JWayne625

I was wonder what that meant,

I just heard a news story where our Official Language Commissioner is attempting to force unilingual private businesses into spending money to provide bilingual signs, and services, just becuase their business happens to be located in a facility owned by the Federal Government. That makes about as much sense as requiring a business to adopt Bill 101 provisions, if the building happens to be owned by a Quebecois, regardless of where it is located. At some point the morons in charge of the zoo will have to come to the realization that regardless of how much money they throw at bilingualism it will never become a reality, simply because the language of commerce the world over is English, not French. This policy was never meant to be enforced on private companies not doing business with the federal government, or was it? New Brunswick wasn't happy with having a federal language commissioner, Bernard Lord felt we didn't already have enough bureacracy in New Brunswick so last year he appointed his own language policeman in Mr. Carrier. Now we have stop signs in my city that say STOP and ARRET. If someone isn't smart enough to be able to recognize a Stop sign by it's shape, maybe they shouldn't be driving, because the STOP sign shape is universal. What a colossal waste of money! I grew up and lived most of my life in New Brunswick and as far as French goes I remember how to say cat, dog, the door, the window, hello, but basically the rest is gone. Why, because I have had no inclination to learn more, and no opportunity to use what little I had learned. Yes I live in New Brunswick, and although our Provincial Government would have Canadian's believe that New Brunswick is a bilingual province, and everything is great, the reality is something quite different. Their paradigm is just wishful thinking. Even our former Education Minister, Elvy Robichaud stated that, Now if that is true why have we wasted $billions on a program that is not expected to do what it was promoted to accomplish.The reality is that bilingualism in Canada has been a very expensive endeavor that was doomed to failure before it even got started because it is impossible, to legislate language. As long as people have free-will they are going to speak and write the language that they are most comfortable with, and since the language of business the world over happens to be English, it makes sense to educate our children in English. Our largest trading partners, whether from the other side of the Canada / US border, Europe, or Asia, they all use English as a common language.

Let me add my two cents worth, because the same thing happened with another John Howard, half-way house in Saint John, NB a few years ago. The big difference was that the offender that did the murder here was not in for a violent crime, but while he was out one evening he committed a murder, it just happens that it was his uncle whom he murdered. There was some speculation of abuse on the part of the uncle, and therefore he was charged and convicted of manslaughter. He did his time and got out on parole, but has since been involved in the beating death of another individual and he is now back in prison convicted of, I believe 2nd degree murder.. Maybe they will keep him this time, but I have my doubts, since I don't have a lot of faith in our so-called justice system anymore. When the John Howard Society set up these adult half-way houses and YOA Group homes in our city, in New Brunswick, I'm quite sure that assurances were given that people convicted of violence and sex related crimes would not be considered for residency at these facilities, but I can tell you that if those assurances were in fact given, that trust has been broken numerous times over the years. In most cases there has been no problems, but the few times there have been problems hasn't spoken well about the screening process which considers an inmate's appropriateness for residency. I'm sure at one time consideration for residency to a halfway house included a committment on the part of the inmate to be actively seeking employment. If it was found that they were not looking for work, they were sent back to the institution. Maybe we should be going back to that being a requirement of residency. Otherwise we have the old saying coming true, "The devil makes work for idle hands."or something like that. As for violent offender's, they should never be considered for residency! If we were sentencing the way they do state-side with consecutive sentencing we wouldn't have the revolving door we now have. Let's face it, everyone deserves a break, because people make mistakes, BUT, I worked for the John Howard Society for a number of years and I can tell you that the people who wind up in prison in all likelihood it wasn't their first offence that landed them there unless that first offence was very serious. Even youth's sentenced to an Open Custody Group Home, it would be a rare occurance if they landed there for committing a first offence. Court's usually impose a fine, then probation, then more probation, and more probation, and when the judge finally has had enough of looking at this individual he put's him in jail, or in the case of a Young Offender into a group home. Today we even have what they call Community Sentencing where the powers that be would have you believe that sentencing someone to house arrest is actually incarceration. This allows them to close jails and not have to maintain an actual physical prison. I can tell you that many of the individual's I have worked with over the year's would think this idea is great. They can still conduct their business without having someone looking over their shoulders 24/7. This is not incarceration regardless of what they would have you believe, it is simply a way to save some money.

People are tired of being lied to, and since it seems the prerequisite for being a politician is that you have to be a pathological liar most peole have just tuned out. It doesn't really matter who we elect to office because whenever we elect a different party to power they spend the first 4 years making up excuses for not carrying through with the promises they made to get elected. The usual excuse is that the "other guys" left things in such a financial mess that we need to either raise your taxes or the new approach is to raise all the various fees (taxes by another name). It is quite obvious to me that we would rather elect one of the most corrupt government's we have had in years to office, than give a newly created party a chance to see how badly they will screw us. Oh well, I guess the shafting you're used to is better than the unknown, whatever turns you on. Myself I keep hoping that we'll smarten up before it is too late. Some continue to talk about democracy, but what I have observed is that we are still allowed the privilege of electing our dictatator's for the next term. Our political system has turned into a sad joke. We elect politicians to office to make the laws which are supposed to govern us, but our politicians no longer do that. It seems they have allowed our appointed and unaccountable judges to perform that function. Oh well, I guess if you don't want to take the responsibilty for a particular law, you can always blame it on the judges, and they don't have to answer to anyone. They are virtaully appointed for life so they have to screw up real bad before they get fired. That leaves our politicians to just sit back and collect your paycheque for doing absolutely nothing except travelling extensively and spending someone else's money. Pretty good job if you if have the financial resources and the political backing to run for one. The salary and benefits are great, especially the pension benefits, that is if you can manage to get elected and reelected.

Let's face it people, everything government does is about saving money. Not just the Lie'beral Government of Ontario, but all governments. Are you really naive enough to believe that government is actually going to do something to help ordinary people without a hidden agenda? Everything that McGinty has done is in an effort to raise money for the provincial coffers, including raising every fee and fine in the Province as well as, photo radar ,and stop light cameras, and now he wants to explore the avenue of doing away with mandatory retirement ages, so that eventually voluntary retirement ages can also be raised. It only makes economic sense to do this if there is a financial payback for government by upping the age at which you will be able to access a pension. Oh, he will be apologetic when he does it, and he will attempt to explain that he had no choice because of financial constraints, but to raise the age, but do it, he will. This has nothing to do with giving people choices, it is all about saving money. Maybe you will believe it when it happens, and you are told that your retirement plans need to be put on hold indefinitely, but then it will be too late. Bentley who represents the Ontario government stated that he wanted to address the concerns of business, labour and others. That concerns me because business' main concern is having to make up the shortfalls in their pension plans as required under present legislation. What better way to do that than by eliminating the problem altogether with a raise in age at which people can qualify for benefits, and the possibly reduction in future pension benefits to those already retired and those who are about to retire, or better yet not having private pension plans at all. I'm sure around corporate board rooms they are pondering how they were stupid enough to get into providing pensions for their employees, and now they are thinking about how they are going to get out of that aspect of their business. Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, said scrapping mandatory retirement would make it too easy for the province to push back the age at whick workers can collect pension benefits. He went on to say, This does not give employees the right to choose, it gives employers the right to choose who they are going to keep and who they are going to fire." Sid Ryan, Ontario president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees said their aim is to get people out of the workforce as early as possible so they can enjoy their retirement, but do it with a decent pension plan and benefits. Even the NDP house leader said the government's plan would result in workers being forced to work beyond the age of 65. "The fundamental aspect of what the Liberal government is proposing is to make it impossible for workers and their trade unions to negotiate contracts which permit retirement at 65 or even younger." Kormos said. I can see the writing on the wall. At some point they're going to say, how sorry they really are, and how they thought that they were going to be able to acheive this without raising the age at which people can retire, but it has become apparent that it is not possible to acheive this, therefore they have no choice but to raise the age at which you cna qualify for a pension. Business people are probably already making plans where they can spend this windfall of additional profits. Think this is just fantasy, just watch and see., and don;'t say you haven't been warned, not just by me but by labour leaders, and your freindly neighbourhood NDP representative.

Stoker, you sound like someone who is just about at that stage in life where you don't want someone to tell you that it is time to go. I however don't want someone telling me down the road that they have done away with the retirement age, and the pensionable age has been raised so my option of taking retirement at age 65 is also gone. We didn't get a retirement age of 65 without a fight, but we could lose it if we aren't careful what we wish for. Year's ago, before a mandatory retirement age was established, people simply worked until they were carried off the job in a body bag, and I can foresee that happening again if the mandatory retirement age is raised or abolished. Government's and corporations are simply not going to pay people pensions and a salary at the same time, at least not for very long. Ask any business major, and they will tell you that if mandatory retirement age is either raised or abolished, it is only common sense that pensionable ages would also follow that same logical conclusion. Why else do you think corporations have been pushing for this iniative? It certainly isn't because they care about their employees, it is simply all about money, and how they can save it. Senior citizen employee's are less likely to ask for an increase in pay, for starters. Don't kid yourself, corporation's have been pushing for a very long time to either postpone, or get out of topping up the shortfall in their employee's retirement plans, and this just might be the opportunity they have been waiting for. Many of these pension funds include municipal government's and they are seriously in deficit positions. Under current legislation they have only a certain amount of time to make-up the shortfall, and many have asked for extensions due to poor performance of their plans in high risk stocks. By the way, most working people today can not afford to tuck money away into RRSP's. RRSP's were designed for the affluent amongst us, and I don't happen to be one of those people. Why do you think it is that Paul Martin was talking about raising the threshold for RRSP's so that more money can be contributed into RRSP's? It certainly isn't to help the average working man in this Country, because the reality for most people is that after the basics of life, a roof, food and clothing are looked after RRSP's, simply put, are a luxury they cannot afford. Even our kids who are coming out of colleges and universities, are so far in debt, they have to move back home with their parents in order to afford the repayment terms on their student loans. It will be years if ever before they will be able to afford to tuck away money into RRSP's. Let's not forget one very important point, OAS, CPP/QPP, Medicare were all brought into being when this country had a social conscience, and today our government's are being influenced for the most part by a corporate agenda, and we all know the the first and only concern of corporation's is the "BOTTOM LINE," nothing else matters!

Paul Martin opened this Pandora's box regarding mandatory retirement at age 65 during the Federal Election Campaign, now I read that Dalton McGinley of Ontario is about to start public consultations before he introduces legislation to do away with mandatory retirement , and that is where alarm bells start sounding for me. We all know that government's of all stripes as well as private pension funds have been playing fast and loose investing pension funds in high risk stocks and have lost a fortune because of it. Now we have a government actually proposing to eliminate the mandatory retirement age. Certainly not because they care! My real concern with this whole question is will there come a time, with enough pressure from the corporate sector to simply raise the age of retirement from 65 to whatever, or just do away with it altogether, so that those that are required to fund these pensions can put off this onerous financial burden or eliminate it altogether. We already have corporation's, and government's crying about the fact that under present legislation they have to fund pensions and they are presently running a deficit. What better way to eliminate those deficits then by not having to pay out years of benefits with the hope that the recipients die before they get a chance to collect. I realize that I am playing the devil's advacate here, but I am very cynical as to the motives behind any endeavor government undertakes supposedly on our behalf, that eliminates or postpones benefits that we are presently entitled to. I can see a time where the retirement age is raised and nobody will have a choice but to work until they drop. Canadian's spent years developing OAS, and for that matter CPP/QPP, so that people can retire at an age where they would still have the health to enjoy a few years of relatively good health, and to enjoy not having to get up every morning regardless of weather and trudge off to the grind. That all could be taken away with the passage of one peice of legislation. Let's face it politicians are not there to represent you and I. Some may be naive enough to believe that fantasy, but the reality is that once elected they take their marching orders from bureaucrats and the corporate sector. I suggest you read a book written by a former Federal Finance Minister under Pierre Trudeau, Paul Helyer. He said, "Those who believe that the people they elect to office actually represent ordinary Canadians, are living in Fantasyland." Quote from the book, "The Evil Empire." Do I trust that our politician's will do what is best for ordinary Canadian's? NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!

If we broke up the larger Provinces into smaller one's like the Atlantic Region of Canada we will just wind up with a whole lot more bureaucracies than we now have. That is a good part of the problem, we are top heavy with administration. What we need is leaner government not more of them.

I don't necessarily think that it is a good idea to get rid of all Provinces, but it is definitely a good idea to amalgamate some into larger Provinces, thus saving $billions. At present we have all these Provinces, with their own sets of rules and laws, and yes their own bureaucracy's. For instance Ontario has 103 elected Members, with a population approaching 12,000,000, while New Brunswick has a population of slightly over 750,000 people yet we have a Legilature with 71 Members. This is far too much government for such a small population. No wonder we are having problems paying for healthcare and education. If we combined all of Atlantic Canada together under one government this would get rid of at least 200 elected members, and all of the political hacks that follow them. Maybe we could then better afford the necessities like healthcare and education for our citizen, and be able to cut some taxes while we're at it, if we got rid of them and almalgamated with the other Atlantic Provinces, under one government. Let's face it, we now have all of the Provinces doing their own things, at the expense of us all, and if we could cut some of this government we would all be better off. We will still need the civil servants to deliver all of these programs, but just not as many, and definitely not very many politicians jealously guarding their troughs, at our expense, and I'm very tired of paying people to tell us what we need.

I know of only what goes on in healthcare in New Brunswick. Our PC Premier, Bernard Lord just released his plan for healthcare. It was written by Fujitsu Consulting Corporation, with absolutely no input from medical professionals. In fact not only were they not welcome at the planning table, they were not even allowed in the room. In small little New Brunswick we have 8 Healthcare Corporations, all with their own staff of bureaucrats from a CEO on down. They have loaded the hospitals with beancounters, who now outnumber medical personnel. Because of this there is little wonder the waiting times for procedures are increasing. They have studied healthcare to death in this Province and still waiting times increase. We need medical personnel in our healthcare facilities, not beancounters. Last year Ottawa gave additional funds to the Province's specifically for medical diagnostic equipment and the Health Region in which I live spent the money on Ride-on Lawn Mowers, photocopiers, and paper-shredders. When this came to light the expenditure was defended by the Premier, stating that they needed this equipment to be replaced. Now we have this same Premier, and in fact all of the Premier's wanting Ottawa to just give them the money and let them decide where it should be spent. If that were to happen New Brunswick, we just may have the best kept hospital grounds in Canada. Maybe they could have this judged by the Communities In Bloom Committee. I hope one thing, that Ottawa continues to demand accountability for healthcare dollars, something none of the Premier's seem to want.

caeser; The big difference is that Alberta can afford to go it on their own, Quebec on the other hand is so used to putting out their hands to Ottawa and getting what they ask for that if they ever separated they would be bankrupt overnight. If it wasn't for Alberta, Ottawa would have no money to give to Quebecor any of the other have-not Provinces. If I were living in Alberta as both of my son's are, I too would be talking about separation from Canada. Alberta is the only government in Canada that is not in hawk up to their ears, so they can afford to tell Ottawa and the rest of the Provinces for that matter where to get off. The fact is that Ottawa itself would be broke if it wasn't for Alberta.

Gas tax money to municipalities? The last I heard was that the feds are now in discussions with the Provinces on this matter. I know exactly what will happen with the money if it is given to the Provinces instead of directly to the municipalities, it will get eaten up in the bureaucracy of each particular Province and not one cent will make it to where it was intended to go. Even if the money goes directly to the municipalities it needs to have laws in place that will not allow the Provincial Politician's the ability to claw it back when figuring out municipal grants to the municipalities. New Brunswick has already said they have not ruled out a claw-back.

Admitting the theft does not cancel it out, and for most people who commit a theft of that value they would at the very least end up with a criminal record, even if they are not sentenced to incarceration. Why should Svend be treated any differently? So yes, let's let the punishment fit the crime, and let's treat him like any other thief who steals something worth that much money! How is anyone supposed to take our justice system seriously, if someone with political pull can be let off with a virtual slap on the wrist as Svend has been? The point is that HE IS A THIEF, and thieves should be punished. I'm sure the only reason he didn't run for office in the last election is that he was facing possible criminal charges, but now since he has been let off the hook because of his social standing as an MP, it would not surprise me in the least to see him running again when the next election is called. Just what we need in Ottawa, another thief! In fact, someone who is an elected Member of Parliament should be held to a higher standard because of the fact that they hold a position of trust.

I don't agree with the power this unelected body exerts over our lives. The power to deny us the right to access U.S. programming if we so wish, especially considering the technology which is now available. The power to force cable companies to bundle stations so that we have to have our daily dose of Canadian dribble whether we want it or not. I'm not saying that all Canadian programming is terrible, but most of it is so amatuerish that is is not fit to watch, yet we are not given a choice. Now Quebec is demanding a special consideration with Ottawa so that they can make their own decisions with regards to license regulation. I suppose it will be an agreement similar to that for Immigration, Income Taxes, Pensions (QPP), etc. The CRTC is an unelected and unaccountable body imposed upon us by "Big Brother" in Ottawa, and is made up of a bunch of political hacks who have no special talents other than they support the particular party that appointed them to their positions. If I choose to subscribe to DirectTV from south of the border, I should have that choice without interference from the CRTC, with them telling me I have two choices Bell or Star Choice, both of which impose Canadian content rules set out by this undemocratic body. I don't agree necessarily with some of the racist comments purported to have been made by personalities on CHOI in Montreal, but neither do I agree with the Quebec government's demands that they be given an accomodation by Ottawa to make decisions on licence granting an renewal by the Quebec government while the rest of us are forced to remain under the thumbs of the CRTC in Ottawa. What is good for some Canadian's should apply to all Canadians, including the Province of Quebec, and in all areas of responsibility including CPP/QPP, Income Tax, Immigration, etc., after all they are still a Province within Canada and therefore should be treated exactly the same as the rest of us.

Someone on the first page of this forum said that the weakest individual should have to agree with any changes in rules or laws, but that is what we have right now with the inception of the Charter. We now have minorities dictating rules and lifestyles that the rest of us are just supposed to accept. Unelected and unaccountable judges are making law in this country instead of just interpreting it, as was the intentions when Canada came together at Confederation. That is what we elect MP's and MLA's and MNA's for. If we are going to change all that and now allow unelected and unaccountable judges to perform that function then maybe we should be taking a look at abolishing Parliament and our Provincial Legislatures and just electing judges to office, at least then they would be accountable for the decisions they are making.