Reconciliation: where should the money come from?

[-1=e^ipi]

As mentioned above: no more separate school system and official bilingualism, no more media funding and Heritage Canada.

Yes.

No more language requirements on packaging and labelling so as to increase product choice.

I agree that the current language requirements are excessive, but in some cases it is providing important information to consumers (example: the nutrition index of food packages).

[Second-class Canadian]

But why does an English speaker need French labels? Why does a French speaker need English labels? What if a Chinese speaker decides to specialize in Chinese products and his clientele is predominantly Chinese speaking? Can a person not refuse to buy a product he can't read? Why withhold others from it?

[-1=e^ipi]

But why does an English speaker need French labels? Why does a French speaker need English labels?

They don't, but the package doesn't know in advance what the linguistic background of the person who will buy it will be. You could have either an anglophone or a francophone go to store to buy something, so there is a bit of an economies of scale argument to have a single kind of nutrition index.

[Canada_First]

Canada official languages are English and French. Not Chinese languages. Very simple. Dontr like it dont do business here.

[Freddy]

What wars? Canada could not afford Indian wars, so it opted for treachery instead. It signed treaties it never intended to honour so the indigenous allies could let their guard down and then sent the RCMP in to sweep the children away before the they could organize a counter-attack. Even the government acknowledged that the indigenous peoples were not likely to rebel once the government had control of their children.

That would be the equivalent of Canada joining NATO, positioning itself strategically within it, and then springing the long knives before its allies know what hit them. I'd hardly call that a war. Treachery, yes, but not a war.

Now of course one could argue that the distinction between war and treachery is superfluous, that if the indigenous peoples were stupid enough to trust the British and the French, then they deserved what they got. But then what does that say about western values? Not very Christian, are they.

Sounds like a act of war, and then the Natives didn't even fight back for their children?

Something doesn't add up in your story.

If you're counting on someone's else moral accountability for your own security, I think you're a fool.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

What kind of soldier: Honourable or treacherous? Do you stab your comrades at arms in the back when they are not looking?

Yes especially if he took my children

Edited July 3, 2015 by Freddy

[drummindiver]

They don't, but the package doesn't know in advance what the linguistic background of the person who will buy it will be. You could have either an anglophone or a francophone go to store to buy something, so there is a bit of an economies of scale argument to have a single kind of nutrition index.

Unless of course you're in Quebec, where anything in English is verboten. Double standard much, distinct society?

[drummindiver]

Given that the TRC has recommended that the Government of Canada spend as much money to revive indigenous languages and cultures as it spent on trying to destroy them (adjusted for inflation) in a systematic act of cultural genocide, where should all of that money come from?

I personally can see at least two possible sources: the separate school system and the English and French provisions of the Canadian Constitution.

According to one study referring to a merging of separate and secular schools in Ontario, "The total estimated annual savings due to merging have been calculated at between $1.269 billion and $1.594 billion."

Given that the Churches that are involved in the separate school system are by no accident of history the same ones that were involved in the residential school system (and that the UN has already criticized Canada for the separate school system violating the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights), it would seem appropriate to take the funds from the same source by abrogating the separate school system from the Constitution.

According to another study published by the Fraser Institute, fulfilling the English and French language requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms costs Canadian taxpayers an estimated 2.4 billion dollars a year.

Given that these are the same languages, again by no accident of history, to be imposed in the residential school system, it would seem appropriate again to get the funds from the same source by eliminating the English and French language provisions of the Constitution.

Of course extra-constitutional legislation might still protect some English and French language privileges and so fail to save the entire 2.4 billion a year, but even if it manages to save half of that money, that would still be 1.2 billion yearly. Considering that schools on reserves are underfunded from between 2,000 to 3,000 dollars yearly per child today compared to off-reserve schools in comparable circumstances, the savings could go towards funding public schools on reserves.

An additional advantage aside from reconciliation would be putting our religions and languages on a comparatively more equal footing in the Constitution.

Where would you propose we get the funding for reconciliation?

If you've read the TRC recommendations, you know how ridiculous and frivilous 99% of them are and impossible to implement. Money wasted right there.

Reconciliation cannot be bought. FNs need to help themselves, as us endlessly funneling money to them has not worked. Nor will it ever.

There have been several links posted in Reconciliation..Moving Forward where FNs have improved their circumstances by working as a team, with a plan. Moving forward, more FNs should be encouraged to adopt similar plans. As in the case of the Penticton Indian Band, they recieved a loan...not a handout....and reduced unemployment from 60 to 20 percent.

Why these success stories are not widely known or emulated is anyones' guess, but maybe instead of the ridiculous TRC recommendations, they could recommend FNs studying and implementing plans that actually work instead of perpetuating white guilt.

[Second-class Canadian]

Canada official languages are English and French. Not Chinese languages. Very simple. Dontr like it dont do business here.

With all due respect, I think your comment is fallacious on a number of points (though feel free to correct me if I misread you and I apologize in advance should that be the case):

1. You seem to be confusing threads and topics. Never in this thread did I propose adopting any additional official language.

2. Since we're already confusing threads, I'll mention that even in the one in which I did propose adopting Chinese as an official language, I did not mean it seriously but rather to make a point. You seemed to be suggesting (or at least as I'd read it) that we should be prohibited from using any language other than an official one of state in private matters, so I countered according to that rationale that we might want to officialize it then.

Just to be clear on where I really stand, I believe that two official languages are too many due to translation costs and that we ought to have only one, maybe English.

3. I get the impression that you might be confusing official and unofficial, a language of state and a private language (though it might just be that we understand the terms differently). When I think of an official language of state, I think of an official language of government administration and not the language used in private business or conversations between friends and family. To my mind at least, for the law to allow a person to converse in the language of his choice in private conversation or a private business to package and label a product in the language of its choice does not make that language an official language of state but merely a private language, so I do not see how advocating for more freedom in any private language somehow equates with proposing the adoption of another official language.

Additionally, I believe that making a clear distinction between official and unofficial is the only way we Franco-Ontarians could possibly accept the de-officialization of our language from the Constitution. In other words, should French ever no longer be an official language of state, then we would insist on the official language being limited to government administration and universal compulsory second-language education, with any other education, media, or other funding maybe just being given in the form of a voucher to be used in the language of our choice and letting our businesses package and label products in the language of our choice too. As long as we fail to differentiate between official and unofficial (and so impose the official language of state onto private matters), then not only will we defend an official status for French but for other languages too. So essentially I'm for one official language of state or government administration with significant freedom for any unofficial language in unofficial contexts or private matters. I believe in making a clear distinction between matters of state and private matters.

It's no surprise that the Conservative Party of Quebec proposed a school voucher programme for the province: it understood that if it's not going to support strengthening the official status of French, then it must focus on weakening the official status of English and strengthen unofficial language rights. I'd actually emailed it to learn of the details of its position, and beyond requiring French as at least a second language in all schools and provincial testing in French, it proposed letting schools adopt the language of instruction of their choice (which could be a sign language, the local indigenous language, English, or any other unofficial language) according to market demand, and that French would be the official language of the administration of the state but that businesses in Quebec could operate in any unofficial language of their choice.

4. The reason I'd proposed that private businesses be free to package and label in the language of their choice is for purely economic reasons. Right now only companies that package and label in English and French can sell their product on Canadian store shelves, giving them if not a monopoly, then at least significant protection against competition, thus allowing them to maintain inflated prices and lower quality.

Now supposing that the language requirements were removed, suddenly a shop in BC might decide to import some US products that are packaged and labelled only in English, a shop in Quebec might decide to import products from France that are packaged and labelled only in French, etc. With the sudden increase of choice on the market, companies would feel greater pressure to raise quality, lower prices, or specialize. Even monolingual English speakers would benefit from this due to the fact that English companies would suddenly have to work harder to maintain the loyalty of their non-native English-speaking consumers (which they could no longer take for granted) who could just as easily turn to products that are packaged and labelled in any language they know. This would also reduce overhead translation costs in the packaging and labelling industry, savings that could be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, savings that we could then dispense with as we see fit, which could include contributing to the revitalization of indigenous languages. If the government won't accept responsibility for its past actions, then it should at least have the decency to step aside and let those who want to help do so.

[WIP]

where should all of that money come from?

I personally can see at least two possible sources: the separate school system and the English and French provisions of the Canadian Constitution.

...........................................

Where would you propose we get the funding for reconciliation?

I got a better idea! People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden. Instead of Harper giving more tax cuts for the rich...like his so called 'job-creating' incentives, it's time to grab them by the ankles, hold them upside down and shake, and see what falls out of their pockets!

Canada's inequality growing: Stats Can The gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, a report that looks at wealth found.

[Second-class Canadian]

I got a better idea! People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden. Instead of Harper giving more tax cuts for the rich...like his so called 'job-creating' incentives, it's time to grab them by the ankles, hold them upside down and shake, and see what falls out of their pockets!

Canada's inequality growing: Stats Can

The gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, a report that looks at wealth found.

But in the mean time, until that happens...

[TimG]

People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden.

Frequently the guy who owns that house lives overseas and does not report any Canadian income. If anyone actually lives in the house they have zero income and qualify for various income tested benefits. Edited July 3, 2015 by TimG

[Canada_First]

I got a better idea! People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden. Instead of Harper giving more tax cuts for the rich...like his so called 'job-creating' incentives, it's time to grab them by the ankles, hold them upside down and shake, and see what falls out of their pockets!

Canada's inequality growing: Stats Can The gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, a report that looks at wealth found.

Guys like this already pay more in taxes then most people earn in a year. Next. Being successful and working hard arent crimes, as much as the left hates it when people are successful on their own. It really isn't hard to earn over 100k a year in this country you know.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Canada_First

[Argus]

I got a better idea! People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden. Instead of Harper giving more tax cuts for the rich...like his so called 'job-creating' incentives, it's time to grab them by the ankles, hold them upside down and shake, and see what falls out of their pockets!

I'm curious. What gives you the right to think you deserve other people's money?

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since. These shares are still higher than what they were in 1982, but to say that top-end inequality has “skyrocketed” during the Conservative government is absurd; “cratered” would be a better description.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

Edited July 4, 2015 by Argus

[Second-class Canadian]

I'm curious. What gives you the right to think you deserve other people's money?

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since. These shares are still higher than what they were in 1982, but to say that top-end inequality has “skyrocketed” during the Conservative government is absurd; “cratered” would be a better description.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

That's why we should maximally shrink government. Listen to the rhetoric from all parties. It's about helping the middle class, to raise our taxes to spend them on separate schools, French and English language services in Iqaluit, Heritage Canada, and the CBC.

If you just cut all of that, paid off the debt, and then lowered my taxes, my charity would go to much needier people than the middle class.

[Freddy]

The answer is easy. Give them land..... Oh wait, they already have that..... All the money in the world is all a product of making something from the land.

They have the land..... We can't do the rest for them. They have to do it for themselves.

[Freddy]

I got a better idea! People like the guy who owns this house seem to have enough discretionary income to pay a greater share of the tax burden. Instead of Harper giving more tax cuts for the rich...like his so called 'job-creating' incentives, it's time to grab them by the ankles, hold them upside down and shake, and see what falls out of their pockets!

Canada's inequality growing: Stats Can

The gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, a report that looks at wealth found.

Maybe before the world became global, that was a good idea. Now a days it's a really good way to chase them out of Canada, and invest elsewhere.

Rich people have the resources to get out of the country and into a tax heaven without to much problems, they have the money to come visit their families every 6th month.

So they stop paying taxes completely, no longer buy in the local markets, And stop hiring local services.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Freddy

[WIP]

But in the mean time, until that happens...

Tim G

Frequently the guy who owns that house lives overseas and does not report any Canadian income. If anyone actually lives in the house they have zero income and qualify for various income tested benefits.

Maybe it's time to get serious about examining the course we've been on for the past 30 years, since the promises of trade liberalization and trickle down economics has eliminated most of the middle class. An interesting little study on employment in Southern Ontario released earlier this week, revealed that, living in Hamilton, I am part of the 40% minority of the City's working population who have full time jobs! Almost 60% are working part time, temporary or contract work. Hard to believe, coming from a city that was the a major industrial hub of our economy.

A few people have made off like bandits under the current system....mostly those who control or are major shareholders in transnational corporations...as for the rest of us, why should we be the ones asked to bleed more tax money while a few buy multimillion dollar homes and offshore the rest of their loot!

Canada First

Guys like this already pay more in taxes then most people earn in a year. Next. Being successful and working hard arent crimes, as much as the left hates it when people are successful on their own. It really isn't hard to earn over 100k a year in this country you know.

No, they hire the lawyers, the accountants and lobby the politicians to dodge most of those taxes and leave the tax burden for the suckers who are wage earners who get no perks, and small business owners who get modest concessions in comparison to the ruling elites.

I'm within a few years of retirement, and I earn about 80k per year, so I'm not complaining about my personal situation. I've been able to support a family and live relatively modestly, but if you think more than a slim fraction of our kids have a shot at earning 100k+ per year, you're either delusional or have lost touch with what's happening out there today.

Argus

I'm curious. What gives you the right to think you deserve other people's money?

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since. These shares are still higher than what they were in 1982, but to say that top-end inequality has “skyrocketed” during the Conservative government is absurd; “cratered” would be a better description.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

Yep, leave it to the NP to try make their readers pitty the poor downtrodden billionaire! There are so many tricks that financial fraudsters like Stephen Gordon can play with statistics, that it's probably more worthwhile to examine wealth rather than income levels anyway, and the wealth gap was the main focus of the piece I quoted previously from the Star.

[WIP]

Maybe before the world became global, that was a good idea. Now a days it's a really good way to chase them out of Canada, and invest elsewhere.

Rich people have the resources to get out of the country and into a tax heaven without to much problems, they have the money to come visit their families every 6th month.

So they stop paying taxes completely, no longer buy in the local markets, And stop hiring local services.

I was listening to a podcast interview of a historian...whose name I don't recall unfortunately, who made the stunning observation that the growing power that transnational corporations and financial institutions have gained, has given them the kind of power over national governments that the Catholic Church once held over Europe several centuries ago.

I'm just amazed so many people...who once opposed foreign takeovers of Canadian industries, now just write it off as some great inevitability...like the Sun rising and setting. Even the Cirque du Soleil is being sold off to some holding company owned by American and Chinese interests. Nothing in our economy is really Canadian owned anymore, and like you said they can move or just threaten to move their wealth elsewhere if they don't like our tax rates. They can move their industries as well, if workers demand decent wages.

The only thing "global" under the current regime is capital. After all of the paranoid rantings assorted rightwingers have done for the last 50 years about world government and internationalism, the world governing bodies with real power and authority are the ones that regulate trade and the flow of capital. And they are the primary reason why there is no international enforcement of international law or environmental regulations.

[Second-class Canadian]

Lack of enforceable international law is a problem.

[TimG]

Lack of enforceable international law is a problem.

And it always will be since no major country is willing to hand its law making powers over to an unelected and unaccountable international judiciary and police force. Edited July 4, 2015 by TimG

[Second-class Canadian]

And it always will be since no major country is willing to hand its law making powers over to an unelected and unaccountable international judiciary and police force.

So why not establish an international democratic Assembly? But as I mentioned above... in the mean time...

[TimG]

So why not establish an international democratic Assembly?

First, that would require countries like China to embrace democracy as a means to determine who gets to govern. Second, smaller countries have absolutely no interest in participating in a forum where they their influence is basically zero. Third, democracies generally encourage the decentralization of power - not the other way around.

[Second-class Canadian]

First, that would require countries like China to embrace democracy as a means to determine who gets to govern. Second, smaller countries have absolutely no interest in participating in a forum where they their influence is basically zero. Third, democracies generally encourage the decentralization of power - not the other way around.

You bring up many good points. That's why I say "in the mean time..."

But I take issue with that last point. World Federation and decentralization are not necessarily incompatible. If they were, all democracies would be city states.

[eyeball]

I'm curious. What gives you the right to think you deserve other people's money?

Actually it's just their influence and power over politicians that we need.

Redistribute that equally amongst Canadians and your question might start to look like a fair one to ask.

Edited July 4, 2015 by eyeball