Machjo

Though the very first step would be to make Federal services monolingually French in predominantly French speaking communities and monolingually English in predominantly English speaking communities. This would likely need to the federal first step in the winding down process for English and French

But to keep costs down, only one official sign language in any location.

If more than one, then the dominant local sign language, maybe American Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language, Inuit Sign Language, and Plains Sign Language?

We do need a common language, but I believe that it could be done this way:1. Gradually abrogate the English and French linguistic provisions from the Consttution. 2. Gradually adopt Esperanto as Canada's official textual international auxiliary language of government administration and make the textual local indigenous language an official textual local language of government administration. 3. Have no official aural language, but give an official status to a sign language. 4. Let public schools choose their language of instruction according to market demand while making Esperanto a compulsory second language. Due to Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, and having only two official textual languages of government administration in any location with no official aural language and no official language being imposed beyond the administration of the state, with the official status for a sign language being limited too, it's would be easily sustainable.

Yes. If you read the first quote from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the founding document of official bilingualism today, it becomes quite clear that the prejudices that gave rise to official bilingualism are the same that gave rise to the residential school system almost a hundred years earlier albeit in an incomparably more extreme form. Let's not forget either that at the time of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the residential school system was at its height in terms of number of students, was just starting to wind down, and was also the time fo the sixties scoop, leading to a further slowing down of the winding down of the system. In fact, Book II of the report expresses no concern over the residential school system other than its cost and the goal of integrating indigenous students into the provincial system, essentially no more than a further extension of the government's assimilationist intentions. Now if we consider that such a document is the foundation on which the house of the Official Languages Act and the language provisions of the Constitution are based, does it not then make sense that revisiting the founding principles of official bilingualism should be a natrual part of any sincere process of reconciliation?

'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine cultures the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of Br 'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine cultures the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of British and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.' Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, Paragraph 21 Considering that the recommendations of Book I of this report are the foundation on which the Official Languages Act and later the language provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights are established, is it appropriate for Canadians to continue to laud this Commission and its work especially in light of this: 'First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home. 'The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language … We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.' Stephen Harper, 2008, Statement of Apology to Survivors of the Residential School System Is it not time to rescind the languge provisions of the Constitution at least, and maybe even the Official Languages Act, or at the very least call for the establishment of a new royal commission on languages so as to identify the racial, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices of our current laws and propose a more just language policy for the residential school era? Any thoughts on this? itish and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.' Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, Paragraph 21 Considering that the recommendations of Book I of this report are the foundation on which the Official Languages Act and later the language provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights are established, is it appropriate for Canadians to continue to laud this Commission and its work especially in light of this: 'First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home. 'The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language … We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.' Stephen Harper, 2008, Statement of Apology to Survivors of the Residential School System Is it not time to rescind the languge provisions of the Constitution at least, and maybe even the Official Languages Act, or at the very least call for the establishment of a new royal commission on languages so as to identify the racial, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices of our current laws and propose a more just language policy for the residential school era? Any thoughts on this?

I hope we get to vote in US elections then if that's the case.

Last Federal election I handed in a blank ballot because not one local candidate was worth my vote; and since I never vote strategically on principle, there was no point voting for any candidate so I handed in a blank ballot. Some Canadians expressed a fear of a Conservative majority, but personally I figuered as they don't have a majority they can always pass the buck and blame their minority status, so though I was not hoping for a Conservative majority I really didn't fear it, figuring that it woudl give them a chance to prove themselves and, either way, could no longer blame their minority status no mater waht they did.

Sorry I take my last posts back. I was thinking economically liberal, not fiscally liberal. So yes, I'm fiscally conservative.

I would describe myself as social conservative and social liberral. But since I see fiscal conervative and fiscal liberal to be synonymous terms, I also see two synonymous choices. I take it what you mean by fiscal liberal is fiscal progressive?

Aren't fiscal conservative and fiscal liberal essentially synonymous terms meaning wanting less government spending?

Which history? You mean the one where we discovered the Europeans or where we discovered the America's, or the one where we discovered one another? It's all a matter of perspective and depending on how you define "we".

In fact, some governments that are generally recognized as following a generally corporatist philosophy such as Sweden are doing quite well actually, as are Japan and South Korea, albeit different kinds of corporatism.

He does have a point though. Unlike the popular meaning of the word, when used in a political or economic contxt, "corporatism" is a term carrying a precise meaning. It is an economic philosophy in its own right. Though I don't necessarily subscribe to corporatism as an ideology, some of my ideas do conform to corporatist, especially social-corporatist, ideas. In that sense one could say I do hold at least some corporatist ideas, but certainly not to be confused with the vaguely defined popular definition of the word.

I'd already clarified earlier that I agreed we should not have a two-tiered system. i was referring to beoing beyond that and preventing them from working here at all.

Don't forget many Canadians work abroad too, so then we'd have to find work for all those Canadians sent back to Canada with foreign skills that might not even always be transferable on the Canadian market, then we have to deal with them too. I think it's called tit-for-tat or something of the sort. Ever hear of that when you were in elementary school?

This part is actually a good thing. Instead of preventing them from working and then having to give them a bunch of money in foreign aid, how about letting come here and earn the money for themselves instead and then take their own hard-earned cash back home. The best part of free trade is that it helps poorer countries the most, if you believe in justice of course.

But you still have your vote and can vote your conscience, not party interest. The powers of an independent Mp may be limited, but in some respects greater than that of party members since he can in fact vote his conscience.

I'm all for open borders and letting employers whoever is most qualified for the job, as well as letting the market determine wages. But to legally recognize two separate salary brackets is discrimination pure and simple.

And that's why it's always best to vote for a candidate rather than a party.

But they do whip MPs on how to vote. Look at the long gun registry and now the life debate.

Opposition to the long-gun registry was not part of the NDP's election platform, yet Turmel did sanction those Dippers who voted against it. Seeing that it could just as easily have been a private members' bill, what's up with that? And yes, Mulcair forgave them for it, so he's a little better than Turmel on that front, but now he's proposing to whip his MPs to vote against the new bill concerning the beginning of life. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are leaving it to a free vote, only the NDP is making it a whipped vote. That's not to say the Liberals or Conservatives are not guilty of whipping votes too, but just saying the NDP is no different.

You're kidding, right? He's just as bad as Harper, or at least close to it.

In the end though, we have none to blame but ourselve. The day we stop voting strategically and vote on principle instead, and the day we stop voting for a party and start voting for a candidate based on character rather than ideology, we will continue to get these corrupt governments.

The problem with Mulcair though is that he's just as authoritarian as Harper always whipping the party vote.