Machjo

Neither is in my riding, so it really doesn't matter to me. I'll be looking at my local candidate.

Not too many voted Green either. So do we need a Progressive Conservative Green coalition? That could be interesting to say the least. Or how about we just call it the Blue Green Party? Seeing that it's still relatively new (introduced in the 90's, but as far as evaluating the long-term impact of education reforms, that's still recent), there is as yet little research done on it. You could refer to this: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3691.pdf According to this report, switching to the voucher program has led to barely measurable improvements to cost efficiency and performance (contrary to what many free-marketeers have often proposed). However, aside from the techincal aspects of economic efficiency, it also grants more freedom of choice, which though not measurable in economic terms, is a benefit none the less. At least it's been showing so far to not be any less efficient than our system. So at lest that argument's out of the way. And no, they're not teaching Biblical literalism in science class either. One thing it could do for Ontario though is eliminate constitutionally mandated discrimination on the basis of religion. We should bear in mind too that there are various kinds of voucher systems in existence in favious countries operating within different rules. It's success also depends on the rules within which it operates. In Sweden for instance, there are still various rules relating to the vouchers (e.g. all schools must still adhere to the national curriculum, toping up is not permitted, etc.) Surprisingly enough, in Sweden even the teachers' union went along with it in the end: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm So again, maybe the US voucher systems were ill conceived.

Or better yet, introduce universal compulsory year-round education for 5-15-year-olds let's say, along with quality education in trades and professions for all. That way where they can't compete in wages, they can compete in skills.

Highly inefficient. A better solution: Share a common currency, link free labour movement to free trade, have ministries of education establish common educational standards for various trades and professions, and bingo, should jobs move anywhere, the workers can follow them just as easily.

Maybe the Tories did start the problem, but now the Liberals are the ones defending it while the Tories are trying to remove it. Now as for funding for religious schools, Sweden's voucher programme seems to be working quite well in Swden. You're not going to tell me now that Sweden is a fanatical religious state, are you?

I on't profess teh Christian Faith myself, but it would seem to me the PCs and the Greens are the only two parties speaking out against religious discrimination in the school system. The Liberals even SUPPORT and DEFEND it! And the NDP remained ever so silent on the topic. So it would seem to me that anyone who believes in justice will support either the Greens or the PCs. Rather than point fingers at voters who vote PC, why don't Liberals ask themselves why even non-evangelicals and even non-Christians might be attracted to them in the first place.

OK, to be fair I was addressing people in French. The first day there, out of curiosity I'd pretended not to know French and most people had a lot of time giving me directions. I quickly got bored with that game after a few tries and so switched to French. It may be that it was just luck of the draw that the ones I'd gotten didn't speak English. However, I'd found that everyone I'd met spoke French. So while English would be an asset for a federal public servant in Quebec city, it wouldn't be worthwhile making it compulsory. In La Malbaie it was another matter. I'd met even high school teachers there who could not speak English. But technicalities aside, English is by no means spoken by all Canadians. I'd found people in Roberval who could not speak English either. On occasion I will pretend not to know French or English just to get a feel for the community, and have found in most of Quebec you can forget English.

I'm a francophone Ottawan myself, but so far I've met one French-speaking resident who did not know English.

English and French are national? You've never been to a Quebec city suburb, have you. They are both regional languages, neither of which being truly national. In fact, we don't have any single national language, only regional languages.

I'm sorry, but should the onus not be on you to learn French if you intend to deal with local federal government offices in Queebc city? That's just a matter of respect for the local language. After all, If a Nunavummiut tried to get service in Inuktitut in Ottawa, he'd get answered in either English or French. And if he can speak neither, then tough for him. Why should Canadians of European descent get this 1.6B privilege that is not afforded to the indigenous peoples of this land? If they don't get such services, then neither should we. If I want service from a federal government office in Calgary, then the onus ought to be on me to learn English. In Quebec, French. And yes, in Iglulik, Inuktitut. What applies to one ought to apply to tall. That's a basic principle of equality. And so, if Inuktitut services are not provided in Calgary and Quebec city, then neither should English in Quebec city and Iglulik or French in Calgary and Iglulik unless the local office wishes to do so and has the human resources to do so.

Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend without a doubt. Though in a debt situation, tax and axe is even better than tax and spend, with borrow and spend being the worst option.

Just as the right is not a homogenous whole, neither is the left. Some on the right are fiscally responsible, some aren't. Some on the left are fiscally responsible, some aren't. So you'll need to be more specific as to which left you're referring to.

Yes, but I would like to see a further shift to lower my income tax even further.

Beyond simple economics, it's also embarrasing to Ontario's human rights record on the world stage. Just read Waldman v. Canada, 1996 (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/b3bfc541589cc30f802568690052e5d6?Opendocument). If we consider that we have troops dying abroad in the the defence of international law and universal human rights, it is quite shameful that we should then lack the courage to uphold them here in Canada. I'm for year-round schooling too, but only for 5-15-year olds. Remember that at the age of fifteen, they can legally work part time, so will need some time off school to work. What language-based schooling? I was referring to Hungary's second-language education policy. Whereas in Ontario English-medium schools must teach French, In Hungary they can teach the second-language of their choice as long as the course plan has been approved by the Ministry of Education for pedagogical soundness, and pupils can shoose the second-language to be tested in among languages already approved by the Ministry. Over 20 languages have already been approved. This provides clear advantages to Hungarians in teh world market, with Hungarians knowing a variety of different languages, compared to Ontarians who for the most part have access only to the English and French speaking worlds. And I don't know where you came up with that statement about new Canadians? It would benefit all Ontarians, giving them more second-language choice in school besides just French, thus allowing them to choose according to global market demand.

I'll be voting candidate, not party. Among the platforms I'll be voting for: 1. A plan to remove the separate school system from the Constitution Act, 2. Implementing UNESCo Resolution IV.4.422-4224. A simple way to implement the latter would be to introduce a Hungarian-style second-language education model. And ot make it even more responsive to parents, it could also be supplemented by a Swedish-style voucher programme. According to the Hungarian second-language education model, each school is free to teach the second language of its choice as long as the course plan has been approved by the Ministry of Education for meeting basic pedagogical standards, and each pupil can be tested in the second language of his choice from among the languages already approved by the Ministry. And according to the Swedish voucher programme, an e-voucher is given to parents for each school-aged pupil under their care to be cashed in at any voucher school. To participate, the school must meet basic educational standards as set by the Ministry of Education, must not charge any additional fees and must accept pupils on a first-come-first-served basis. Other platform ideas I'll be looing out for: Eliminating legally mandated minimum wages, and possibly replacing them with German-style codetermination, Negotiating common educational standards for trades and professions with other ministries of education in Canada and abroad so as to make the Ontario workforce more mobile and reduce accreditation bureaucracy for newcomers to the province, shifting taxes to a more user-pay system such as a gas tax, possibly increasing the number of days in the school year for 5-15 year olds.

Well, yes, I was thinking of the Ontario side of the border exclusively. You'd be surprised though when you travel to the outskirts of Gatineau how quickly English fades away. Some are barely functional in the language even just 50 miles from the Ontario border! And I would agree too that Federal services in Gatineau should need to be offered in French only, or again if we consider that Gatineau's downtown area does have residents who don't know French, maybe like Ottawa we could argue the case for a bilingual region. But even if we consider the Capital region as falling within the bilingual territories, it would still save money compared to having French services in Victoria BC and English services in Roberval QC.

As for bilingual federal services in Montreal, that's reasonable. Ottawa? Debatable. Calgary or Val-d'or? Waste of money. In grey areas such as Ottawa, I suppose we could be nice and provide bilingual services there too. But where one language clearly dominates, bilingualism ought not be mandatory.

Well, first off, there is no such language as Canadian. And as far as I'm concerned, only the predominant local language ought to matter. In most of Canada, that is either English or French. A French speaker should not expect services in French in Vancouver any more than an English-speaker ought to expect English-language services in Quebec City. It's just too expensive.

It's explained in Reid's book Lament for a Notion (available in public libaries). Essentially, it would mean that Federal government services would be required to operate bilingually in both French and English only in local communities where there is a significant number of both French and English speakers; everywhere else, they could operate in either or, depending on which is more prevailent. According to the link below, the current system requiring bilingual services coast to coast to coast regardless of local demographics costs about 1.6 billion dollars a year: http://www.fraseramerica.org/commerce.web/product_files/OfficialLanguagePolicies_US.pdf As for Nunavut, providing federal services in the local indigenous languages there makes sense. Providing bilingual services in Calgary or Quebec city is ridiculous.

My own Conservative MP in Ottawa-Orleans in Ontario is also a French-speaker, and he'd made it clear to me that he supports the Official Languages Act. I'd like to go to territorial bilingualism as was suggested by Scott Reid, which would save much money, but many Conservatives, even outside of Quebec, are staunch supporters of it. Remember too that many Ontario members of the Conservative caucus are red tories. It's not as simple as it seems.

I'll give Layton the doubt in my usual manner. But even if all he says is true, to strip naked is still bad judgment. Beyond that though, innocent until proven guilty. but still bad judgment to strip naked even in a classy massage parlour.

I have done that once. However, its effect is more limited than actually voting for someone.

When we consider that voter turn-out keeps dropping each year, and that even those who do vote sometimes hand in blank ballots for 'none of the above', that maybe it's time to add a write-in space on ballots so as to allow voters to vote for non-megalomaniacs? I could see a system whereby each election Elections Canada would update its voter-candidate (I say voter-candidate since in principle under such a system all voters would in fact be candidates) list (and of course voters themselves would have a responsibility to register too, naturally), along with a unique voter-candidate ID number which can be written in as an identifier. We as voters would be free to check one of the names on the ballot or, alternatively, write in the name of another voter-candidate along with his voter-candidate ID number. And just like under the current system, the plurality wins the mandate. I think such a system would reduce the bias the current system has toward sending megalomaniacs to Parliament. Any thoughts on this?

And the local riding has the freedom to choose whomever it wants to. That's how democracy works. I'd voted for my local candidate last election, and he didn't win. Well, so be it. Then again, none of the ones I vote for ever win. Oh well. But there I digress. My point is that just as I have voted for my candidate in my riding and would not appreciate others sticking their noses into the affairs of our riding, so it's not up to me or anyone else outside that riding, including the PM by the way, to stick their noses in that local election either. Let the lcoals decide who will represent them.

Hmmm... not in my riding, none of my business. Isn't that the whole point of local ridings?