Machjo

That'snot population growth, but merely a population shift. We'd still be left with the same tax base.

Strangely enough, I actually see them as interrelated. If you want develop a stronger national defense, you need to promote population growth. I think eliminating abortions is a solution, though some would disagree. Another factor would be to improve education so as to increase a person's chances of success in life, thus providing more stability, thus increasing the chances of marriage, settling and having children. So in fact, discussing ways of promoting population increase, whether via immigration, banning abortion, or improving education, are all very relevant to the whole question of national defense. Add to that that people who are more successful in life are more likely to feel that there is something worth defending, thus increasing the chances of political support for military defense spending, not to mention that higher incomes stemming from higher productivity, stemming in part to greater skills to sell on teh market, would mean more government revenue to in fact afford a stronger military. All of these are fully interrelated.

If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a life time.

Yes, but you only need so many of them. Once all those positions are full, then what? The rest of them are unemployed. If they all had to possess some trade or profession before the end of high school, some of them might still end up pumping gas, but if there are not enough jobs there, then at least they have something to fall back on. I'd rather spend more money on education than on supporting people on welfare.

Either that or make higher education free for all, but then that costs money .for that reason, I think it would be preferable to try to get them to learn a trade or profession before the end of high school, even if it's only entry level skills.

This is the problem though. If for whatever reason a person cannot go on to university, college, trade school, or anything else of the sort, whether owing to financial, family, or other obstacle, material or otherwise, he's screwed. We need to ensure all children possess at least an entry level skills in some trade or profession, with any kind of higher education building on that. Otherwise, we too many fall between the cracks.

If you make parents understand this, that learning construction does not automatically disqualify him from univerisity, but that it's a practical step towards university, they might be more accepting of it.

It's not a question of little Johnny not being able to learn maths and science, but rather that he might not see how it relates to any particular trade or profession. If he enjoys building things, then teach him matchs and science as they apply to construction, measuring the length of the wood, angles, etc.and some science behind the wood, kinds of wood, the advantages of different kinds of wood, etc. If later he changes his mind and decides to go on to enineering, some of this knowledge might be transferable, so this would not necessarily mean he's necessarily less smart than other kids nor would it necessarily have to prevent him from going on to university. however, once he's finished high school, he can perhaps work, earn money and experience, and then go on to university. Otherwise, he learns all kinds of academic subjects in high school, can't find a job afterwards, and even if he is a genius, with no money he's still not going to university.

Quite honestly, fro my personal experience, I feel that the elementary and high schools I'd gone to seemed to assume that I was in fact going to go on to university. The point is not whether the assumption is right or not, but rather the possibility that the assumption could have been wrong and how that could have affected me in such a case. Since you'd asked, I'll ask the question back to you. Did you find that much of your compulsory education seemed to be based on the assumption that you would in fact go on to higher education, or had you in fact learnt some kind of trade or profession, even if only entry level, before graduating from high school? For me, that is the feeling I'd gotten, that most of my compulsory education was geared too much towards university preparation.

I'd studied in a French-medium Catholic school in Ottawa at the beginning of elementary school and at a French-medium elementary school in Victoria BC for the rest. Then I'd studies in English-medium middle and high schools in Nanaimo and Victoria, and college in Victoria. I must say that while I'd learnt much useful knowledge in high school, none of it was as important as learning some kind of trade or profession, which I did not even start to learn until after high school. Had I not been able to receive higher education for any reason, I'd likely have been screwed in life.

I see the point about developing confidence in pupils, granted, but there are plenty of ways of doing this. I'll take some examples: Handwriting: Historically in elite British schools, pupils were expected to write in a Copperplate script of a calligraphic standard with a steel-nibbed pen, and those who failed to meet the standard got a good caning. Eventually schools smartened up and shifted to easier scripts such as the Vere Foster script in the UK and Palmer script in the US. The UK has since shifted increasingly to Italic cursive and it's becoming more popular in the US too since it's easier to teach and learn, just as fast to write, legible and still esthetically pleasing. Personally I think this is a step in the write direction. Keep simplifying cursive for the average pupil, leaving Copperplate to those who wish to specialize in art. This way, they can all feel a sense of accomplishment, but each at his own level. Languages: Some governments, especially in Europe, allow schools to teach pupils the language of their choice where possible. As a result, a pupil who's not so interested in language learning can choose an easier second language to learn, thus increasing his chances of success, while other pupils looking for a greater challenge can choose a more difficult language to learn. Again, this allows all pupils to succeed, each at their own level. So why could we not apply the same principle to learning a trade or profession? Of course I agree that there is no point in forcing a pupil to learn something that is beyond his abilities. That said, why could we not expect each pupil to specialize in what they can do well? Those with more limited abilities could narrow their specialization down a little but still be expected to master it. Since it would be narrowed down a little, it would mean less to learn, thus not overburdening the child, yet by ensuring his success the school could still give him a sense of accomplishment which will promote motivation. Stronger students on the other hand could be expectation to learn a wider range of specializations, but still with an expectation of excellence. Each child must be expected to succeed on some level or other. Sure the level of success could vary, but the idea of just babysitting them is a waste of money.

I know; it needs to be changed. That's the whole point of what I was writing. Schools must ensure that each pupil has a trade or profession under his belt, even if only entry level, before graduating from middle school, so as to ensure he'll have a skill to offer on the job market or start his own business or whatever.

I agree that most Quebecers run roughshod over treaties and the historical leitimacy of its first Nations and Inuit. But remember how the Oka crisis raised sympathy for the Mohawks even as far away as Germany. If Quebec decided to continue doing this as an independent nation, any good will among foreign friends of its would quickly be diluted. A new nation needs to develop friends internationally. Thus Quebec's treatment of the First Nations and Inuit could make or break the new nation.

Many truths in this. Add to that that university is also constrained not only by intelligence but money too. Not everyone can go to university even if they are bright, just because of other financial, family or other obstacles. Thus when the education system teaches all students based on the assumption that they will go on to univeristy, it fails those who do not go on to university in the end. Also, when a school assumes that a pupil with high marks will necessarily go on to university, even if that is his intention at the time, it fails him if for whatever reason he doesn't make it to university owing to whatever obstacle it may be, and he's left a burden on society. All pupils ought to graduate from middle school with a trade or profession under their belt. It does not mean they cannot go on to university, but it does mean that they have something to fall back on if they don't go on to university. In fact, it might even increase their chances of going on to university sicne after graduation they could in fact go into their trade or profession to earn the money necessary to go on to university, whereas if they are simply trained in academics and they come from a poor family, they get out of high school only to fall into the catch-22 referred to above, making them a wasted mind that could have served society if properly developed, all through no fault of his own. You can't blame a man for not catching fish if he'd never been taught how to fish.

Perhaps, but it must ensure they are fully trained in a trade or profession before the age of 15. If a person graduates without a skill, he risks becoming a burden on society by falling through the catch-22 (no job for the money for an education and no education to get a job for the money for an education). Then they become a burden through no fault of their own and if stuck in this catch-22 long enough, they risk becoming bitter and thus a further burden on the criminal justice system. All of this does in fact relate to military spending because until every citizen feels that there is something worth defending, they won't feel any motivation to defend the country. And add to that that for the second-greatest political landmass in the world, a man without a job won't want kids, leading to population shrinkage, leading to a lack of human resources and tax base to develop the military needed to defend the country. So until those issues are dealt with, military issues really do take a back burner.

In the end it's up to the party membership to decide. Also, who's to say that a merger between two parties would not just lead to a vacuum allowing a third party to fill that vacuum, thus bringing things back to square one with just the parties having shifted places?

Quebec could regret this if it separated. After all, it would undoubtedly mean reopening the constitution, and the First Nations treaties would quickly be at the forefront and seeing the international comunity has some sympathy for the First Nations, both Quebec and the ROC would likely quickly change their minds as they see that both Quebec and the ROC would stand to lose much land.

Actually all we have to do is look at the old Con-Alliance merger. The new party stood in the middle of its parents ideologically speaking, some red tories left and joined the Libs, Greens, Progressive Canadian Party, and perhaps some other parties. With the Progrssive Cons having shifted right a little in the new merger, the Libs also shifted right a little. You see, it all balanced out in the end. All that work for nothing, just to come full circle in the end. And like before, some on the right are disappointed. Well, what do you expect? A blue tory party merges with a red tory party, in the end you end up with acentre tory party with both the true blues and birght red tories disappointed. Same happens with any merger. It's all cosmetic and achieves nothing more than name changes and party shifts along spectrum just to refind equilibrium as before.

You're probably right. The non-partisan would see it as none of their business if this or that party merge, and that any merger would merely be a cosmetic change since parties would then have to realign themselves according to the voters, since they'd still be facing the same voters anyway. So looking at it that way, sure a non-partisan would support a Lib-Con merger since he wouldn't see it in his place to oppose it, but then again he'd be equally supportive of a Lib-NDP merer, though granted Libs and Cons have more in common with each other probably. But again, it's all cosmetic in the end.

I voted 1, 2 and 5. Since I'm not a member of any political party, who am I to tell them they can't merge or form a coalition. And of course this would apply equally to a Liberal NDP merger. In the end it would all balance out. If we had a Lib-Con merger, many red Libs would leave and join the NDP, the NDP would likely shift right a little and so sweep up more Lib seats, and so we'd see the NDP or some other party suck up the centre. It's it's a Lib-NDP coalition, again many blue Libs would leave and join the Cons or some other party, the Cons would shift left a little to such up the centre vote, and all would be back to normal again. Only difference in the end would be a shift in parties, party names, etc. All cosmetic in the end.

Good point.

Actually, some in France would like to see an independent Quebec and would likely quickly try to establish coser ties with Quebec in terms of trade and such. But I doubt Quebec could count on France for a government cash infusion, but free trade would certainly help. Also, seeing that Quebec is powering New York, I'm sure the US would see it in their best interests to maintain free trade with Quebec. As for me, I'm really undecided on the issue, but I do believe that separation on amicable terms would not hurt either side too much in the long run, though granted there would be short term growing pains.

There is a difference between a formalized party system and an informal one. An informal one is more flexible, and that's ideally what we ought to be aiming for. Even the US one is far superior to ours with its much weaker sense of party discipline. We have gone way too far in ours.

Surprisingly enough, the Swedish system (yeah, that jewel of the socialist movement) has a voucher programme in place and privative schools can participate in it too. We also need to give schools more freedom too. I agree with your idea of giving students more choices and opportunities to specialize in something they'd be interested in. Not everyone enjoys academic pursuits. Hungary has a good language system too. Each school can teach the second language of its choice, and pupils can take the second-language test of their choice from among at least 20 languages. This also helps to expand world markets for our products. When we force all Canadians to learn French or English as their second language, it creates a closed loop. All of these ideas I think are worth looking at. Also, overlapping objectives would be worth looking at too. Education is a provincial matter, whereas the military is a military matter, and so I doubt they communicate with each other much. But why could martial arts not be part of the compulsory curriculum for all? Sure some martial arts might be too difficult for some pupils, but then again, tai chi chuan has both a traditional and a simplified form. So pupils who are not so interested in martial arts or who are out of shape would still have the option of learning the simplified form of tai chi chuan, which would still be better than nothing in terms of health and fitness and making them more valuable should they eventually join the police, the military, etc. or even for personal defense. As for a professional military force, it's important but I still think we could wait until our debt's paid off before upgrading our ships and fighters. It's not like we have an imminent threat right now, and once our debt's paid off, then we could upgrade with the newest tech of that time.

But again, whatever structure is put in place will cost money, and so any of these proposals must go hand in hand with either tax increases or spending cuts to other areas or some other means of getting revenue. This is one reason I'd proposed year-round schooling for 5-15-year-olds. This way, they could also graduate and enter the workforce sooner. So while it would mean a spending increase initially, tis spending increase would in fact be an investment that would pay itself off in the end owing to people becoming productive taxpayers sooner. Any of this spending must be set up as an investment producing social or economic dividends of some kind. Perhaps. Or another option would be a daycare voucher.