So schools should not even try to improve literacy rates?

So how do we teach a parent who never learnt to be a parent how to be a parent?

Exactly. I want to vote for a radical candidate. What I mean by that is one who deals with the root of the problem and not promote bandaid solutions.

So you can only emigrate from a place, not to a place, and you can only immigrate to a place but not from a place.

Huh? An immigrant is an emigrant, and an emigrant is an immigrant. For example, I can emigrate from Canada to immigrate to the US. Immigrant just means in-migrant, emigrant means out-migrant. But if you migrate out of one place, you have to migrate into another. The two go hand in hand.

It's nice rhetorically, but what concrete proposals would you make to that end? Feel free to answer it in my new thread on this if you prefer.

According to Statistics Canada 2011, 49% of Canadians over 16 (and 60% on reserves) are functionally literate in neither official language. How do we improve this situation? As a brainstorm, I can think of the following: 1. Increase funding for literacy education on reserves and increase transfer payments to ministries of education earmarked for literacy education. This is assuming we can afford a tax increase or borrowing, both of which might be controversial. 2. Transfer funding to literacy. This would mean cutting other programs to do so, then have to decide which. 3. As an solution, revise English and French orthography. Though not impossible, it would require international agreement, which could be extremely difficult. Plus it would make pre-revision literature inaccessible to those who don't learn the old orthography. Though there could be many other ways in which the government can help, how would you raise literacy rates in Canada?