Machjo

Quantitative easing is certainly dangerous if used to spend our way out of recession. If used only to spend our way out of deflation, however, it is much less dangerous, and even beneficial and quite safe if invested wisely. A disadvantage of using it exclusively to fight deflation is, of course, that it can then not be used to fight our way out of recession. But at least it can moderate the recession.

True. Personally, I generally give money to organizations in which I also am actively involved, giving me a chance to see them from the inside. I can also see an issue with religious organizations. While cetain religious organizations are more progesive than the secular population (e.g. quakers, mennonites, Doukhobors, all of whom are very much pro-peace, communal, and always willing to help each other), we also have other churches that promote killing abortion doctors. I'm pro-life myself, but I certainly can't support a wrong for a wrong. This also puts us in a catch-22. If we alow religious deductions, all kinds of fanatical and potentially violent religious organizations get a new source of funding. If we prohibit it, then those religious organizations that would be more proressive than even our government are denied funding which goes instead to govenrment pork-barelling. So, do we take the risk or not? In the end, it depends on our view of human nature. Personally, I'd rather take the risk on the grounds that I think most people, when gien a choice, will be there for their community. Another possibility would be to go on a case-by-case basis whereby politically partisan groups can't give tax receipts to contributors. Again, I'm not saying I have the answer, but merely brainstorming. After having seen first hand how government operates, I'm not as fond as I wonce was of funding it.

Good points. Some will think the government should increase the debt to help the poor. Does it really help the poor? Sooner or later, we must pay not only the debt, but the interest on it too. Sure we can tax the investors, but if they're abroad, how do we do that? In the end, a national debt simply enriches the rich even more. And as for creating jobs, it's not up to the government to create jobs, but merely to maintain a balanced employment environment. I'm not saying government should play no role in the economy, but its role should be through consultation and united action with labour, management, the private sector, charities, the international community, etc. The world economy is like dominoes. If one is standing, they'll all stand. When one falls, they'll all fall. If we want it to succeed, we need to work with the international community foreign governments, the private sector, NGO's etc. It's not up to the government to act like a hero and come and try to save the day carrying the world's burden on its back.

As I'd mentioned above, I'd rather just tax-cuts. I give of my time and money already, but with tax cuts, I could give even more. Recognizing though that some might fear that the more vulnerable could suffer from such tax cuts, I'd be willing to compromise on just making more money charity deductible. I used to be a hard-core socialist until I'd seen first hand, ironcially enough when I came to need help myself at one point in my life, just how inefficient, bureaucratic, and incompetent government help is. In the end, I got more help from a friend than from the government. Once I'd gone back to work, I was not as enthusiastic about paying my taxes to such a system as I was before. Before that, though I did give to charity, I was quite satisfied with how my taxes were being spent (while I was paying my taxes in ignorant bliss). Now that I've seen how that money is realy spent, I'd rather it go to a charity of my choice, which I know to be more competent than the govenrment. The problem of course is that they tend to be more limited in their funding partially due to high taxes. I can understand what you're saying there, and that leaves me in two minds about charitable tax deductions. I'm not sure myself if I support the idea I'd presented above, but offered it as a brainstorm anyway. I'm certainly open to ideas of course.

We should always aim to be debt-free. A national debt should only occur in the event of a national emergency. If we're indebted when it uccurs, then we'll be adding debt to debt. If we are debt-free at the beginning, then the government could borrow considerably and easily in the event of a national emeency. Right now we're in a recession, but this can be dealt with calmly through low interest rates and possibly, worse case scenario, printing and wise investment of government money. We are not now in an emergency situation, and the government need not crete make-work jobs.

Also, going back to making more money available to fight the recession, we culd make an analogy to a fisherman. He doesn't take the bait into his hand and just thorw it out into the water to never be seen again. He hooks it to the end of a line so that once the fish bite, he can reel it in again. If we look at all the government spending now, especially with the bail outs, that money the government no longer has. It may help to create or save some jobs now, but what happens after the recession is over and inflation kicks it? Had the government just put all that money into wise investments, it could still stimulate the economy, but it would have the advantage that after the recession, the government coud reel that money back in to fight inflation, thus kiling two birds with one stone. Right now, it seems that the govenment is trying to fight the recession but isn't preparing to fight the oncoming inflation. A good govenrment woudl try to fight both simultaneously by planning ahead.

Then we need an MP who will stand up to his local community and try to educate it. Certainly, tax cuts, or at least making more direct taxes charity deductible, does have the advantage of making more funds accessible to charitable organizations to help the needy, and so I'm all for them... once the debt is balanced.

I don;t care so much about the superficial appearance of an MP, but the content of his character.

I don't think the government should ever try to 'save jobs'. Instead, it should be responsible for maintaining a balanced rate of employment. This does not guarantee that any specific job will continue to exist (had we adopted and maintained such a policy since last century pwe'd still be building the model T), but simply employment will be available, even if it does mean replacing one opportunity with another. This also means that we will need funding for retraining of laid off workers. One possible way to do that would be to make more of our tax-dollars charity-deductible so that organizations can have access to more funding to help unempoyed workers. In the worst-case scenario, it might even be necessary to increase the overall tax rate to do so.

We certainly should not be cutting taxes while we have a federal debt.

Not necessarily. It is possible to cut during a recession while still making money ore available in the economy. To take an example, let's say the government decides to reduce spending in all sorts of areas. Granted this will cause much unemployment in the public sector, and in the case of a severe enough recession, likely push us towards deflation. One way to fight the deflation is to lower interest rates. In extreme cases, they could even be lowered to zero percent. If that is not enough to stop deflation, then the Bank of Canada also has the power to print money. I understand that printing money and locking it p in a vault is no more useful than not printing it at all. So if we're reducing government spending, then how do we put this newly printed money into circulation? I can see two possibilities: 1. As long as we have a federal debt, we can use this newly printed money, along with the money saved from the spending cuts, to pay off the debt. This money is given to the investors, who are then free to spend it as tey wish, thus creating jobs with that money in other ways. 2. Invest in ethical funds. These funds would be used to buy stocks in ethical companies, which would help to provide funds to ethical companies that need them by simply selling thei shares to the government. Other solusions might exist, but these are some. To counteract the inflationary dangers of printing more money after the recession, the government could then have two additional options: 1. Ensure revenue surpasses spending, thus allowing government to take money out of the economy. With the debt having been paid off during the recession even if with printed money, this would be a way to take that money back out of circulation as soon as the recession ends and the fear of inflation arrives. 2. Any money invested in ethical mutual funds during the recession could then be sold, with the money taken out of circulation. These options coud be a way of killing two birds with one stone, putting money into the economy in recession while still keeping control of it so as to be able to take it back out of the economy afterwards.

True. What I was getting at though was that some Canadians oppose the military on either religious, philosophical, or moral gounds, if not totally, then at least in part, or if not in principle, then at least in the details of its officially defined mandate, etc. This being the case, some might oppose military spenidng but be wiling to increase civilian police spending. By having civial responsibilities under military control, there is always the risk that a more pacifist government cut military spending while forgetting that the military currently has certain civilian responsibilities.

The problem when any part of civilian SAR falls under military jurisdiction is that as soon as military cuts occur, SAR suffers immediately too. And sinse many oppose excessive military spending not on economic but rather on ethical grounds, the two become inseparable and entagnled. THi is where I think it would make sense from a political standpoint to ensure that al civilian responsibilities fall under civilian, not military, responsibilities. As for responsibility for UN operations, though I recognize that the military eeds money, I also believe it could be used more efficiently through the UN itself. If we take the war in Afghanistan, for example, instead of sending in so many Canadian troops, why could Canada not have asked Iran to go in while Canada would simply help financially to some degree. My reasoning here is that Iran is concerned about the Opium trade in the area too, and would would be interested in going in to clear that up, which would be in our interest too. Additionally, Persian culture is closer to Afghan culture in appearance. If we don't trust Iran, then why not a UN force under direct UN control but able to hire from anywhere in the world. So when the UN is at war in Afghanistan, it could then favour Pshta and other local language speakers over English or French speakers, but not under the responsibility of any government, but uner direct UN command, thus avoiding suspicions. Woudl that not be more efficient?

One thing I don't understand is why things like civilian SAR are military responsibilities? Would it not make more sense for it to fall under the responsibility of a civilian organization, maybe under the RCMP or some other similar organization?

Disagree on what exactly? If anything, focussing less on the political aspect of it and more on promoting friendlier relations between English and French Canadians though through our education systems through closer relations and colaboration between our Ministries of Education would likely increase the chnaces of Quebec remaining in Canada; whereas always focussing on the political aspect, under what conditions Quebec can have a right to cesede, what must be asked on the ballot, etc., though certainly important, should not be the main forci of our attention, otherwise it risks coming across as if the only real commonalities between us are politial, which is quite superficial in the grand scheme of things compared to promoting closer cultural ties at the grassroots. Essentially, it comes down to this. I don't want Quebec to separate, but if the only way for it to remain is through constant political pressure, that's equal to a spouse staying in a broken marriage just because the other spouse is fighting for the marriage. That can only last for so long. On the other hand, trying to build grassroots relations is more equal to one spouse trying to understand the other's grievances while at the same timre recognizing that at the end of the day, whether they remain together or not, they need to try to at least separate on friendly terms. Yet that reaction is more likely to save the marriage. forcing someone to stay repels them more than allowing them to leave while offering to build bridges.

As for the issue of Quebec sovereignty, since it's been brought up, I'm more concerned with ensuring friendly relations between Quebecers and other Canadians at the grassroots than with whether or not Quebec remains a part of Canada, which is really just debate over administrative responsibilities.

Thanks. Franco-Ontarian to be precise.

Whoever said I was a Quebecois?

Sorry, I have to correct myself. The study was in 2001, not 2003, my bad. Sorry. Now as for your other comments, I know a few languages too, and most of my friends and collegues here in Ottawa do too. Actually, I can only think of a handful who are unilingual. My dad comes to mind; he's of British origin and knows only English, though he can understand French to a certain degree. Yet if we look at StatsCan 2006, most Ottawans don't know both of Canada's official languages. Now close friends, colleagues and family members aside, on the rare occasion I have tried to function in French in Ottawa out of curiosity, and I was forced to admit that few know French, which confirms the statistics. We tand to hang around with our own kind. Is it possible that you just come from a more educated family, that your colleagues are more educated than the average, that that waitress was bilingual before even going to Europe or had an interest in languages? I remember another study in 1993 by Formaggio that showed that most high school students in the EU did not feel prepared to function at a decent level in their second language. We can't just look at ourselves and our own surroundings. That would be like a university professor concluding that we all had degrees because everyone around him did., or that we were all at least bilingual because everyone on campus was, or a firefighter assuming we were all strong enough to carry someone on our shoulders because all his friends could. In he end, I'm more tempted to trust statistics over my own limited social surroundings.

Tu connait le français aussi, j'imagine?

Really? Our behaviour contradicts that assertion. How can an English Canadian really know the heart of French Canadians if he never reads Le Devoir or Le Monde Diplomatique in French or Paris Match, never listens to or watches the SRC, etc. Yet they're so familiar with CNN, the BBC, Fox, the London Times, the New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Many native English speakers have never even heard of the Sorbonne or the Haute École de Commerce, yet are so familiar with Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. In fact, I'd challene any unilingual native English speaker in this forum to tell me which of the radio and TV stations and newspapers and universities above are in Quebec, and which in France. All of them are at least somewhat famous in the French-speaking world on both sides of the Atlantic, yet few monolingual English speaking Canadians could tell which is where without Googling it first. And whatare two common songs Quebecers will often sing at a birthday party? Yet some English Canadians can sing at least the first line or two of the US national anthem or God Save the Queen. It's nice to say in theory that native English speakers identify more with Quebec than with the UK. In reality, even those who pretend so, if given a culture test, would be more familiar with UK culture than with Quebec.

But how well do they really know it? One advertising company in 2003 conducted a poll in which three common English sentences were read out and the participants had to translate what they'd heard into their mother-tongue to confirm accurate comprehension. They'd found that only aobut 6% of participants in this poll which included participants from all over continental Western Europe wre able to translate the three sentences flawlessly. So, while we may think they nderstand us, they may in fact be misunderstandig us. Euope on a personal level is not much more bilingual than Canada. And those who are fluently bilingual are often so in a neighbouing language, not necessarily English, with Enlish being but a smattering. It's only at the continental level that it's truly multilingual. In Canada, the situation is quite different, whereby we have Germanics tring to learn a Romance language and Latins trying to learn a Germanic language. No wonder our rate of success is so low. Just read up on some of Formaggio's research, not online, but purchasable (ISBN/ISSN 8385033073). And we must remember too that those who do know English well are the ones most likley to end up working in international business and tourism; they're by no means representative of the statistical average in their nations.

For essentials, I'm fine with that. I just don't think that they should be spending money on teaching English to their civil servants who live in La Malbaie, for example. Some translation and interpretation is fine and unavoidable, but not make it official, institutionalize it, and make it required where it's not even needed.

It's not about 'getting back at Quebec', but rather the pointlessness of making French official in the NWT. Nothing to do with Quebec, so why do you keep bringing Quebec into it. Now if we were discussing Quebec, I'd fully agree that the sign law is ridiculous.

I would also like for Quebec to stop restricting the rights of English-speakers just as I'd like to see the NWT not waste so much money on French-language services for such a small population of French-speakers there. I see nothing wrong with one official language in Quebec as it does save money on translation, but at the same time beleive that it sould let the private sector alone and leave it up to individual local governments to adopt their own official language according to local circumstances. Likewise, while I don't support spending on official French in the NWT, I would oppose restrictions to the language there just as I'd oppose controls on English in quebec. Same standard both ways, so where's the hypocricy?