Shwa

Right I get it. It's the government's fault for not making legislation that treats everybody equally because that will make otherwise ethical people act unethically. Damn you Charter of Rights and Freedoms, damn you to hell. Gotchya. So... start any militias lately?

I sure hope tough guy's gun is registered or he might get in trouble.

Why stop at tobacco or other destructive and harmful products? It's the thinking that starts it all. What we need is thought police and a mechanism to source what thoughts are deemed to be destructive and harmful. This forum could be such a mechanism. Albertan separation for one, is a destructive and harmful idea especially to the legislators over here in Ontario. So if the police knock at your door, wave that Canadian flag you have stashed behind the couch and all will be well.

Riiiight. It is the "asinine bureaucratic nonsense" that is to blame for developer's poor ethical behaviour because they made it easy for them to harm the environment. The only anal probe in this discussion is the one sticking out from your face.

Well Tonto just called. He wants his country back.

No, the natural Canadian response "of course" is to protect sensitive lands which is why there are laws on the books about it. Of course, had you not been fed the prairie grain after it had fermented, you might have realized this.

Forgetting that you completely ignore the fact of surplus or the comprehensive understanding of what constitutes the "service industry", here is some data for you: Profit 100 - Canada's fastest growing companies Please note this list does not include Burger King, McDonald's or Wendys.

That is what I like about you Argus, when you can no longer attack the message, you attack the messanger. You'll make a good soldier one day since you can follow orders to a tee. What is silly is you trying to create a straw man with roughly 10% of immigrants by generalizing a limited condition to apply to them all by default. The sane position would be to realize that the non-productive element in the immigrant population is fairly small and that - by and large - the economic benefits from material consumption alone contributes to our economic well being. Only a fool misses the fact that our tiny little population is in the highest economic strata of the world and has been so for the past 30-40 years. All the while having large immigrant populations. Now how do you explain all that success and prosperity with such high immigration rates? Well Argus, the "evidence" you seek is all around you, take a look every once in awhile, don't take my word for it. Canada is in the G8 dude, or have you forgetten? Conversely, it is difficult to form an economic argument from someone who has no understanding of economics. This you have amply proven. I successfully debunked the 'spin' that the Fraser Institute put on their report. AS IF they had any intention of trying to prove their theory wrong or acknowledge the bias in their presentation of the data. No need to, because in the famous words of P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute." Not everyone takes what the Fraser Institute has to say as "science" like you do Argus, come on now. Here is a Fraser Institute like truth: an average car will cost you $20-30 thousand dollars and drag down your household budget, therefore, take the bus only. AS IF there is NO benefit to owning a car. All I have "shown?" Come off it, G8 bud. High levels of immigration, small population, G8. LOL, good work soldier, but I likely pay more in taxes than you do and likely have done so over the last 30 years or so. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that I subsidize you far more than you do anyone else. You owe me. What you have failed to realize is that you are the guy that over on page seven declares "done quite a bit" of research into this problem. So I ask you again, show me the statistics that prove that there are NO benefits for our 18-20 billion yearly investment in immigrants. Surely the Fraser Institute or your quite-a-bit research has the stats to back that up. No? Didn't think so. And yet here we are as a nation, one of the most successful in the world that weathered the recent recession pretty good, with high levels of immigration, and the significance of this statement eludes you: That is not the fault of CIC, the politicians or even myself, it is your singluar inability to understand plain English. You wouldn't happen to be a recent immigrant too would you?

I highly doubt anything you have written would indicate to anyone that you are a Nazi or would want to kill six million Jews. But let me re-read your post and see... Oh my...

I am sure if there were some coordinated campaign - like the anti-smoking campaign - educating the public about the evils of alcohol and pregnancy, then there would be traction enough to enact all the support programs that are being suggested and drive further research. I don't advocate that some of the more brutal offenders get off, programs can be offered in prisons and other institutions as well, but a highly publicized awareness campaign would go a long way of keeping FASD inflicted people out of prisons and eventually reduce the occurance of FASD in the population.

Not quite, if you believe in the redistribution of the wealth among other federal and provincial responsibilities. So comparing government with immigration is apples and oranges. What about the service individual that earns money from helping immigrats integrate or the store clerk who charges them for their food or the farmer who supplies their produce? Do they not get any benefit at all? Of course they do, so even the immigrant, whether on welfare or not, benefits the economy. There is no need to argue since it has been more than proven over and over during the past 150 years or more. If you want to try and prove the contrary, well, put simple: you haven't. For what purpose? So I can debunk more of the Fraser Insitutes smoke and mirrors? And I am not arguing that we ought not to review immigration. However even by these in arguable points, you can be sure that immigration and immigration reforms are a hot topic in Parliament offices. However, reform does not equate to reduction. That diversity brings wealth and growth and the main engines for that growth are in urban centres including immigrant neighbourhoods. Quite simple to understand actually, but go figure you don't see the relevancy. And you don't think that these sorts of things are party to regular political review and policy tweaks? What Broadbent advocates is for more leeway within municipalities to deliver porgrams and services to immigrants. I think that is a decent idea don't you? So you are saying that people who are provided an environment of opportunity and fail are somehow less culpable than people who come from environments of much less opportunity. Hmmm... People will go on welfare, native born and immigrants. That is the price we pay for welfare. No, it's a retort using simple Canadian history as the backdrop. Do you not think ethnic neighbourhoods existed 20, 30 40 or 50 years ago? How about whole ethnic communities? Ever been to Wilno just north of you? Heck they even had church services in ... Polish! Egads! I hear you, but I am surprised that with all the expertise at their disposal, the Fraser Institute doesn't have a report on it. Surely they do with all their political connections. And what do they say? Here is what the government says: Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2009

You mean not directly paying taxes, but they still consume goods and services which keeps others employed. And no one considers this to be a long term trend for any new Canadian, that is, they will eventually integrate and pay their fair share. Other immigrants come loaded for bear and contribute immiediately through taxes and investments. This is the 'cost of' but where does it go on to show the short and long term net gains? That is, it cost 18 billion dollars per year, but where is that 18 billion going? Why, right back into the ground level Canadian economy through service provision, material consumption, etc., etc. Seriously, it is not like immigrants are hoarding 18 billion dollars; the money is going right back into our economy. A "burden" that helped drive our economy, especially the urban economies. I mean, I wouldn't want to accuse the Fraser Insitute of a neat smoke and mirrors trick, but this presentation of the data is a smoke and mirrors trick. Well A. we are not without manufacturing jobs and B. not all service jobs required a high degree of language skills, not for the ground base workers. Several skillsets require a limited lexicon to be successful. When you need the chickie at Wendy's to recite Shakespeare let me know. Yes, this is a given isn't it since they are new here. But where are the reports on the immigrants from 10 years ago? How are they doing? How are their kids doing? How about those from 20 years ago and so on... Is this before or after they learn one of the official languages? Besides, I am sure it beats where they came from. ]From How to Make Immigration Work Better - Countering the Defeatists (A. Broadbent, 2003) Now if you wish to summon the strength to counter what Mr. Florida has to say, please do so directly. Here is his CV complete with email addresses. That requires a re-think of how we integrate those folks and get them more involved in the economy, especially in the urban centres. But there is nothing in that suggestion that would halt numbers, decrease immigration for any country or apply preferred status to only specific countries. God some Canadians never become self-supporting, what do we do - kick them out? Besides, it is perhaps correct that the recent influx of immigrants has tugged on the economy, but nothing like the recent recession cause by... who was the recent recession caused by? Certainly not immigrants right? Thus if we have the banking industry collapsing the economy because of sheer illegal greed it is hard to make anything serious of what problems immigration has caused. Ah those Irish thugs in Lucan, then the Jewish mob, then the Italian mob, then the Jamaican posses. then the Somalian drug gangs... on and on we go... That might be because of the information you are reading. Here try this: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/imc/imc01-eng.asp in the strategic outcomes section.

I am arguing FOR the use of smartphones even though I have the same concerns as you do. I think our concerns can be solved within a fairly short timeframe so lets fire up those policy engines. The idea of an AUP that specifies that smartphones must switch over to wifi when in use in the school is just an idea par example. However, content restrictions might not even be required with a responsible parent, student and school. Another good question, providing that use of the devices is equitable among students: I am thinking grades four or five, time enough to educate them on their use. Full bore by high school.

See where I went in the beginning of this thread? Your complaints are similar to the complaints when books first arrived on the scene in the late q5th century and completely changed education altogether. It is interesting that McLuhan - even back in the early 60's - could see how our modern problems and concerns with the new technologies (he was referring primarily to TV) was very similar to the problems and concerns with printed books back in the day. You are all about control. I can see why you used China as an example since you sound more like a Chinese bureaucrat here. Then perhaps the problem is not with smartphones, but with your idea of why we need to control so much. My wife upgrade her Blackberry three times in the last two years for $0.00 dollars. The devices are actually cheap. It's the service that get's ya.

I don't think there is a program-for-program match and most First Nations communities have the responsibility for delivery of the education, where possible, themselves. At this point, other than some special initiatives, INAC Education responsibility is more about funding and that itself is problematic. Here is a decent paper from Caledon Institute for Social Policy that illustrates some of the present challenges with FN education: Improving Education on Reserves: A First Nations Education Authority Act (M. Mendelson)

I heard the same talk. But a chance to go head to head with Fantino in a popularity contest? I think he'd change stripes for the opportunity...

You also score a bonus point for tying this in with the traditional big family Thanksgiving dinner stereotype. Very well done sir!

Well... I was thinking that Cam Wooley would. Then we would have the ultimate showdown or, rather, smackdown. I am thinking Cam takes it.

I dunno. I don't think you will ever convince resource planners that some sort of lag is unnaceptable. Interpersonal politics plays a part in everything from the local eatery to the deputy ministers. Can you name some? Not really. You could write your local MP or MPP! LOL! Just kidding... You mean the low level staff hired on because they are cheap and end up not giving a crap. Heck, forget government services, lets talk about customer service overall! Things can change in my fantasy world, but most politicians don't go along with that since it would be the immediate cause of their demise. In the real world - that of a long, endless march of civilization, well, graft, man, graft! Besides, one man's graft is another man's opportunity. You don't have to be a politician for that. Well... there ya go then. Oh ye of little faith, how long have you been observing the human race?

And what would constitute "unwanted use of the smartphone?" Googling about the floods in China, where to buy blackspot sneakers or guerilla art installations in Toronto? I see no reason to lock down anything so long as the proper use protocols are adhered to, as they are with notebooks and desktop computers presently. I see the biggest challenge to be form factor. I mean, I like the iPhone form, I think it is useful enough, but some of those devices are a titch too small in my opinion. I see no realy reason to lock down anything and besides, Facebook pages can be set up for educational purposes and actually used as a collaborative tool for students of different schools, backgrounds, interests and so on. I prefer to educate the kid, not the phone. Absolutely! I don't think anyone is saying that. Yet. Way more red tape and way more complicated than what you need it to be. Red tape and more complications for an AUP? They already sign AUPs, how is adding a smartphone rider going to be such a burden? That's the rub I think. However, I see smartphones being included in the same costs that parents are already shelling out for books, pens, sports equipment and so on. However, I don't think there needs to be a 'school approved phone' more of 'school approved content.' That is, you can have the book hand printed by a monk, who spends a year copying a text or you can have one of those new books printed on that new fangled fancy machine called the Gutenberg printing press. As long as they contain the same info, we should be good to go. Like I said, it's the form factor that is a deal breaker for me along with the ability for equal access to all students. If some kid has an iPhone, another has a Blackberry and another has some HTC and they can all access Miss Teach's class Facebook page, I see no problems there so long as it improves their grades or, at least, keeps them even. But I see them coming to the classroom, no doubt about that.

I wonder how well Cam Wooley would do in a Vaughn election though. Everyday his CablePulse shifts starts when he is southbound on the 400.

You "sense??!" Aren't you the guy that told people on another thread that you had enough of the anecdotes and now you are talking about your feelings? Good one! But beside that many bits and pieces of governmental services are contracted out, but of course you knew this. Right? Notwithstanding the high interest I have in your idea that "the people" will get politicians "to butt out" you might be closer to something as government services centralize. It is much easier to centralize an operations within one of two locations than it is with a hundred locations spread out across this vast nation of ours. So give it some time. However, I wouldn't want some private company handling my personal information - or the databases of everyone else's information, when their bottom line is profit. One of the most powerful tools the government has in redistributing the wealth is in their bureaucracy. Most politicians are very aware of this fact and sometimes a local politician might lobby a minister or two to get some services located to their municipality. My preference is the local-regional-national/provincial model where services are delivered from 'satellite' offices with the advantage being that the local offices - with staff from that locality - are better able to deliver tailored programs to that population. It allows a more refined approach, including the reporting requirements that are 'rolled up' to the regional reporting mechanism and so on. You will find this model played out in the various 'service centre' concepts currently being rolled out by the federal and Ontario provincial government (i.e. you can go into an office and get your health card, driver's licence, fishing license, etc.) However, I also see that some services, like call centres, processing centres, administrative functions, etc. are being nationally and provincially centralized into some localities, some of them hard hit by unemployment or other economic factors. I suppose these centralized services could be privatized, but is a slight gain in efficiency (for the present) worth the long term inflexibility or cost of administering such contracts? I don't see any politician of any worth risking those sorts of goodies for his constituents do you?

China's government controls the weather? No, my objection is you using China as a comparative example. I know what you are saying, especially with the evils of modern advertising, but I still think using China as an example is still offside. I perfectly understand the problems and concerns of using this wonderful new technology. I also advocated computers in the classroom when there were fears of students losing their ability to read, write and do math. Do you remember those days? So what are the problems and concerns about using smartphones in the classroom again? Heck, I am thinking in terms of form factor being the delimiter, there are other problems? OK, T-I-C, the problems and concerns would need solutions, something that the policy makers should be looking at, like acceptable use policies, age appropriateness, etc. Exactly, you illustrated one of the limitations of those devices: "tied-into." I think a smartphone would be much easier to take where there is no tether to the desk. You know, museum visits, school trips, etc. Plus having a mobile camera might also increase the content of an education experience. AUP's usually take care of that sort of thing, similar to AUP's that kids have to sign nowadays to use the classroon computers. However, another concern might be who pays for it's use as an educational tool and how to we ensure equal access to all students? I would imagine costs would be subsumed under the same guise as paper, pens and scribblers, but ensuring an equal footing for all students is the toughie.

Well yes they do - why do you think they want such control over it? Wishful thinking is free. But not always productive.

They were outsourced with the idea that outsourcing is a one stop shop silver bullet solution. Plus the EXTRA layers of administration costs to manage concurrent systems... Oversight. More reports. More spreadsheets with data in them. More analysis by experts. More training for expert analysts to make spreadsheets into data reports for more oversight. In other words, carefully read what Argus has already illustrated. Someone dreaming up the latest silver bullet paradigm is not only displays a lack of imagination, but also a lack of reality. For example, show how wonderful outsourcing has worked for companies and their customers compared to those that haven't worked out so well and then pick a median where you think government outsourcing will fall. Then study the options, hire management consultants to bring in studies, reports, spreadsheets with data. BTW, MC's are not cheap ya know. Seriously? If the bank doesn't get their mortage payment from the EI recipient, but EI delivery administration and delivery fell by 20% - would people really complain so much?