Machjo

Can you explain? Essentially, we could define social engineering as government planning of the society. Now I'm not necessarily against social engineering per se (after all, making murder punishable by life imprisonment is by definition social engineering, yet I support it). My point was that conservatives will often use the term social engineering in a negative context and then engage in it themselves. Even prohibiting immigration is a form of social engineering in that it invoves government intervention in social planning. By definition, removing barriers to immigration isn't social engineering in that it involves government withdrawing from active social planning. Personally, I do support some controls on immigration, but make no pretense to its not being government involvmeent in social planning. Also, I'm very much in favour of deep cuts to government spending, but realize too that both conservatives and socialists have sacred cow spending commitments. For socialists, it's mainly social programmes to help the destitute. For conservatives, it's the military. What's the difference? Just look at the debt the conservative government is running us into. At least the socialists are honest enough to admit that this kind of spending reuires tax increases to fund. In that respect, ironically enough, the left might be more fiscally conservative than the right overall.

Interesting. So what woudl be your recommendation on how to make government more efficient?

Make more of our direct taxes charity deductible. This way, we can give to the charity of our choice. Normally, we'll give to a charity we ourselves participate in, and so are familiar with and trust to not be corrupt, to be honest, etc. This way, with direct grassroots oversight, such organizations are likely to perform more efficiently than their government counterparts. Just an idea. Again, a good idea, I dont know. But a brainstorm is always a ood thing.

what does that face mean?

What about the gradual introduction of an international military force? It would certainly eliminate many of the redundancies in military administrations, wouldn't it? Of course language could bring translation, language training, and other costs up, but one way to work around that would be for Canada to share two military forces: one with other French-peaking nations, and one with other Enlgish-speakingnations. This would reduce administrative redundancies without increasing language costs. French Canadians could be recruited into the French-language force, while English-Canadians could join the English-language force. Also, what about sharing a common currency? This could help to reduce conversion costs. It would not necessarily reduce federal government spending by much, but by reducing currency conversion costs in the economy, that would bring the cost of imports down reciprocally between the nations sharing the currency, which would help bring inflation down and so allow for lower interest rates too, which in turn help to lower interest on government debt. So it would still have anindirec impact. Though granted the ideas above would be long-term goals to be implemented incrementally over time.

I woud rather reduce government spending. Having said that, though, I agree with you that if reducing government spending is not an option, then increasing taxes would be preferable to what the Conservatives have done.

Just another point. If we cut spending on language training, that means that civil servants no longer need to be replaced while they're undergoing training. That extra free time alone would cause alot of slack in the system, allowing for a hiring freeze for a while.

Too vague, too ambiguous. Just start chopping any civil servant randomly? What if we end up firing all the smart, honest, and hard workers and keep all the riff raff? Then what? OK, you say administrative expenses. Again, just any administrative expense, or have you got some more specific idea in mind? It's easy to cut and reduce; anyone can say that. The question is, reduce what, where, by how much etc. And how to do it in such a way that it won't hurt anyone too much. I can certainly agree with laying off public servants and administrators... if we've established that we can do so without causing hardship in some other area. I think Samllc was on to something. Similar to your idea, but better planned. Through his ideas, we might end up being able to amalgamate positions and in that way avoid having to hire new staff for some positions that we could abolish without hurting the quality of the services they provide. This just gave me another idea. Let's say a public servant, before retiring, finds a way to amalgamate his position with another. This of course would mean having to find more efficient ways of achieving the same task. Maybe we could give that person a retirement bonus for his effort? I'm not saying this is a good idea, I don't know. But throwing it out as a brainstorm. Any other ideas?

Any ideas on how to encourage public servants to seek out such efficiencies? I remember a case years ago in Victoria BC. This was at the local level, but could still apply at the federal, so here it is: The man got a new job with the city government. He was about to replace another worker about to retire. The worker trained him, and retired a few days later. Well, this new guy was honest, and ended doing what was supposed to be months' worth of work within days. He was working directly for the mayor, so he went up to the mayor a few days later, told the mayor that he'd finished all the work, and that he couldn't believe that the previous guy was always busy 'cause there really was not much work, and why not amalgamate the position. The position was amalgamated, he lost his job, but did get an amazing reference from the mayor... but it still doesn't change the fact that he'd lost hs job? And what kind of career would that be, to go around having as a mission to abolish your position repeatedly from job to job? Not much of an incentive in that now, is there? If anything, the incentive would be in looking busy at all times. So, how would we change the rules in the public service to encourage such behaviour, to build the appropriate incentives into the system? Do we say that anyone who succeeds in abolishing his own position is more likely to get promoted, possibly even bumping his manager? I don't know, but am certainly open to ideas on this.

I can agree with that. But then why does the federal government not speak out on this? Does it support such religious discrimination?

Argus, if you could read, you'd have noticed in my previous posts that I do agree that Quebec has gone too far with its Bill 101. That still doesn't change the fact that I also believe that Quebec is closer to the right balance than the rest of us. At the federal level, bilingualism has gone too far (translation, interpretation,training, etc. all cost money). At the provincial level, many provinces don't even have official languages, thus making the government's duty to provide services in this or that language ambiguous which thus leads to constant questions about whether it has a duty to provide services in this or that language and when. In Quebec, though I don't agree with all the details, I do agree with the principle at least of having a clearly defined language policy that leaves little ambiguity as to what the government's responsibility is: to guarantee services in French to anyone who wants to be served in French. I should point out though that I think you're exaggerating too. English-speakers do get services in English where numers warrant. ThatI think is reasonable. Why should the Quebec governmenet be guaranteeing services in English in central Quebec where any anglophone living there is almost sure to know French anway? I think Ontario could learn from that. Instead of making this or that town bilingual, why not just provide services in French where numbers warrant? The federal government could learn from Quebec on that front too. Why do we need bilingual staff in Victoria BC for instance. It's our tax dollars paying for this. So though I don't agree with the details necessarily, I do agree with the principle of Quebec having but one official language. The other provinces could learn from that. It's more efficient and saves money.

So?

Option 1. My guess is (corect me if I'm wrong), many conservatives would vote option 2.

With all the talk about government debt, I was wondering if anyone here has ides on where we could cut or reduce federal government spending without unduly hurting anyone who might be dependent on that spending for their ivelyhood. Personally, I could think of a few that would hurt nobody too much: 1. Cut (and I don't mean reduce, but cut completely) spending on second-language education for civil servants, police, military, and all other government personnel, and instead use the limited bilingual resources available more strategically by placing them where their language skills are likely to be needed most. 2. Introduce high-level (not Mickey-Mouse) compulsory tests to assess the language competence of newcomers to Canada, which they must pass, and cut (again, I make a distinction between the meanings of cut and reduce) spending on the Federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml). 3. Make an official recommendation to the UN to consult formally on the reduction of the UN's official languages from 6 to 1 (last I'd read, the UN was spending about 12 million US dollars a year on interpretation and translation costs for meetings of the General Assembly alone! And remember, this increases funding demands on member states, including Canada). 4. Cut all spending on CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) programmes geared towards promoting the English and French languages abroad. Now, I said that none of thes policies would hurt anybody too much, and here's my explanation: 1. Generally speaking, in a bilingual community where someone might in fact need government services in either official language, chances are there are also plenty of bilinguals to choose from. logical conclusion, eh. And if there are not many bilingual candidates to choose from in that community then it's probably because the community is not very bilingual in the first place. Again, a pretty logical conclusion. So cutting spending on language teaching for civil servants is not likely to affect access to bilingual services much. As for the teachers who lose their jobs as a result, well, they are bilingual, teachers are generally well educated and receive a middle class salary, and so they are likely to be more able to cope with the layoffs than others. Add to that that once these teachers go to work in the private sector, they expand access to bilingual services in the private sector. So no one will suffer too much from this. And worse comes to worse, they'll still have access to Ei in the transition period. 2. If we don't allow a person to enter Canada in the first place, then we're not going to be causing him any undue harm. He'll just continue on as he always had before. As for teachers in the LINC programme, same as above for those in the public service. 3. If UN interpretors and translators lose are laid off, I'm sure they'll be able to find other work for crying out loud. They're highly qualified. 4. Seeing that CIDA funding for English and French language promotion projects abroad benefit Canada more than the host countries (while CIDA's mandate is supposedly to help the other country, not Canada), and can even hurt the host country by laying the foundations of a brain drain later; and considering that this funding benefits the elites of the host society more than the general population, such spending cuts are not going to hurt the more vulnerable segments of their population at all, and can even benefit them. As for the teachers in those programmes, as amentioned above, they are highly qualified and so should be able to adjust quickly enough if laid off. So I think the above would be an example of tax cuts that would not hurt anyone too much, if we want to look at it from a humanistic perspective. Any other ideas for possible federal spending cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much?

Thanks. Also, seeing that it's easy to say 'cut spending', has anyone gote some advice as to where to cut spending? Personally, I could think of a few that would hurt nobody too much: 1. Cut (and I don't mean reduce, but CUT) spending on second-language education for civil servants, police, military, and all other government personnel, and instead use the limited bilingual resources available more strategically by placing them where their language skills are likely to be needed most. 2. Introduce high-level (not Mickey-Mouse) compulsory tests to assess the language competence of newcomers to Canada, which they must pass, and cut (again, I make a distinction between the meanings of cut and reduce) spending on the Federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml). 3. Make an official recommendation to the UN to consult formally on the reduction of the UN's official languages from 6 to 1 (last I'd read, the UN was spending about 12 million US dollars a year on interpretation and translation costs for meetings of the General Assembly alone! And remember, this increases funding demands on member states, including Canada). Now, I said that none of thes policies would hurt anybody too much, and here's my explanation: 1. Generally speaking, in a bilingual community where someone might in fact need government services in either official language, chances are there are also plenty of bilinguals to choose from. logical conclusion, eh. And if there are not many bilingual candidates to choose from in that community then it's probably because the community is not very bilingual in the first place. Again, a pretty logical conclusion. So cutting spending on language teaching for civil servants is not likely to affect access to bilingual services much. As for the teachers who lose their jobs as a result, well, they are bilingual, teachers are generally well educated and receive a middle class salary, and so they are likely to be more able to cope with the layoffs than others. Add to that that once these teachers go to work in the private sector, they expand access to bilingual services in the private sector. So no one will suffer too much from this. And worse comes to worse, they'll still have access to Ei in the transition period. 2. If we don't allow a person to enter Canada in the first place, then we're not going to be causing him any undue harm. He'll just continue on as he always had before. As for teachers in the LINC programme, same as above for those in the public service. 3. If UN interpretors and translators lose are laid off, I'm sure they'll be able to find other work for crying out loud. They're highly qualified. So I think the above would be an example of tax cuts that would not hurt anyone too much, if we want to look at it from a humanistic perspective.

Sorry, forget this thread.

Which of the above candidates would you vote for?

Which of the above candidates would you vote for?

I realise it's dated, but a constitution is there to serve the people, not the other way around. And why should we fear opening the constitution to make it more congruent with justice? Why would it be dangerous?

I think most would too. Personally, though my first preference would be for a candidate who will tryto reduce government spending, my second option would be for a candidate who doesn't fear supporting tax increases to maintain a balanced budget (for example, if he fails to convince the government to reduce spending). My last option would be for a candidate who promises tax reduction yet can't promise spending reductions. In this respect, if I only had a choice between the following two candidates: 1. 'I'll increase taxes if necessary to balance the budget'. and 2. 'I promise tax reductions no matter what the cost' I'd vote 1 aobve. But I suspect most would vote 2 above.

To some degree, I'd say we're at fault for thi deficit. Imagine, if in an election you have two candidates to vote for, and here's what they promose: Candidate 1: 'I'll reduce government spending.'. When asked about taxes, he states that he hopes to reduce them, but no promises; it'll depend on the revenue to sepnding ratio. Candidate 2: 'I'll reduce taxes'. When asked about spending: 'Well, we've got all kinds of responsibilities like war and such'. My guess is, between two such candidates, most would vote for 2 above. Personally, I'd vote for 1 above. And you?

Who wudda thunk our great constitution gave a special privileged status to one religion over others in matters of education, eh.

I fully agree on that. I tend to be harder on myself than others, on my family than other families, on so on my province than other provinces, and my country than other countries. With my personality, if I were not Canadian, I'd likely not be criticizing Canada so much, but criticizing my own instead. I guess it's just in my character to be critical. But yes, I agree that we have done many great things. But it still angers me to see that we wil place blind tradition over human rights.

I suppose so. But in the mean time, is it appropriate for Canada to engage in discussing human rights abroad when we are aware of our own flaws? Remember the point about pulling the moat out of our own eyes so we can see better to pull the twig out of our neighbours'?

I was wondering why libertarianism in Canada is so insignificant compared to conservatism. I find that when I talk to conservatives about why they're conservative, they'll often sound libertarian on the surface. THey talk about government being too big, 'social engineering' (as if conservatives aren't guilty of that themselves, not to mention that the jury's still out as to whether it's even necessarily a bad word to begin with), taking away our freedoms, too much government spending, and too many laws. But then they turn around and want to spend all our money on wars, and engage in their own social engineering by closing us off from immigration, etc. Now if a conservative wants to be conservative, I have no issue with that. But in that case, why can't they just be honest and say that they support high government spending, but just not on the same programmes that socialists do? Why don't they admit that they also want to engage in social engineering, but more in the direction of maintianing racial and cultural purity? Etc. It seems that conservaives always like to talk like libertarians when it suits them. and then switch to being conservative again when it suits them. I'm not a libertarian myself, let alone a Libertarian. But I am moderately libertarian-leaning, but it just irritates me to no end when I hear conservatives talking like their libertarians when they're far from it.