Machjo

I can't see a short-term solution, though I'm open to ideas. The way I see it is that the problem starts in public school. Few Canadians learn their second language well. This results in a chain reaction of problems throughout the system as a result of a lack of competent bilinguals. In a sense, national communication, both in the private and federal sectors, ends up getting funneled through the few competent bilinguals whose departments are eternally understaffed. I actually had a bilingual colleague a few years ago who asked me to keep it a secret since she could see the rest of us always too busy and working rotating shifts all the time. She didn't see that worth the extra money and feared that if management learnt of her bilingualism, they'd pressure her into a bilingual contract too. And her French wasn't even that great! Thinking outside the box, ignoring popular opinion, and just looking at it from an objective economic, logistic, and cybernetic point of view, it would seem the most logical solution would be to have public schools gradually replace English and French by Esperanto or some other easy-to-learn second language in high school. That way, every Canadian would be fluently bilingual by the end of high-school. This would still allow French Canadians to trade with the French-speaking world and English-Canadians with the English-speaking world, but it would finally allow English and French Canadians to trade more with one another too. Probably the greatest barrier to trade between Ontario and Quebec is the language barrier, believe it or not. Beyond that, it could eventually eliminate the need for much interpretation and translation both in the public and the private sectors. I've faced language barriers in the private sector too on a number of fronts in Canada too. Canada is far from being bilingual. It would be more accurate to describe it as bi-unilingual, which is not a good situation economically.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps my line of work has made me cynical when I have to deal with functional illiterates in the Government. I remember asking a government agent what she needed. She turned to her colleague to ask him. They were exchanging in a mixture of broken English and French as they tried to understand one another. She knew standard French and broken English. I couldn't hear him clearly (since this was over the phone), but based on her responses, I'm guessing he knew some broken French and maybe standard English. They had some back and forth as she struggled to understand her frigging colleague before finally turning back to me to tell me what she needed. I mean seriously! And that's just one example. Now more reasonably, I think Canada needs to turn to regional unilingualism: French in Quebec, English elsewhere, or some other arrangement that doesn't force the government to work in broken language like a bunch of functional illiterates.

I'm personally multilingual, so please define 'bilingualism.' If by 'bilingualism,' you mean personal bilingualism, I'm very much for it. If you mean official bilingualism, I'm very much against it. in fact, the two are somewhat diametrically opposed since the whole point of official bilingualism is to take responsibility for a second language away from individuals and have the government bear that burden. Official unilingualism forces the individual to become bilingual. Ideally in a multilingual country like Canada, the official language would be an easy one for all to learn as a common second language that we could all learn to a high level of functional literacy.

I am a French Canadian, presently live in Quebec, but planning to move back to Ontario soon. Don't confuse language with policy. I love the French language, but I hate Canada's language policy. It's highly inefficient and produces functional illiterates across the board. I work in the private sector but deal extensively with many branches of the Government of Canada (including CRA, DND, DFATD, RCMP, CBSA, IRD, and Justice among many others) on a GoC contract. A running joke between me and some of my bilingual colleagues is that the official languages of the Federal Government are broken English and broken French. The Conference Board of Canada seems to support this position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Orthographic,_grammatical,_lexical,_and_other_challenges_of_official_bilingualism

Switzerland is a bad example. While canada's is based on the personality principle (i.e. from coat to coast to coast), Switzerland's is based on the territorial principle (i.e. official unilingualism in any given region). Indonesia has over 100 languages with an official or de facto status locally, but again that's local. Nationally, Indonesia has but one easy-to-learn official language that all Indonesians are expected to learn as their common second language (since the national language originally evolved from a trade pidgin). So yes, if we follow the territoriality principle, Canada could handle countless official languages as long as it has a common language at the national level. Otherwise, even two languages becomes unwieldy. Heck, even our MPs need interpreters like UN ambassadors in Parliament.That should say something.

Have what? Hyperdecentralizaton? No we don't. We have decentralization but not to that degree.

If we maintain a common citizenship though, then the Quebec corridor wouldn't seem so imposing since private citizens could freely cross it easily enough. As for governments, yes, I can see your point that Canadian military equipment couldn't just cross a quasi-sovereign Quebec without its consent, meaning that for the most part, what's on the east coast would stay there and what's on the other side of Quebec would stay there. Unless they're willing to head North over Quebec and then down through Nunavut I suppose. Given the cost of going around Quebec, Canada would probably just negotiate paying a fee for Quebec to allow Canadian military equipment to cross the borders freely I guess. But again, for private citizens, if we maintained a common citizenship, that would be a non-issue.

For a large chunk of the Canadian economy among other things?

Like in the past you mean? Historically, indigenous peoples were great international traders. That's why Chinuk Wawa spread across Cascadia.

What would be wrong with granting her the freedom to visit, study, work, or do business visa-free? Why would she need permanent residency or citizenship just to live with you? I think we could make a distinction between different kinds of immigration. I have no problem with giving people easy access to visa-free travel, study, work, and business in Canada, but we shouldn't give access to social assistance as easily.

But, in an adversarial system, while he can ask the question or ask for the information, he can't force a prosecutor to present certain information. Yes, a prosecutor's refusal to present easily-accessible information could increase the probability of a judge or jury deciding in favour of the accused just because of that, especially if the accused is adamant that that information be released. However, that's not always the case and when we're dealing with a trial on a balance of probabilities (like in a civil case or immigration trial), that refusal can increase the risk of a wrongful decision if the judge decides to make his decision on the limited available proof without questioning why the Minister's counsel refuses to present this or that information. If the judge questions it, that could go in the accused's favour. If he doesn't and the evidence presented points to his guilt, then no matter how loudly the accused asked for the Minister's counsel to release all available information, he's stuck. In such a situation, the Minister's counsel often holds the key to much of the evidence but has a specific role of proving guilt. At least at immigration tribunals, an accused should absolutely have the right to an inquisitorial trial so as to deprive the Minister's counsel of that kind of power. Some judges in immigration hearings will not question the Minister's counsel's motive for refusing to present this or that information, sometimes even something as critical as an arresting officer's or witness' name so that the defendant's counsel can question them.

It does not allow him to bypass the legal process since the Notwithtanding clause itself is part of that process.

By not appealing, he accepts the court's decision that without the Notwithstanding clause, it violated the constitution. So he corrected his error by using the notwithstanding clause so as to make it conformant to the constitution since the notwithstanding clause itself is part of the constitution.

One in which the judge maintains inquisitorial powers. rather than sit as an arbiter of procedures, he takes an active role in the investigation. For example, in an adversarial system, imagine an immigration process where the person is to be found guilty on a balance of probabilities. The Minister's counsel knows the names of the officers and the witnesses but refuses to repent them and instead insists on presenting only anonymous police reports. The defendant's counsel insists on getting the names of the officers and witnesses so that she can question them. In an adversarial trial, the judge's hands are tied. He still has the power to decide to judge in favour of the accused based on the grounds that the Minister's counsel isn't cooperating. Or he could judge against the accused based on the limited available evidence pointing to her guilt. What he cannot do is to force the Minister's counsel to share information she does not want to share. If the main proof of innocence lies in her hands, the accused is screwed and so must rely on the fair-mindedness of the judge. In an inquisitorial system, the judge could demand the officers' and witnesses' names and even go out and interview them himself if he must or appoint someone to do so for him. In other words, the Minister's counsel no longer holds the key to the evidence: the judge holds it instead. Now on the flip side, in an inquisitorial system, the judge can ask for witnesses that the accused might not want to share too, granted. In short, it gives him more inquisitorial powers overall. I actually know of one immigration case in Canada in which an accused did find himself facing a situation in which the presented evidence made him look guilty but the Minister's counsel refused to share the officers' and witnesses' names at the defendant's request. Luckily, the judge ruled in the defendant's favour arguing that while the Minister's council did have the right to refuse to share that evidence, the judge had to take that refusal into account in his decision. Unfortunately in his case, the Minister's counsel appealed and the second judge decided in favour of the Minister arguing that the Minister had no obligation to share evidence he didn't want to share and that the onus was on the accused to prove the falsity of the police reports even though the only way to do that was to get the names of the officers and witnesses on the scene. In an inquisitorial trial, that would never have happened since the judge could go right over the Minister's counsel's head and demand the names and interview them himself or appoint someone to do so and report back to him if he must. Ha actually has the power to do his job properly in other words.

You might have a point there. I could see a law that would require a police investigator to inform a person of his right to an inquisitorial trial similarly to Miranda rights in the US. Should the person opt for an inquisitorial trial, he'd have to accept a judge-only trial. Also, there would be no turning back. Once he opts for an inquisitorial trial, the trial and any appeal would follow the inquisitorial system from then on. Same if he opts for an adversarial trial. I grant that an inquisitorial trial could be far more uncomfortable, but it would be much quicker too. An innocent person who has a life to live might opt for that.

It's actually not bypassing the courts in the least. In fact, the courts themselves will uphold it.

You must be confusing me with someone else. On the GTA thread, my opinion is that the judges do not have too much power since they are bound by the Constitution. If I were ever accused of a penal offence, I would prefer an inquisitorial trial myself. Yes, it would mean forfeiting my right to remain silent. Yes it would mean making it easier for investigators to search my property. Yes it would give the judge the power to call anyone as a witness. However, all of that would also mean getting everything over with and fast, unlike in an adversarial system. I have nothing against the adversarial system for those who choose that route. But if I'm innocent, why would I want to waste my time with all of the procedural aspects of an adversarial trial when I could choose the expediency of an inquisitorial one and get it over with sooner? If I'm innocent, I'd have little to hide, no?

Why not? If I'm arrested for a crime, I know I'm innocent, and I'm willing of my own free will to forego my right to privacy and silence for the sake of giving the judge more power to call witnesses of his choosing and to access everything the police have on me, should that not be my right? Yes, I appreciate the right to privacy and to silence. In some cases though, especially when an innocent accused finds himself in a compromising situation, he might willingly forego that in exchange for a more thorough investigation than what an adversarial trial will allow. Sure in an adversarial trial, I have a greater right to privacy (i.e. the police need a warrant to search my home) and a right to remain silent. But of what use would that be if the only proof of my innocence happened to sit in the hands of the prosecutor who's express job it is to present only what makes me look guilty?

One advantage of the adversarial system is that an accused has at least somewhat more control over his trial than he otherwise would in an inquisitorial system. This could make it easier for him to show the judge only what he wants to show the judge. Unfortunately though, it gives the prosecutor the same kind of control. In some cases, if a person is innocent but finds himself in a compromising situation, he has no way to prove his innocence without the prosecutor's cooperation, and the prosecutor has more control over what to show the judge, he might prefer an inquisitorial system. While that system might give him less control over what he wants to present, it gives the prosecutor less control too. As a result, a judge in an inquisitorial system can sometimes access information that he otherwise couldn't. As a result, it could potentially embarrass the accused; but if that allows the judge to also access information from the police that shows the accused's innocence, that embarrassment might be a small price to pay to give the judge more power to access the available evidence from both sides. Think of it as a nuclear option: you're found in a compromising situation, you know you're innocent, and you fear that the prosecutor might choose to present only what makes you look guilty. If the prosecutor knows that you have a legal right to opt for an inquisitorial trial, he might hesitate to press charges if he knows that that could give the judge access to exculpatory proof. In some cases, an innocent accused found in a compromising situation might prefer that even if it could potentially bring about some embarrassment. Should a person charged with an offence have the right to an inquisitorial trial?

If a French Canadian could learn the grammatically difficult Arabic language and the scripturally difficult Chinese, then he could learn the at least relatively easier English too. the point is he can't even learn English well, so how will he learn Arabic and Chinese? As to the point of speaking different languages opening one's mind, I agree. I speak a few languages too and even have friends who share no common language with one another and have had friends with whose friends I shared no common language. Knowing different languages is great at a personal level. But I sure wouldn't want language policy in Air Traffic control and between pilots being a free for all. Parliament and the courts are the same thing. We're not talking about personal bilingualism here.

I would be curious as to your thoughts on an IAL as a second-language in high schools. For example, we know how much of a miserable failure English and French as second languages are across Canada. These languages are so difficult to learn we struggle to teach enough teachers, let alone students. Research shows that 150 hours of Esperanto give the same results as 1500 of English and French is around as difficult to learn as English. We know Canada's high functional illiteracy rates and how even our Members of Parliamen, judges, and Ministers' counsels t can't even communicate with one another effectively. With the above in mind, would it not make sense to allow public schools across Canada to teach Esperanto to fulfill high-school second language requirements given how it's around ten times easier to learn than either English and French and given how even our judges and counsels and MPs can't even learn them well?

the UN is not perfect, but we have to be careful with our arguments here. If I say that Canadian human-rights laws supersede UN human-rights laws, then who am i to say that UN human-rights laws supersede the Iranian constitution? Yes, one can make the argument that national laws ought to supersede international laws; but we then need to be consistent with that argument and can't play double standards on it. Do you support your argument consistently or only as it applies to Canada?

And Chretien was one of the writers of the Charter.

I thought that was my point: either all or none at all.

But if we maintained a common citizenship, any Canadian could still move to Quebec and any Quebecer to Canada visa-free and even vote in their respective elections. In a sense, it would not truly be 'separation' but perhaps more accurately described as 'hyper-decentralization' or making Quebec a semi-autonomous region.