Machjo

The Japanese central Bank had lowered the rate to 0% temporarily once when the economic bust there was severe enough. The idea is that if the recession is so bad that it really needs federal stimulus spending, then it must also be bad enough for the Bank of Canada to lower the Bank rate to zero. If the Bank of Canada does not feel desperate enough to go that far, then we have to assume that the recession really isn't bad enough to warrant Federal stimulus spending either. As things stand now, we follow what we might call lop-sided Keynesianism. Generally speaking, the idea would be for the government to raise taxes, reduce spending, pay off its debt, or any combination of the three in good times so as to control inflation, the debt, and excessive interest rates in good times so as to actually be able to afford stimulus spending in bad times. As it stands now though, the government spends in good times and more in bad times. I doubt that was what Keynes had in mind. And that what I mean by lop-sided Keynesianism.

I think such a policy would help to fight inflation, rising interest rates, and the Federal Debt now while ensuring that Federal stimulus spending would come right when we need it most. To take an example, imagine we don't face any such severe recession again for another 15 years. With the policy described above, police cars, military vehicles, infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. would eventually be in dire need of replacement. So when the recession hits, then that spending would come in right when needed most. We would not need to waste money on make work projects and bailing out banks and corporate friends of the politicians anymore. Instead, the money would go where it's really needed in rebuilding old bridges, buying new police cars for the RCMP, replacing outdated military vehicles with new ones, etc. etc. etc. It would be a natural economic boom building what's needed rather than make work projects. Why are we not planing for the next recession now?

We usually seem to always get caught off guard both when recession strikes and when inflation strikes. I'm wondering if the following could be a way to plan for both simultaneously: a. Any new spending increase or tax reduction of the Federal government's must include a clause that it will be put into effect as soon as the following three criteria are met: 1. the national inflation rate is below zero percent, 2. the Bank of Canada rate is at zero percent, and 2. the Federal debt is at zero or at a surplus. This would ensure that government spending be done right when the economy needs it most and not in the midst of a heating economy when it needs such stimulus the least and when such stimulus could even prove harmful. b. The Bank of Canada would be prohibited from printing, either materially or electronically, any new money unless the two following criteria are met: 1. the national inflation rate is below zero percent, and 2. the Bank of Canada rate is at zero percent. And as long as it continues to have a Federal debt, that extra money is to go towards paying that debt.This would also provide an incentive for the federal Government to pay off its debt now before the next recession. Any thoughts on this?

This is ridiculous. Now that we're facing inflation, rising interest rates, and Federal debt, certainly now is not the time for the government to be spending. Could the government not have waited for the next recession to rebuild the bridge? Here's what I see happening. With no plan for the next recession, we're simply spending money to fix anything that needs fixing. Then when the next recession strikes, since everything will be fixed already, we'll then have to spend money on make-work jobs. Instead, would it not make sense, now that we're facing inflation, rising interest rates, and government debt to focus on paying off the debt right now? that way, the next time we're hit by deflation, then we could spend on real projects in need like fixing an old bridge genuinely in need of repair rather than wasting money on make-work projects? Would that not be a better idea?

Of course a politician is supposed to respect the law. My point though is that if the Constitution is unjust, he should show a willingness not to break the law of course, but to try to change the Constitution. A politician who instead of trying to change the Constitution decides to defend it even when it's unjust with no intent on changing it and even using the law to promote unjust objectives of his has no scruples.

Some private schools still receive government funding.

I'm morally opposed to homosexual behaviour too, honestly. However, a distinction needs to be made between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. That's the first point. Secondly, the law needs to be consistent. As long as homosexual behaviour is legal, then a school receiving public funding ought to respect that. If the school is not receiving public funding, that's another matter entirely. Yes, I'd like to see homosexual behavour (though not necessarily homosexuality per se) legally banned. But until then, any school receiving public funding ought to abide by the government's principles.

I don't know for sure. But even if the Bishop was right, to defend injustice by hiding behind the law is pretty repulsive to say the least. When a politician says we can't do this or that because it's against the Constitution, I interpret that to mean 'I'm a gutless coward who wouldn't dare try to revise the Constitution; I just need a good-paying job.' A politician of principle defends or opposes something based on justice, not the law. His job is to conform the law and the Constitution to justice, not the other way around. After all, the Constitution was created to serve us, not to be served by us. Any citizen who can't understand that is a gutless coward or, worse yet, an unscrupulous manipulator of the law for his own gain.

Including 100% government funding?

You're worried about one little private Catholic school? In Ontario, publicly funded Catholic schools abound, and even have their own administrative structure within the government. And yes, you've guessed it! They can discriminate, legally! on the basis of religion. And then they have the audacity to claim that this is defended in the Canadian Constitution... and, sadly to say, depending on how you define the related sections of the constitution, they may have a point. Canada does not have any 'official' state religion per se, but the Catholic Faith is granted certain specific Constitutional privileges, thus essentially making Canada have if not an official state religion, then a de-facto state religion.

But Leafless, if you are interested in discussing international language policy, I would strongly recommend the following books: Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson (Professor of applied linguistics in Holland) English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy by Robert Phillipson The Language Challenge by the late Claude Piron (native speaker of Esperanto, former UN interpretor from English, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Mandarin to French, and later professor of Psychology at the University of Geneva, Switzerland). These are just some of the books available in English that I would recommend. The following on-line resources (again available in English) might suffice for a start: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/sep05/mart05.htm http://www.linguapax.org/ http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/propaedeutic_value_of_esperanto.htm

And here's a quote from Phillipson in his book Linguistic Imperialism: "Obura (1986:432)reports that a study in Lesotho shows that primary school leavers have an active vocabulary of 800 words and that 12,000words are needed for science n secondary school. 'This is by any standard a staggering discrepancy. The major significance however of this illustration is that Lesotho may be the only country to have documented this discrepancy in a systematic manner.' This corroborates experience at an international conference in 1986 in Namibia, which endorsed the principle of English across the curriculum but found to its surprise that little work had been done in this area. The fact that ELT has traditionally operated in isolation from thought and practice in general education, is art of the explanation for this failure'." Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson, 1992 For any discussion on international language policy, I'd strongly recommend his book. He goes on to describe how those African elites who'd initiated decolonization were often among the most colonized minds in their countries owing to an elite education in colonial schools. Needless to say that they would naturally unconsciously perpetuate the colonial system in their countries even after the colonizers left the country. We can only imagine the economic and technological losses resulting from children being taught science in English in high school when they can't even understand it. If that's the case, that might also explain why former colonial powers have not been able to catch up to their former colonial masters economically over the years. This is also a clear endorsement for instruction in the mother tongue whenever possible, as an economic, scientific, political, and technological imperative in any advanced country. If all in Quebec were forced to study in English, Quebec would face the same problems; the same by the way would apply if English-speakers across Canada were required to receive instruction in French. It just does not make economic sense.

By the way, I've read quite a few statistics from Europe, Thailand, India, Canada, etc. and can say that except for areas around interlinguistic corridors such as the region between Ottawa and Montreal and a few regions around there, few really learn their second language well. In many countries the success rate for English to a practical level hovers around the 4 to 7% range, which is pretty dismal if you ask me. Could you imagine getting 7% on your report card?

I've lived in China and I can say that had their English-language policy worked as planned, I wouldn't know any Chinese today. I can state that a very small percentage of Chinese actually succeed in learning English well enough for it to be of any practical use to them.

Ideally the language of instruction ought to be the local indigenous language, otherwise maths, science, etc. all suffer as the pupil struggles to understand instructions in a foreign language. Robert Phillipson's book Linguistic Imperialism is a good book on that subject, showing the economic and other consequences of such policies.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, that's just plain linguistic imperialism.

for the purpose of clarity, we must distinguish between 'French school' and French-medium school'. In Quebec, many are required to receive French-medium instruction while some are allowed to receive English-medium instruction, though in that case French is a compulsory second-language. The reason for this is that French is a difficult language and so for many French as a second language often does not suffice to gain a sufficient mastery of the language; and also because Quebec recognizes the need for a common language for a society to function efficiently. Compulsory means that it's a compulsory subject in all schools across the province. As for how many hours, I don't know. Though I wouldn't mind comparing Quebec with Ontario, Rwanda, the UK, Hungary, Italy, and Poland on that front, just out of curiosity, in terms of how many hours are committed to second-language learning and what second-languages they can choose from, and the reasoning behind these policies, as a good basis for comparison. I wouldn't mind comparing their success rates either.

And another point about Quebec 'getting a clue'. English is already compulsory across Quebec, so if anything, Rwanda's policy is approaching Quebec's if anything.

Rwanda seems to be repeating the same mistake it had committed earlier. By requiring all students to learn French, it essentially cut the country off from the non-French-speaking world to a degree. Now that it's going wholesaele to English, it'll essentially be cutting itself off from the non-English-speaking world to a certain degree. And make no mistake about it; plenty of people in the world with money to spend don't know English. Hungary has a good policy on this front. Each school is free to teach the second language of its choice from among the course plans available with the Ministry of Education, or it can create its own plan to be presented to the Ministry for approval. Each pupil likewise is free to sit the second-language of his choice for high school graduation from among the languages offered by the Ministry of Education. Such a policy allows second-language instruction to evolve naturally according to local circumstances. BC's and Alberta's policies are similar to Hungary's, albeit not quite as liberal. Quebec could learn from the Hungarian model too.

As for the OP, my opinion is that it depends on whether the proper checks and balances are in place.

I don't see how a simple quota system could solve the vast majority of problems with regards to immigration. If we did that, then the vast majority of immigrants would be more highly skilled and higher paid than the average Canadian. I would make some exceptions for people whose lives are genuinely in danger, such as Iran's Baha'is for example, though even there we should have some kind of minimal standard, such as at least knowing the local language and culture to a reasonable degree as a start, after which we may have to provide them with some job skills afterwards. That would be about the only kind of exception I'd make.

And so were the members of the FLQ, environmental terrorists, the Dukhobor terrorits we had in the past, etc. So, clearly immigration has little to nothing to do with terrorism, nor does Islam. The Doukhobor group that engaged in terrorism in BC in the past are a radical Christian Anarchist group. The FLQ, if religious, were most likely Catholic, but even more likely they were secularist nationalists. So what does immigration have to do with any of this?

I'd love to read studies on this.

By the way, I fall into that group myself, tracing my ties back to early New France over 400 years ago on my mothers side, and also have some aboriginal blood on my fathers. I don't think this makes me any more Canadian than anyone else, but I'm wondering if some among that group may believe that their ancestry going back to pre-Confederation Canada somehow makes them more entitled to the land than others. Personally, personal family and friends aside, I don't really have a clear identity. I identify more with my language communities than I do with my nationality, strangely enough. I think there are reasons for that in my life experiences. I'm French Canadian but was raised in English Canada, and later moved to Quebec, and later still abroad, and now back to English Canada. In English Canada, I'd found the local Francophone communities always organizing around language as the glue that held them together, and of course many tried to infuse it with a strong Catholic identity. Since I'd turned away from the Catholic Faith at an early age, I'd ended up rejecting that religious identity but still identifying with the language community none-the-less. Quite often though, the local Francophones of North American ancestry were outnumbered by those of foreign, especially African and European, ancestry, resulting in the local Francophone identity taking on a more cosmopolitan ambiance revolving around language. In Quebec too, I was surprised to see just how linguistically charged the public discourse was with regards to relations between Quebecers, and again a French-speaking Algerian I'd met travelling through la Malbaie seemed more easily accepted within the community than the English-speaking Canadian I knew who was living in Quebec city, who knew little French and told me how she felt so isolated. And abroad too, most foreigners and ex-pats tended to ghettoize not so much along national lines, but linguistic lines. It seemed that, in spite of our national rhetoric, in practice we tend to associate more easily with groups we can communicate with than with those who simply share a common citizenship. I guess these observations have created a stronger appreciation of the power of language to unite and divide more effectively than any other identity, even if we are not always aware of that identity and simply take our ability to communicate for granted.

Thanks for your answer. You are right about family ties, but I was thinking more in terms of political identity, though not necessarily at an ideological level, but possibly on an emotional level too. I don't mind your having voted, but my main reason for asking specifically those of ancestry reaching back into North American history was to see how many among that group attach themselves to any kind of 'national' identity more than they do any other identity, since I figured this might reveal certain attitudes towards we find in the immigration debates concerning the idea that canada is 'our' land, with a clearer definition of 'our'.