Machjo

And even to produce the technology, we'll need people who possess the necessary linguistic and technical skills. Just like budgets don't balance themselves, technology doesn't just produce itself either.

The problem is not with the technology but with the language itself. For example, we already possess the necessary technology to create a program that could produce a reliable academic machine translation from Lojban to another language. The reason for this is that while Lojban is a human language, it is also designed as a cybernetic language, so grammatically hyperprecise to be precise enough to avoid ambiguities. Even that would not allow literary translations, but it certainly could produce reliable scholarly ones. English stands among the grammatically vaguest languages. English speakers rely more on context to understand the meaning, and even English speakers can misunderstand one another outside of the needed context. The technology today is already advanced enough to tell the machine that the phrase can mean different things. Then we need to choose how to program it. Most machine translators will make the machine choose the more common meaning by default. In other words, it's programmed to guess. I suppose we could create a system whereby the machine would interact with the English speaker to ask for clarification as to which of different possible meanings he means. That would greatly frustrate translation but certainly increase its reliability. If we're looking for speed and efficiency though, we can't have the machine asking us at every sentence which of different possible meanings we intend. For that, we'd probably all want to learn Lojban and machine-translate from that. The government could invest in producing a high-quality translation system from Lojban for the purpose. But then that raises another question. If English and French Canadians would all need to learn Lojban so that they could use machine-translators more efficiently, then why could they not just communicate directly in Lojban as a common language? And if they have to learn a common languge anyway, then given how the average person doesn't need such a grammatically precise language (except maybe for machine translation) and Esperanto is easier to learn than Lojban, then why not just have them all learn Esperanto instead, leaving more difficult cyber-languages like Lojban to the experts?

Success rates in French immersion even in New Brunswick sit at around 10%. In core French, 1%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Success_rates_in_second-language_instruction Both Quebec and Ontario can't find enough competent second-language teachers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Access_to_adequate_teaching_resources In my like of work, I sometimes have to call businesses around the world. I know four languages (English, French, Chinese, and Esperanto), and occasionally face a language barrier when calling a hotel in Austria or a regional airline in Brazil for example. Having taken an interest in language policy, I'm reasonably well read on the subject. Research shows that on an hourly basis, all other factors being equal, an adult learns a second language faster than a child does since he can refer to his own linguistic knowledge for help. What some people ignore is that the hardest language to learn is your first language since you have no point of reference. The reason a child learns his first language seemingly easily is because firstly, he has no choice and secondly, he's totally immersed in it. When a family moves abroad, the child spends his day at school just learning his second language whereas the parent might be working in English for some multinational company in the day and then might just take a weekly course on weekends. That still doesn't change the fact that the father would be learning more quickly on an hourly basis, but his child would just be investing many more hours daily in learning the language. That's why experts in pedagogy recommend that for the sake of efficient use of a child's time, the child start to learn his second language at the age of 11 or so. Some recommend 10, some 12. One exception is Helmar Frank who makes distinctions between languages and suggests that a child could efficiently learn Esperanto quite efficiently starting at the age of eight and more difficult languages starting at the age of 10, after he has some grounding in his first language as a point of reference. If you read the statistics, even in Europe, only around half of Europeans know a second language, and it's not necessarily English, and it's often only at a conversational level. travel off of the beaten path, and most Europeans don't know English well at all. We need to distinguish between individual language knowledge and language policy. There's a reason for example that we don't encourage multilingualism in aeronautical and maritime radio communication. There's a reason why different organizations will adopt a common language of internal communication. I know four languages, but I use only one at a time according to my environment and circumstances. When we talk about language policy, the government can't take someone with a knowledge of fifty languages as an example for the rest. It has to look at statistics. Statistically, most fail to learn their second language well, and that has real-life consequences. I don't care that I know four languages. All I care about is that I share at least one common language with the person with whom I'm communicating. When I read police or CBSA reports or IRB hearing transcripts in broken English, that's not acceptable. When I witness colleagues in the same office in the Government of Canada struggling to communicate with one another, that's not acceptable. They might individually be multilingual, I don't know. But all I care about is how well they know their language of work. I work in the language industry, so I know what's actually happening. Again, you can't take one multingual person as the basis on which to base state language policy.

One problem that I see has to do with both English and French Canadians complaining but no one actually offering a solution. The core problem is that both English and French are too difficult to learn and stats bear that fact out. From a purely technocratic perspective, the solution would be to promote an easier second language.

As for the Francophone university, a simple solution would be to grant school vouchers. This would allow a studnet to present an electronic voucher to the participating post-secondary institution of his choice and allow each participating institution to teach in the official or unofficial language of its choice as per market supply and demand.unfortunately, some Franco-Ontarians would oppose that since it would put them on an equal footing with Chinese and Italian Ontarians. As for the new Ministry of Francophone Affairs, I would rename it the Ministry for Language Rights and expand its mandate to include Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial language rights too. If we can't reduce its budget, then let's at least expand its mandate to get a bigger bang for the buck. Besides, I'd be more in favour of its spending that money to study how we can make life easier for the Deaf who might need key services in a sign language myself. But again, some Franco-Ontarians might oppose that since it would put them on a more equal footing with Deaf and indigenous Ontarians.

Raising the minimum wage raises the cost of livnig. It's a matter of the dog chasing its tail.

Unfortunately, the reality is, especially in the corridor between Ottawa and Montreal, English and French speakers will need to communicate with one another. The question then becomes, in what language should they do so? Studies show the success rate in second language learning in both Quebec and Ontario to be dismal. Unless one side can learn the other's well en masse (since we never know when a low-level worker might need to communicate with another low-level worker), it would need to be a language that is reasonably easy to learn. Studies also show that a person can achieve the same level of competence in a second language after 1500 hours of English as he could after 150 hours of Esperanto. To put that into perspective, a child who studies Esperanto starting at the age of eight for fifty hours a year for six consecutive years will have studied Esperanto for 300 hours before he reaches the age of fifteen, and that would equate with 3000 hours of English such as is simply not possible in a high-school language course. In other words, it would be possible to have the entire population master Esperanto by the end of high school and so eliminate the language problem in Canada. This would not mean that everyone would need to use Esperanto in their daily lives. Outside of work and even in most private businesses, most people might just continue to function in English or French. But at least when they do need to communicate across the language divide, they'd actually share a common language that they would know well enough to use it competently, which is not the case today. We have to start to accept that English and French are just too difficult for most Canadians to learn well and statistics bear that fact out. The above might seem more technocratic in its approach to language policy than Canadians are used to, but maybe a more technocratic approach is what we need.

I'm a Franco-Ontarian (presently living in Quebec), and I personally oppose official bilingualism. Then again, I've also read the B&B Report. I don't see how anyone who reads that report with an open mind can still support official bilingualism after having read it. Now even if a person doesn't want to waste his time reading those five volumes of pseudo-science, there's just daily reality. On one occasion, a friend of mine showed me police and CBSA reports and a hearing transcript pertaining to his wife's case. The police report from Ottawa contained orthographical and grammatical errors and possibly significant lexical errros. It was written in broken English. The CBSA Officer's report, again from Ottawa, was written in such broken English that the interview notes revealed a total communication breakdown. Since I knew his wife reasonably well, I knew the CBSA Officer's claims (or what I could decypher of them through the broken English) to have been factually untrue. Since her counsel didn't know French, the hearing took place in what was supposed to be English. The hearing transcript from Montreal revealed that the Minister's counsel struggled to understand an affidavit written in Standard English to the point that the judge had to correct her on a few occasions. To the judge's credit, he decided in favour of the accused in part because he couldn't understand the precise meaning of the reports and the Minister's councel refused to have the officers clarify their meaning. I work in the private sector but serve different ministries of the Government of Canada. I've witnessed a numbr of language barriers in the government myself. On one occasion, after I'd explained some things to the caller, an emplyee of the Government of Canada, I heard her try to explain what I'd said to her colleague first in Standard French and then in broken English, with him then responding to her in Standard English and then broken French, as they went back and forth until they could finally understand one another before she then turned back to me. That's just one example of the twilight zone of the Government of Canada. When I'd first read the texts that my friend had presented to me, I couldn't believe my eyes. In hindsight though, when we read Canada's language and literacy statistics, it shouldn't have surprised me in the least. I found some interesting information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Educational,_linguistic,_economic,_and_other_challenges_of_official_bilingualism The fact of the matter is that English and French are both too difficult for most to learn well. With that in mind, in cases in which interlingual communication cannot be avoided, it might make sense for the government to promote Esperanto or some other easier language to learn for the purpose. I think one problem is that most French Canadians don't actually work in the field of translation, second-language education, and other such linguistically complex areas. They think the government passes a law and Poof! A magic fairy comes along to translate everything for everyone. Most French Canadians, because they don't actually work in the language sector on some level or other (heck, most live in Quebec and don't even know English), don't actually understand the complexities of the matter.

Again, that comes down to the problem being the welfare system, not immigration.

Again, the problem is not with immigration but with the welfare programs. More immigrants means more consumers. do you really want to deprive the Canadian economy of a larger consumer base?

But North Korea is quite economically sovereign. Isn't that economic powerhouse an example to emulate? Meanwhile, Most businesses in Hong Kong and Singapore come from abroad. What thirdworld backwaters they are!

I don't understand the obsession some Canadians have with the idea that Canada must have its own this and its own that. Heck, even the US, with ten times Canada's population, has foreign businesses on its soil building things that no US business produces. So what? Let Canada produce what it does best and export it and let it import what others do best.

The problem I see with middle-class policy is that the government taxes us just to give the money back to us. So what's the point? If the government ignored the middle class, then it would just ignore the middle class and so greatly reduce its overall bureaucracy.

And have kept their jobs. Hmmmm... could unionization hurt jobs?

It would certainly reduce bureaucracy. The CRA would just need to focus on the rich, different social programs would focus on the poor, and the middle class would just take care of itself.

Cut welfare and many would stop coming, right? Again, the problem is not with immigration.

Again, nothing you said contradicts anything I said. Like I said, the problem has nothing to do with immigration but with the welfare system.

Some of the most successful states have more open borders than Canada does. I don't know if you've ever visited Hong Kong, but you'll find that they stamp your passport and off you go. Just don't have narcotics on you, that's all. Singapore too has a high immigrant population, and again it's wealthier than Canada per capita. So if it's all about immigration, then how do explain that? I think the real problem has to do with an excessively generous welfare system. If the system were more strict, we'd attract a different kind of immigrant. So the problem has nothing to do with immigration, everything to do with welfare policy.

In Canada, the middle class is the group politicians discuss the most. Ironically though, in Hong Kong the middle class is the group the government ignore the most. It pays no income taxes but gets almost no services. The real focus there is the rich and the poor. The rich pay taxes, the poor receive essential government services, and the middle class? The government just leaves it alone. Might it in fact be time for Canada to literally ignore its middle class?

You do bring up some valid points there. I also like the idea of public housing in a way. If a person is poor, there can be many reasons for that, including addiction. With that in mind, it might make more sense providing him with public housing rather than with money directly. Of course Hong Kong also has a social-assistance program, but obviously it will give less money if it's providing public housing too. Hong Kong also invests heavily in education and trades and professional training for the unemployed. All of that costs money, which means that it needs a reasonable tax base. But to keep taxes low, it has to maintain a no-frills-no-gimmicks system. Also, unlike Canada, Hong Kong doesn't really help its middle class. granted the middle class pay few taxes too. Instead, it taxes the rich, helps the poor, and leaves the middle class to fend for itself. Seems to work for the most part.

In some respects, we can consider Hong Kong less capitalist and more corporatist. So yes, Hong Kong does take care of its poor. However, its social services are very much of the no-frills-no-gimmicks kind and realistic too. Instead of trying to save dying industries, they focus more on retraining the poor for the growing industries. It might mean a more rapidly changing economy but a more robust one too.

I don't necessarily identify as 'right' and, if anything, even sympathize with the plight of the left. However, Hong Kong is a thriving free-trading high-wage economy. And it has almost no natural resources to speak of to boot. how did that happen? Oh yes, and finally, Hong Kong has a 100% gas tax and it's still doing better than Canada. How do you reconcile all of that? Oh yes, and on the human-rights front, it respects its Basic Law wich enforces the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fails to meet that standard due to the separate denominational schools discriminating on the basis of religion. Go figure.

Canada should introduce right-to-work legislation.

And the government has to make a choice. Let's look at it logically. The point of raising carbon taxes is to deter the consumption of carbon. Consequently, this will undermine the purchase of personal vehicles. The government could decide to subsidize the car manufacturers to compensate for the carbon tax, but then that would be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.We'd then be paying more for gas but less for cars, so the same in the end, which would thus totally undermine the whole point of a carbon tax. In other words, if we intend to subsidize the car industry, then we might as well just eliminate the carbon tax as a failure. If the government sincerely believes that we need a carbon tax to protect the environment, then it should follow through with its consequences (because that's the point of it). A carbon tax will hurt certain industries, yet for it to accomplish its stated goal, the government must let that tax do its work and not undermine it. That means that to maintain policy consistency, the government should let the businesses suffer the consequences of the carbon tax but lower other taxes instead so as to allow other less polluting businesses to grow. Like it or not, this will mean economic restructuring. How can it not be? After all, we'd be re-calibrating taxes, which like it or not must lead to a re-calibration of the economy. If the goal is to re-calibrate the economy, then this is the growing pain we must accept. Otherwise, if we introduce a subsidy to undermine the tax shift, then why tax shift in the first place?

Some jurisdictions do have heavy carbon taxes. Hong Kong's for example makes Canada's seem mild in comparison. Same with Singapore's. The difference though is that taken overall, they overall tax bases are still very low. If a government cranks up taxes like crazy in one area while still ensuring that taxes are low overall, then while industries affected by the tax might suffer, at least other industries could take its place. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in Canada. When I'd visited Hong Kong a few years ago, people seemed unfazed by its high carbon taxes. But then again, they're a low-tax jurisdiction anyway. If Canada wants to raise carbon taxes, maybe look at countries that have implemented it successfully.