Any recommendations for compassionate spending cuts at the federal lev

[Machjo]

With all the talk about government debt, I was wondering if anyone here has ides on where we could cut or reduce federal government spending without unduly hurting anyone who might be dependent on that spending for their ivelyhood.

Personally, I could think of a few that would hurt nobody too much:

1. Cut (and I don't mean reduce, but cut completely) spending on second-language education for civil servants, police, military, and all other government personnel, and instead use the limited bilingual resources available more strategically by placing them where their language skills are likely to be needed most.

2. Introduce high-level (not Mickey-Mouse) compulsory tests to assess the language competence of newcomers to Canada, which they must pass, and cut (again, I make a distinction between the meanings of cut and reduce) spending on the Federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml).

3. Make an official recommendation to the UN to consult formally on the reduction of the UN's official languages from 6 to 1 (last I'd read, the UN was spending about 12 million US dollars a year on interpretation and translation costs for meetings of the General Assembly alone! And remember, this increases funding demands on member states, including Canada).

4. Cut all spending on CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) programmes geared towards promoting the English and French languages abroad.

Now, I said that none of thes policies would hurt anybody too much, and here's my explanation:

1. Generally speaking, in a bilingual community where someone might in fact need government services in either official language, chances are there are also plenty of bilinguals to choose from. logical conclusion, eh. And if there are not many bilingual candidates to choose from in that community then it's probably because the community is not very bilingual in the first place. Again, a pretty logical conclusion. So cutting spending on language teaching for civil servants is not likely to affect access to bilingual services much.

As for the teachers who lose their jobs as a result, well, they are bilingual, teachers are generally well educated and receive a middle class salary, and so they are likely to be more able to cope with the layoffs than others. Add to that that once these teachers go to work in the private sector, they expand access to bilingual services in the private sector. So no one will suffer too much from this. And worse comes to worse, they'll still have access to Ei in the transition period.

2. If we don't allow a person to enter Canada in the first place, then we're not going to be causing him any undue harm. He'll just continue on as he always had before. As for teachers in the LINC programme, same as above for those in the public service.

3. If UN interpretors and translators lose are laid off, I'm sure they'll be able to find other work for crying out loud. They're highly qualified.

4. Seeing that CIDA funding for English and French language promotion projects abroad benefit Canada more than the host countries (while CIDA's mandate is supposedly to help the other country, not Canada), and can even hurt the host country by laying the foundations of a brain drain later; and considering that this funding benefits the elites of the host society more than the general population, such spending cuts are not going to hurt the more vulnerable segments of their population at all, and can even benefit them. As for the teachers in those programmes, as amentioned above, they are highly qualified and so should be able to adjust quickly enough if laid off.

So I think the above would be an example of tax cuts that would not hurt anyone too much, if we want to look at it from a humanistic perspective. Any other ideas for possible federal spending cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much?

[Smallc]

I would say that any spending cuts done at the federal level should come from finding efficiencies within departments. The money that is saved can then be routed to other departments that have spending shortfalls allowing us to avoid raising taxes while at the same time allowing us to keep the same level of government services that we currently enjoy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You want cuts?

Start by chopping the civil servants! Not program spending but administrative expenses.

[Machjo]

I would say that any spending cuts done at the federal level should come from finding efficiencies within departments. The money that is saved can then be routed to other departments that have spending shortfalls allowing us to avoid raising taxes while at the same time allowing us to keep the same level of government services that we currently enjoy.

Any ideas on how to encourage public servants to seek out such efficiencies?

I remember a case years ago in Victoria BC. This was at the local level, but could still apply at the federal, so here it is:

The man got a new job with the city government. He was about to replace another worker about to retire. The worker trained him, and retired a few days later. Well, this new guy was honest, and ended doing what was supposed to be months' worth of work within days. He was working directly for the mayor, so he went up to the mayor a few days later, told the mayor that he'd finished all the work, and that he couldn't believe that the previous guy was always busy 'cause there really was not much work, and why not amalgamate the position. The position was amalgamated, he lost his job, but did get an amazing reference from the mayor... but it still doesn't change the fact that he'd lost hs job? And what kind of career would that be, to go around having as a mission to abolish your position repeatedly from job to job? Not much of an incentive in that now, is there? If anything, the incentive would be in looking busy at all times.

So, how would we change the rules in the public service to encourage such behaviour, to build the appropriate incentives into the system? Do we say that anyone who succeeds in abolishing his own position is more likely to get promoted, possibly even bumping his manager? I don't know, but am certainly open to ideas on this.

[Machjo]

You want cuts?

Start by chopping the civil servants! Not program spending but administrative expenses.

Too vague, too ambiguous. Just start chopping any civil servant randomly? What if we end up firing all the smart, honest, and hard workers and keep all the riff raff? Then what?

OK, you say administrative expenses. Again, just any administrative expense, or have you got some more specific idea in mind? It's easy to cut and reduce; anyone can say that. The question is, reduce what, where, by how much etc. And how to do it in such a way that it won't hurt anyone too much.

I can certainly agree with laying off public servants and administrators... if we've established that we can do so without causing hardship in some other area.

I think Samllc was on to something. Similar to your idea, but better planned. Through his ideas, we might end up being able to amalgamate positions and in that way avoid having to hire new staff for some positions that we could abolish without hurting the quality of the services they provide.

This just gave me another idea. Let's say a public servant, before retiring, finds a way to amalgamate his position with another. This of course would mean having to find more efficient ways of achieving the same task. Maybe we could give that person a retirement bonus for his effort? I'm not saying this is a good idea, I don't know. But throwing it out as a brainstorm. Any other ideas?

[Machjo]

Just another point. If we cut spending on language training, that means that civil servants no longer need to be replaced while they're undergoing training. That extra free time alone would cause alot of slack in the system, allowing for a hiring freeze for a while.

[tango]

Just another point. If we cut spending on language training, that means that civil servants no longer need to be replaced while they're undergoing training. That extra free time alone would cause alot of slack in the system, allowing for a hiring freeze for a while.

[Machjo]

What about the gradual introduction of an international military force? It would certainly eliminate many of the redundancies in military administrations, wouldn't it?

Of course language could bring translation, language training, and other costs up, but one way to work around that would be for Canada to share two military forces: one with other French-peaking nations, and one with other Enlgish-speakingnations. This would reduce administrative redundancies without increasing language costs. French Canadians could be recruited into the French-language force, while English-Canadians could join the English-language force.

Also, what about sharing a common currency? This could help to reduce conversion costs. It would not necessarily reduce federal government spending by much, but by reducing currency conversion costs in the economy, that would bring the cost of imports down reciprocally between the nations sharing the currency, which would help bring inflation down and so allow for lower interest rates too, which in turn help to lower interest on government debt. So it would still have anindirec impact.

Though granted the ideas above would be long-term goals to be implemented incrementally over time.

[Machjo]

what does that face mean?

[Machjo]

Make more of our direct taxes charity deductible. This way, we can give to the charity of our choice. Normally, we'll give to a charity we ourselves participate in, and so are familiar with and trust to not be corrupt, to be honest, etc. This way, with direct grassroots oversight, such organizations are likely to perform more efficiently than their government counterparts. Just an idea. Again, a good idea, I dont know. But a brainstorm is always a ood thing.

[tango]

You want cuts?

Start by chopping the civil servants! Not program spending but administrative expenses.

A little story:

Once upon a time in Ontari-ari-ario, little Mikey made a little blooper:

- Ministry reports (one of which was mine) indicated that almost half of the people working for school boards were non-teaching staff.

- Mikey and his whiz-kid political hacks and sharpies trumpeted: ALMOST HALF OF THE EDUCATION BUDGET IS NOT SPENT ON CLASSROOMS!!!

- Mikey and the hackers won the election and set about their goal of hacking and slashing the education budget, succeeding only in destroying critically important programs.

WHY?

Because half of the staff (bodies) did not equal half of the budget, as they portrayed it. Large numbers of those 'bodies' were lunchroom supervisors, crossing guards and other auxiliary staff working only a few hours per week for minimum wage, low paid part-time clerical staff, etc. - so-called "administrative" costs: It takes 2 to 12 of these 'bodies' to equal one teacher salary. The administrative "half" of the budget Mikey's kids thought they had to play with simply did not exist ... and Mikey's cuts were deep and had a huge impact on classrooms in Ontario.

Mikey and the whiz kids - some now in Ottawa - likely knew the truth, and likely intentionally misled the voters. However, it's also possible that they are that stupid ... and they may still be that stupid, or that ill-intentioned ... in Ottawa. (Case in point: Guy Giorno)

The moral of the story is: When some politician or hack tells you there is huge 'administrative' waste ... check their figures and their interpretation, because it is likely a mistake, a myth, or a scam.

In 25 years in public employment, the only large scale waste I have seen was caused by political whims and pressures and regime changes:

Well researched and effective programs under development for years are shelved because some politician doesn't like the "optics", or it belonged to a previous regime.

Other expensive, useless programs are rammed into place without due diligence because they have good "optics" or lucrative political 'connections'. This is accomplished by the flood of political hacks that invade the civil service after every election, to tell the professionals how to do their job so the political "optics" are good.

Cross them and you are history.

It isn't public employees who waste the most money or implement ineffective programs: It's politicians, in the interests of their own careers and their corporate handlers - ie, for profit, not for the 'public good'.

As I have seen it.

And I would happily swear an affidavit on this topic!

Edited May 31, 2009 by tango

[Machjo]

A little story:

Once upon a time in Ontari-ari-ario, little Mikey made a little blooper:

- Ministry reports indicated that almost half of the people working for school boards were non-teaching staff.

- Mikey and his whiz-boy political hacks trumpeted: ALMOST HALF OF THE EDUCATION BUDGET IS NOT SPENT ON CLASSROOMS!!!

- Mikey and the hackers won the election and set about their goal of hacking and slashing the education budget, succeeding only in destroying critically important programs.

WHY?

Because half of the staff (bodies) did not equal half of the budget, as they portrayed it. Large numbers of those 'bodies' were lunchroom supervisors, crossing guards and other auxiliary staff working only a few hours per week for minimum wage, low paid part-time clerical staff, etc. - so-called "administrative" costs: It takes 2 to 12 of these 'bodies' to equal one teacher salary. The administrative "half" of the budget Mikey's boys thought they had to play with simply did not exist ... and Mikey's cuts were deep and had a huge impact on classrooms in Ontario.

Mikey and the whiz boys - some now in Ottawa - likely knew the truth, and likely intentionally misled the voters. However, it's also possible that they are that stupid ... and may still be that stupid, or that ill-intentioned ... in Ottawa. (Case in point: Guy Giorno)

The moral of the story is: When some politician or hack tells you there is huge 'administrative' waste ... check their figures and their interpretation, because it is likely a mistake, a myth, or a scam.

In 25 years in public employment, the only large scale waste I have seen was caused by political whims and pressures and regime changes:

Well researched and effective programs under development for years are shelved because some politician doesn't like the "optics", or it belonged to a previous regime.

Other expensive, useless programs are rammed into place without due diligence because they have good "optics" or lucrative political 'connections'.

It isn't public employees who waste the most money or implement ineffective programs: It's politicians, in the interests of their own careers and their corporate handlers - ie, for profit, not for the 'public good'.

As I see it.

Interesting. So what woudl be your recommendation on how to make government more efficient?

[tango]

Interesting. So what woudl be your recommendation on how to make government more efficient?

The public service?

Make the civil service independent of politics and political patronage to start. It's ridiculous that political zealots lacking life or professional experience can trash the careers of any and every public employee they choose, right to the top ... ridiculous and a horrible waste of money.

Government?

Implement proportionate representation with all politicians accountable to constituents first, BEFORE the party.

Reduce the power of existing entrenched political parties with a multi-party system.

Create a citizens watchdog group (of non-party members) and a set of public standards for performance of all political entities, and have the watchdogs review and report on politicians' performance independently and frequently and publicly.

Similarly, create a set of standards for citizens involvement and democratic responsibilities as well, for public education about what our responsibilities are. It's no accident that our political systems are so profit-oriented to the detriment of democracy and efficiency: It's because we are not holding them to account well enough.

Just some initial thoughts ...

[Machjo]

Implement proportionate representation with all politicians accountable to constituents first, BEFORE the party.

The whole idea of proportional representation is based on the party. So how can it be proportional and reduce party power at the same time. On the contrary, it would strengthen party power. If your goal is to weaken party power, then why not go to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

Some of the advantages of non-partisan democracy are quoted here:

[edit] Advantages

Citizens can not engage in vote pairing, straight-ticket voting, or other tactical voting methods (and need not engage in ticket splitting), resulting in an election outcome that is more likely to reflect the intent of the citizens.

Elected officials are not beholden to a party apparatus that got them elected, and are not subjected to party restrictions on how they may vote, nor must they posture for the sake of an opposition party (e.g., to show they are "tough" enough, etc.). Non-partisan officials can therefore more readily represent the actual needs of their constituents. The lack of such requirements may also bring more principled individuals up the ranks, as they do not have to make assertions against their beliefs in order to demonstrate "party unity".

All in the community (or at least perhaps those of a certain age, without a criminal record, etc.) are made eligible to vote and can be voted for. Thus, it is believed that a non-partisan system also expands choice in elections beyond the limited range of choices as are otherwise presented to the public, who will at best have a limited role in partisan systems.

It is argued that the simple opportunity of being enabled to privately witness and assess the character and initiative of individuals within one's own community (especially where regular town meetings occur at the local level or, in indirect election systems, where non-partisan delegates meet at a national level) provides a better picture of how capable a given individual is of providing future leadership and service.

Advocates argue that self-aggrandizement and promise-making inherent within partisan democracies would be minimized in such non-partisan systems (and possibly eliminated entirely in at least the public level for non-electioneering systems).

Appeals to limited loyalties and divisiveness surrounding partisan elections (and their social consequences beyond the elections) may be averted, especially in no-electioneering systems. This was one of the rationales advanced in favor of Uganda's previous no-party system.

In nonpartisan systems without electioneering, financial dependence on third parties may be averted by those elected, who are unencumbered with such alliances and can make decisions according to their own conscience rather than the party or lobbies that supported them.

Such a system is considered by some to be also compatible with technocracy, whereby the solemn atmosphere may tend to elect candidates who may have great abilities and knowledge yet would not otherwise be inclined to participate in a media frenzy or take part in behind-the-scenes power-grabs.

Such systems are seen to invite a greater possibility of selection of traditionally-overlooked candidates from less self-promotional or less confrontation-accustomed populations, such as women or certain ethnic minorities.

Such systems are seen to avoid divisiveness within the population as a whole, as constituents are not provided an easy outlet for ascribing negative qualities in wholesale to members of another party or parties (e.g., for rejecting their own policy goals). This includes avoidance of indirect appeals by politicians or others to racism or nationalism (such as when one party tends to appeal disproportionately to one group) in order to garner votes or vent antagonisms. The public, whether at the level of society at large, or of neighborhoods and families, are saved from acrimony and constant debates based on party identity rather than discussing the merit of individual ideas (or engaging in other non-political activities).

Constituents are not pigeon-holed into thinking of issues according to one "party view". They may also be more willing to implement the policies decided upon democratically in their region, when they are not tempted to resist doing so were they to disfavor an incumbent's party.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Machjo

[tango]

The whole idea of proportional representation is based on the party. So how can it be proportional and reduce party power at the same time. On the contrary, it would strengthen party power. If your goal is to weaken party power, then why not go to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

Because that isn't feasible from where we are now.

[Machjo]

Because that isn't feasible from where we are now.

The North West Territories and Nunavut have it already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_government

[Visionseeker]

With all the talk about government debt, I was wondering if anyone here has ides on where we could cut or reduce federal government spending without unduly hurting anyone who might be dependent on that spending for their ivelyhood.

Personally, I could think of a few that would hurt nobody too much:

1. Cut (and I don't mean reduce, but cut completely) spending on second-language education for civil servants, police, military, and all other government personnel, and instead use the limited bilingual resources available more strategically by placing them where their language skills are likely to be needed most.

2. Introduce high-level (not Mickey-Mouse) compulsory tests to assess the language competence of newcomers to Canada, which they must pass, and cut (again, I make a distinction between the meanings of cut and reduce) spending on the Federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml).

3. Make an official recommendation to the UN to consult formally on the reduction of the UN's official languages from 6 to 1 (last I'd read, the UN was spending about 12 million US dollars a year on interpretation and translation costs for meetings of the General Assembly alone! And remember, this increases funding demands on member states, including Canada).

4. Cut all spending on CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) programmes geared towards promoting the English and French languages abroad.

Now, I said that none of thes policies would hurt anybody too much, and here's my explanation:

1. Generally speaking, in a bilingual community where someone might in fact need government services in either official language, chances are there are also plenty of bilinguals to choose from. logical conclusion, eh. And if there are not many bilingual candidates to choose from in that community then it's probably because the community is not very bilingual in the first place. Again, a pretty logical conclusion. So cutting spending on language teaching for civil servants is not likely to affect access to bilingual services much.

As for the teachers who lose their jobs as a result, well, they are bilingual, teachers are generally well educated and receive a middle class salary, and so they are likely to be more able to cope with the layoffs than others. Add to that that once these teachers go to work in the private sector, they expand access to bilingual services in the private sector. So no one will suffer too much from this. And worse comes to worse, they'll still have access to Ei in the transition period.

2. If we don't allow a person to enter Canada in the first place, then we're not going to be causing him any undue harm. He'll just continue on as he always had before. As for teachers in the LINC programme, same as above for those in the public service.

3. If UN interpretors and translators lose are laid off, I'm sure they'll be able to find other work for crying out loud. They're highly qualified.

4. Seeing that CIDA funding for English and French language promotion projects abroad benefit Canada more than the host countries (while CIDA's mandate is supposedly to help the other country, not Canada), and can even hurt the host country by laying the foundations of a brain drain later; and considering that this funding benefits the elites of the host society more than the general population, such spending cuts are not going to hurt the more vulnerable segments of their population at all, and can even benefit them. As for the teachers in those programmes, as amentioned above, they are highly qualified and so should be able to adjust quickly enough if laid off.

So I think the above would be an example of tax cuts that would not hurt anyone too much, if we want to look at it from a humanistic perspective. Any other ideas for possible federal spending cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much?

Right.

First, public service language training is given to essential staff that lack appropriate second language skill to retain or advance from their current position. These are the applicants or employees who won competitions for, or occupy bilingual positions in spite of their unilingual skills. There are very few of these and their training costs the treasury no more than $40 million a year.

Second, the LINC program is largely revenue neutral as the $490 Right of Permanent Residence Fee is a cost recovery vehicle for adaptation services. In short, drop LINC and you have to drop the fee. Essentially, it's a service immigrants pay for. Canada accepts over 225,000 immigrants each year and LINC costs $275 million. You do the math. How much of the $490 Right of Permanent Residence Fee can be seen to cover LINC.

But your proposal that Canada go to the UN and demand that everyone speak white is the most disconcerting aspect of your post. I mean really, how is our global standing enhanced by demanding that the UN drop all these other nonsense languages and just use English? - and from a bilingual country no less.

CIDA does not, to my knowledge, fund language training programs. But they do support education programs. Are you suggesting that they should fund only education programs provided in English?

All told, your austerity measures would probably save no more the $200 million dollars while stunting the professional development of public servants, cheating immigrants, alienating hosts of other countries and depriving hundreds of thousands of children of an education to satisfy your anglophile bigotry.

A colleague of mine once asked rhetorically "what is the price of stupidity?" Should he ever ask me again, I will confidently offer $40 million as the figure.

[August1991]

I would say that any spending cuts done at the federal level should come from finding efficiencies within departments. The money that is saved can then be routed to other departments that have spending shortfalls allowing us to avoid raising taxes while at the same time allowing us to keep the same level of government services that we currently enjoy.

Time to bring out my link to this thread: Public Sector Transfer Payments

Each year, our federal government hands out several billion dollars to people and receives nothing in return. The federal government is obliged to provide a list of anyone or any organization that received more than $100,000. Click on the link above for a better explanation.

-----

Smallc, I don't know how much experience you have had with the federal government but it has gone well beyond "compassionate spending". The idea of "finding efficiencies" is comical.

Edited May 31, 2009 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look, there are a whole lot of public servants. At the top of the pile is a bunch of high paying patronage appointments, guess who deserves the first hit? Roll these top bureaucratic jobs into the responsibility and control of the Ministries or Departments and make the Ministers or Department heads accountable. Next thing is to drop back down a level into the upper administrative layers, in corporate terms the senior VP's and their attending herds of humans, and start combining these positions and functions with mid-level management jobs. The next step is to carve out all of the accounting functions from all departments and ministries and ship the workload to public works. Remove all research and development from all departments and ministries, combine into a new all encompassing department of research and development.

All of these things will result in savings, but their impact will be revenue neutral because the right thing to do is plow the savings into service delivery, which means actually employing more people at the lowest levels and thereby increasing service level without increasing expenditures. The downside is increased fiscal liability in terms of pensions and benefits, but this can be well accounted for and not require additional cost adjustments because you are only spending what you save.

[Smallc]

Smallc, I don't know how much experience you have had with the federal government but it has gone well beyond "compassionate spending". The idea of "finding efficiencies" is comical.

I don't expect you to agree with me when it comes to government, but I get the feeling that many Canadians are not willing to give up the things we have. The priorities of all Canadians do not necessarily mirror yours or mine, and that's why the government spends what it does.

[August1991]

I don't expect you to agree with me when it comes to government, but I get the feeling that many Canadians are not willing to give up the things we have. The priorities of all Canadians do not necessarily mirror yours or mine, and that's why the government spends what it does.

The things we have?

Take a look at that list and explain to me that even half of the list contain things that make Canada a better country.

----

Smallc, if I take one cent from every Canadian, they won't notice the loss. But one cent from 30 million Canadians amounts to $300,000. If you are the recipient of that $300,000, it makes a difference to you.

This is the nature of government in the modern world. I urge you to take a quick glance at the link that I provided above.

Look, there are a whole lot of public servants. At the top of the pile is a bunch of high paying patronage appointments, guess who deserves the first hit?

I'd be the first one to argue that our federal civil service is too big. But forget the civil service, or even the patronage.

Take a look at the billions we hand out to a long line of "ordinary" people with rice bowl extended. Is it civilized to take money from poor people and give it to moochers who happen to know how to harangue bureaucrats and politicians?

Edited May 31, 2009 by August1991

[Machjo]

Right.

First, public service language training is given to essential staff that lack appropriate second language skill to retain or advance from their current position. These are the applicants or employees who won competitions for, or occupy bilingual positions in spite of their unilingual skills. There are very few of these and their training costs the treasury no more than $40 million a year.

Money is still money. If $40 million dollars is not alot, then maybe the government could give me it? It might not be alot in terms of the overall government budget, but it certainly is one area that can be cut without hurting anyone too much, as was the intent in the OP. If a person is not qualified for the job, then hire someone else. Besides, if a local community truly is bilignual, then how is it that they can't find someone who knows the language. Seems like a contradiction there.

Second, the LINC program is largely revenue neutral as the $490 Right of Permanent Residence Fee is a cost recovery vehicle for adaptation services. In short, drop LINC and you have to drop the fee. Essentially, it's a service immigrants pay for. Canada accepts over 225,000 immigrants each year and LINC costs $275 million. You do the math. How much of the $490 Right of Permanent Residence Fee can be seen to cover LINC.

Thanks for the info. If revenue neutral on all fronts, including the cost of multilingual 911 operators while they're still learning English or French, a guarantee that they will suscceed in learning English or French, etc. then I'm more than willing to reconsider that idea. Where'd you get that info by th way?

But your proposal that Canada go to the UN and demand that everyone speak white is the most disconcerting aspect of your post. I mean really, how is our global standing enhanced by demanding that the UN drop all these other nonsense languages and just use English? - and from a bilingual country no less.

Hmmm...English 101:

1. Recommend is not the same as demand. Look it up in the dictionary.

2. I never suggested they speak 'White'. In fact, the only time I've ever heard someone tell me to speak White was when a God-damn English muffin did once in Ottawa because I mistakenly thought the square head knew French. To think he live just across the river from Quebec! Bad news is, some freinds of mine have been told to speak White too... one of them while he was in Gatineau! Good news is, I've only ever had that comment used on me once. And since my skin colour seems to matter so much to you, I am white. Not that I see any relevence to the topic though. I speak Chinese and my skin colour hasn't changed in the least.

My idea would be that they agree on adopting, modifying, or creating a language that they could all agree on. I speak English, French, and Esperanto fluently, am quite functional in Mandarin Chinese, and can read some basic Arabic and Persian, so I've made my contribution to communication, thank you very much.And you?

With that kind of snotty attitude of yours, I can flip your logic right around. Are you suggesting that we expand the official languages of the UN to include all languages? How expensive would that be? And if you're not proposing that, then why would you defend a special privileged status for speakers of English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese? Notice how four of them you would likely identify as 'White', yet not one single African one (unless you include Arabic). Is that what you're defending?

By having one language, adopted, revised or created, that all could accept, not only would it save money, but would not only promote equality (oh the horror of losing White privilege, huh?), but more efficient and cost-effective communication too.

CIDA does not, to my knowledge, fund language training programs. But they do support education programs. Are you suggesting that they should fund only education programs provided in English?

CIDA does, to my knowledge, fund language training programmes. When I was in China, I'd come across a series of textbooks, PEP (Primary Engish for China), and in the front cover, it had a note thanking 'the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)' for its assistance in the development of the project. The pubisher was Lingomedia. Why else would they be thanking CIDA in the front cover of their book. Hey, English (or white as you put it) is big business, and even the British Council is in on it promoting 'this invisible, God-Given asset' of yours that's 'greater than North Sea Oil' (British Council 1984).

All told, your austerity measures would probably save no more the $200 million dollars

Better than nothing.

while stunting the professional development of public servants

Get real. My dad spent a year studying French paid for by the military, and that's on top of hearing my mom and me speak French to each other on a regular basis throughout my childhood, and he couldn't speak it. You obviously don't know French if you honestly belive that a uniingual English-speaker can learn this language over a one year course. French is a specialization, not just some general knowledge you learn over a year-long course. Waste of money that was.

If my dad couldn't learn it after hearing my mom and I speak it throughout my childhood and still now when I visit, I'd love to see the statistics for the success rate on this. You obviously don't know what you're talking about here.

, cheating immigrants

I'll grant you this one point. If they are paying for it, then we should give it to them. But how do we know they will learn it? Instead, I'd say stop charging them for the courses, but instead expect them to know the local language before coming. Then we won't need to charge them a fee beyond processing fees. This way, immigrants who know English or French already won't be penalized for those who don't.

, , alienating hosts of other countries and depriving hundreds of thousands of children of an education to satisfy your anglophile bigotry.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. I propose that we stop funding English and French teaching programmes abroad, and you call that Anglophile? And then you suggest that if their educaiton does not include our language, it is somehow inferior? And then you accuse me of being Anglocentric. You do realise that French is my mother tongue, don't you? Why would I want my tax dollars going to promote English. Even though my dad is British, I still identify more with French as I'd gone to French-medium schoo. No, not your silly French immersion, but French-medium.

,A colleague of mine once asked rhetorically "what is the price of stupidity?" Should he ever ask me again, I will confidently offer $40 million as the figure.

So as far as you're concerned, we should only go after BIG waste and ignore the small fish? I'm sure the big inefficiencies have been cut already. That's why I'm looking at smaller cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much. I'm sure we could cut EI, but probably not a wise move right now, wouldn't you think.

And next time you suggest I speak 'White' Again, I'll just respond to you in French, you bloody muffin head.

[Smallc]

The things we have?

Apparently you didn't pay attention when I said that we wouldn't agree.

[Visionseeker]

Money is still money. If $40 million dollars is not alot, then maybe the government could give me it? It might not be alot in terms of the overall government budget, but it certainly is one area that can be cut without hurting anyone too much, as was the intent in the OP. If a person is not qualified for the job, then hire someone else. Besides, if a local community truly is bilignual, then how is it that they can't find someone who knows the language. Seems like a contradiction there.

Thanks for the info. If revenue neutral on all fronts, including the cost of multilingual 911 operators while they're still learning English or French, a guarantee that they will suscceed in learning English or French, etc. then I'm more than willing to reconsider that idea. Where'd you get that info by th way?

Hmmm...English 101:

1. Recommend is not the same as demand. Look it up in the dictionary.

2. I never suggested they speak 'White'. In fact, the only time I've ever heard someone tell me to speak White was when a God-damn English muffin did once in Ottawa because I mistakenly thought the square head knew French. To think he live just across the river from Quebec! Bad news is, some freinds of mine have been told to speak White too... one of them while he was in Gatineau! Good news is, I've only ever had that comment used on me once. And since my skin colour seems to matter so much to you, I am white. Not that I see any relevence to the topic though. I speak Chinese and my skin colour hasn't changed in the least.

My idea would be that they agree on adopting, modifying, or creating a language that they could all agree on. I speak English, French, and Esperanto fluently, am quite functional in Mandarin Chinese, and can read some basic Arabic and Persian, so I've made my contribution to communication, thank you very much.And you?

With that kind of snotty attitude of yours, I can flip your logic right around. Are you suggesting that we expand the official languages of the UN to include all languages? How expensive would that be? And if you're not proposing that, then why would you defend a special privileged status for speakers of English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese? Notice how four of them you would likely identify as 'White', yet not one single African one (unless you include Arabic). Is that what you're defending?

By having one language, adopted, revised or created, that all could accept, not only would it save money, but would not only promote equality (oh the horror of losing White privilege, huh?), but more efficient and cost-effective communication too.

CIDA does, to my knowledge, fund language training programmes. When I was in China, I'd come across a series of textbooks, PEP (Primary Engish for China), and in the front cover, it had a note thanking 'the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)' for its assistance in the development of the project. The pubisher was Lingomedia. Why else would they be thanking CIDA in the front cover of their book. Hey, English (or white as you put it) is big business, and even the British Council is in on it promoting 'this invisible, God-Given asset' of yours that's 'greater than North Sea Oil' (British Council 1984).

Better than nothing.

Get real. My dad spent a year studying French paid for by the military, and that's on top of hearing my mom and me speak French to each other on a regular basis throughout my childhood, and he couldn't speak it. You obviously don't know French if you honestly belive that a uniingual English-speaker can learn this language over a one year course. French is a specialization, not just some general knowledge you learn over a year-long course. Waste of money that was.

If my dad couldn't learn it after hearing my mom and I speak it throughout my childhood and still now when I visit, I'd love to see the statistics for the success rate on this. You obviously don't know what you're talking about here.

I'll grant you this one point. If they are paying for it, then we should give it to them. But how do we know they will learn it? Instead, I'd say stop charging them for the courses, but instead expect them to know the local language before coming. Then we won't need to charge them a fee beyond processing fees. This way, immigrants who know English or French already won't be penalized for those who don't.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. I propose that we stop funding English and French teaching programmes abroad, and you call that Anglophile? And then you suggest that if their educaiton does not include our language, it is somehow inferior? And then you accuse me of being Anglocentric. You do realise that French is my mother tongue, don't you? Why would I want my tax dollars going to promote English. Even though my dad is British, I still identify more with French as I'd gone to French-medium schoo. No, not your silly French immersion, but French-medium.

So as far as you're concerned, we should only go after BIG waste and ignore the small fish? I'm sure the big inefficiencies have been cut already. That's why I'm looking at smaller cuts that are not likely to hurt anyone too much. I'm sure we could cut EI, but probably not a wise move right now, wouldn't you think.

And next time you suggest I speak 'White' Again, I'll just respond to you in French, you bloody muffin head.

Je suis bien familier avec la langue de Voltaire mon petit con. Tu parles de ta matrise de plusieurs langues mais ton père n'a pu s'acharné à la voix de ses proches. Pourquoi? Peut-être il y avait un parti de ton père qui disait "What do I need this for, I already speak white."

I don't have the time or inclination to school you on the notion of speaking white and its implications around the globe. Nor do I have the time to spell out how language is indemic to culture and that any measure that would marginalize a language is an assult on those who speak it and a warning to sign for others who don't.

What I do have time for is to point out that you speak without facts and don't have a clue what you are talking about. How much do we stand to save from junking LINC? Come on, give us the numbers.

[tango]

The North West Territories and Nunavut have it already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_government

I stand corrected ... with pleasure.

Ok, let's do it.