I’m not an expert in French. I don’t think I even knew a word of French until I started kindergarten. And even then, at my Anglophone school, in an Anglophone city, we students were only so involved in developing what was for most of us a second language. We’d do an hour here, an hour there, learning the basic vocabulary that you’d expect of a group of five year olds. And this basic education continued through our elementary years.

By the time my classmates and I reached high school and had the opportunity to choose classes, I was surprised to find that many of them jumped at the chance to give up French for good. Whether it was because they struggled with it or just lacked interest, they had no qualms at closing the door and never looking back.

I was perplexed at their choice. Maybe it was because I just loved the sound of the language or the writers we studied.

But it seems I was, and am now, in the minority. Of the 33 million people who live in Canada, just over 17 per cent speak both official languages. And predictably enough, almost 60 per cent of those bilingual people live in Quebec.

What people seem to very easily forget is that Canada is a bilingual country. After all, the French established a permanent settlement years before the British ever did. Quebec may be the only solely francophone province now, but Canada’s history has a strong sense of connection with all things French.

So how is it that people are so disillusioned? It’s been over 40 years since the Official Languages Act made the two languages equal under the law, but since then, if anything we’ve lost enthusiasm in pursuing our two native tongues. French immersion programs are widespread, but bilingualism is on the decline.

Meanwhile, Quebec is hanging on to its language rights for dear life. A recent criticism of an Italian restaurant menu in Quebec created “pastagate,” a scandal that made the province a global laughingstock. The Office Quebecois de la langue francaise ordering that the restaurant remove the word “pasta” from its menu may seem extreme, but such strict measures are just a demonstration of how strongly the office wants to preserve the linguistic integrity of its province.

It’s true that Canada is a widely multicultural nation, and perhaps it’s unreasonable to ask that newcomers to our country learn both official languages. But for people still in school, those with the chance or even the requirement to study French, it’s time to embrace bilingualism. Being fluent or at least comfortable in Canada’s two languages can open doors with jobs all over the country, or even elsewhere in the francophone world. And if nothing else, it serves the purpose of preserving our national heritage. So embrace it, Canada. And vive la langue francaise.

 

Jackie Yaffa / The Silhouette

It’s time for someone to fix the Senate. The public knows it, and the Prime Minister himself knows it. So why hasn’t it been done yet?

The idea of Senate reform is not new, and Canada finally has a prime minister willing to do something about the problem. However, what Stephen Harper plans to do is not to fix the problem, but to add changes that further his own agenda.

During the Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau controversies, the public – not the Prime Minister himself – has pinpointed the problem. The problem is the senators, not the Senate.

The Senate is an inherently logical institution. The Chamber of Sober Second Thought exists to curb the power of the sitting government. The prime minister, the person who’s supposed to make our country’s decisions, picks the senators. The senators themselves must be well-established citizens who are at least 30 years of age and may serve until they reach age 75. The basic premise of the Senate is both logical and beneficial for the country.

The problem occurs when the prime minister is incapable of choosing competent senators. And no, it is not only Stephen Harper who can’t seem to handle this task.

Prime ministers don’t seem to like the idea of limitations on the government’s power. To them, the Senate is just another democratic roadblock on the way to absolute control of Canadian policy.

So what did the prime ministers do? They took advantage of an obvious loophole and changed the Senate from the Chamber of Sober Second Thought to the upper house of Partisan Politics.

The Conservatives currently hold a majority in the Senate and in Parliament. This means that the Tories can pass almost any policy they desire. Although some may argue that this is not true for reasons such as a lack of party discipline in the Senate, it is a statement that stands true in practice. How else would Canada end up with senators like Duffy and Brazeau – both Conservative, both appointed under the recommendation of Stephen Harper?

So what does Harper plan for reform? Well, he came up with the most beneficial solution of course – or at least the most beneficial for himself. He proposes to limit the term that Senators are allowed to serve, allowing himself even more chances to appoint members to the Senate.

There are many theories about how to improve the Senate (with Harper’s being the worst of them all). Some people call for legitimate provincial representation, similar to the Upper House in the United States. This would limit the immense power of Quebec and Ontario. However, it wouldn’t promise the competency of senators.

A better suggestion is the Triple E Model for the senate: Equal, Effective and Elected. This model incorporates equal provincial representation, but more importantly it gives the electorate a vote towards senate appointments. Alberta currently elects nominees for appointment to the Senate. Unfortunately, the vote does not guarantee that the winner of the election is appointed to the Senate. The only way this could happen would be if the constitution were to be changed. However, Harper has already announced that he will not change the constitution in the name of Senate reform, despite his advocacy for improving the Senate.

Getting appointed to the Senate is like winning the Cash for Life Lottery. A Senator’s immense salary and pension, like it or not, come from tax dollars. One might expect that a Canadian government, specifically a Conservative government like Harper’s, would be more careful about how they use (or abuse) the taxpayers’ money.

It’s not time for Senate reform, it’s time for a change in senators.

Rob Hardy / Silhouette Staff

After much deliberation, last week finally marked the implementation of the Canadian penny’s demise. Most Canadians either meet this news with approval or indifference. However, if we look at the matter more seriously (as we should) then it might become apparent that this irreversible decision isn’t such a good thing.

Many of us see pennies as simply a nuisance, something we gladly part with or even throw away, but therein lay the issue that is at the center of this debate. For people who are poor, on welfare or even homeless, money in any denomination has real tangible value. It is what makes the difference between a level of comfort and a life of misery. For people looking to stretch their budget as far as they can, saving a few cents every day over the course of a month literally allows them to keep their heads above water.

But once we enter a certain tax bracket and/or mindset of abundance, it is easy for many consumers to not care about spare change or see how their overall finances balance out.

Such attitudes lead to overconsumption, feeling safely distant from the threat of a negative bank balance. Indeed, it is this careless spending and financial perspective that has spurred Canada toward a reputation of near luxurious wealth. So, as we part with our savings more easily, so too does inflation rise and give way to further credit schemes. How can a mere penny have value for us when we deal with much larger numbers, albeit in abstract terms, when looking at monthly statements?

Yes, it’s absolutely true that producing the penny may not be economically viable anymore, but that is simply because we have priced ourselves beyond reason and common sense. No longer are price increases intermittent – they are taken for granted as “natural” when each calendar year changes. Just calculate how much your first year’s tuition will have gone up by your final year if you need any further proof.

It’s important to remember is that the penny is representational of our larger attitudes and beliefs toward financial solvency. It’s for good reason that the solid saying, “a penny saved is a penny earned” entered our verbal lexicon. Though one-cent tender will soon go the way of paper dollar bills, the lesson still applies, likely all the more as we will continue to see our cost of living rapidly increase.

Erik Fraunberger / The Silhouette

Recently, immigration minister Jason Kenney created a new amendment to the Canadian immigration system involving the designation of “safe” countries to increase the efficiency with which refugees may gain entrance into Canada.

The premise behind such an amendment is that the countries on this “safe” list are unlikely to produce legitimate asylum claimants which, according to Canadian law, include those who possess a “well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

Judging from the current list, which includes most European and Scandinavian countries, the majority of individuals who come to Canada’s doorstep from these nations will not be suffering from the level of persecution that the original 1951 Geneva Convention was designed to accommodate. In fact, equating the socio-economic and political situations of individuals from developed, liberal-democratic countries with those in autocratic, developing countries with no human, civil or democratic rights are blatantly offensive.

Of course, such a policy is not without its flaws, most notably its inability to address the concerns of persecuted minority groups such as the Roma in Hungary.

While this is a problem for the Roma people, it is well documented in a 2012 report by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that there is a high welfare fraud and petty crime rate amongst Hungarian refugee claimants.

Painting all refugee claimants with the same brush is not amicable or fair but it would be naïve to hold the belief that the Canadian government has the ability to approach each refugee claim on a detailed, individual level without severely straining the existing budget.

It is estimated by the Canadian government that each failed refugee claim costs taxpayers $50,000.

This estimate takes into account social services, healthcare and legal costs for each claimant. If we take this number to be an accurate estimate, then the cost of the failed or abandoned refugee applications from Hungary alone amounted to approximately $54,450,000 in 2010. Keep in mind that the taxes you, your family, and your friends pay contributed to that lump sum of wasted money.

A final and welcome improvement of the “safe” countries list is the reduced healthcare benefits that refugee claimants receive if they are from any of the designated nations. Unless the refugee’s medical issues pose a risk to public health then they do not receive healthcare benefits.

However, also keep in mind that many of our own Canadian citizens, after having worked here for their entire lives, do not have universal access to medical benefits including dental care, eye care and certain vaccinations for free. This group includes seniors who are on a fixed income, usually on their pension from the Canadian Pension Plan.

It would be wise to show some gratitude towards the previous generations that have built this country by providing them with some of these medical benefits instead of rolling out the red carpet for every refugee claimant. It is very unfortunate that Canada is unable to provide care to every refugee with medical issues but the already over-burdened healthcare system in combination with the weak economy does not make this possible.

It has also been argued that Canada has an obligation to provide refugees with the aforementioned benefits. From a humanitarian standpoint, this is a wonderful idea, albeit too idealistic to overcome the challenges that reality poses, as mentioned above.

I agree that a certain level of humanitarian obligation is required to those in need, but what I vehemently oppose is the superior treatment of refugee claimants compared to our own Canadian citizens.

Nolan Matthews / Senior Andy Editor

Last month, Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney released a list of 27 “safe” countries that drastically reduces the rights of people who hope to leave those countries as refugees. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Kenney claims the list was created to resolve the perceived problem that Canada is letting in too many refugees that would otherwise, in his mind, somehow overrun our country.

Usually when a refugee claimant arrives in Canada they have 60 days to get settled and put together their case, which is heard by a judge who determines whether or not the claimant has sufficient reason to be accepted as a refugee. A claimant from one of the 27 designated country has their first hearing 45 days after they arrive - a timeline that doesn’t seem close to being realistic. That’s 45 days to find a lawyer, a place to live and a way to pay for it all. The Canadian Bar Association recommends having four months to prepare for a refugee hearing.

Kenney defends the shorter timelines by saying that they will make the refugee application process more efficient, but we’re asking people to talk about the worst things that have happened to them. It can take a lot of time to tell a good friend about something terrible, let alone a judge sitting at the end of a table. And a faster process will send refugees more quickly back into the dangerous situations they came from.

Of course, that’s only true if they came from a dangerous situation in the first place. A popular term with Jason Kenney is “bogus,” meaning he sees many refugee claimants as not really being in danger and simply trying to take advantage of Canada’s social services. Kenney’s impression of “bogus” refugees is largely based on flawed statistics spewed by Rick Dykstra, Kenney’s parliamentary secretary. In a parliamentary meeting, Dykstra claimed that in 2010 “Canada received 2,300 [refugee] claims from Hungary, which is 23 times more than any other country.” Hungary is one of the countries on Kenney’s safe list.

“The fact that most gets to the core of why further refugee reform is needed is that virtually every one of these claims was abandoned, withdrawn, or rejected,” said Dykstra. “Refugee claimants themselves are choosing not to see their claims to completion, meaning they are not in genuine need of Canada’s protection. In other words, their claims are bogus.”

So much of what Dykstra said is wrong. The Canadian Council for refugees, which got its data from an access to information request from the Immigration and Refugee Board, states that in 2010 there were 1,973 claims from Hungary, not 2,300. Of those claims, 1,089 were abandoned.

Unless you consider about 55 per cent to be “virtually every” claim, Dykstra and Kenney are not only deluded but plain wrong.

I also wonder if Kenney and Dykstra ever considered why a refugee claimant might decide to abandon their claim - other than the reason being they’re scam artists. Perhaps claimants are finding Canada not nearly as welcoming as we like to think we are.

Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of being from a “safe” country is that refugee claimants will only have access to health care if they have a condition that threatens public health. I’ve spoken to a refugee settlement worker who told me about a woman who had been severely burned all over her body by her husband and wasn’t able to access health care because her condition wasn’t a public health concern. It’s completely ridiculous.

As a country, we’re moving towards a very negative view of people seeking protection and closing our doors to people we should be helping. We are obligated to do so much more.

By Rob Hardy

There are many ways to judge a society. This becomes an even tidier prospect if said society has their eggs in only a scant few baskets. And when we talk about in which baskets we put our eggs, this simply means examining where the majority of Canadians are focused, what they are thinking about, and the proportion of energy they put forth into certain activities.

Right now, we are in the midst of a nasty NHL lockout, one of which is threatening to eliminate an entire hockey season. Since our remotes might be getting some lighter use these days, this is about as good a time as any to give some pause as to just how the hell we spend our time. Far from approaching this from a moralistic point of view, it still might give us pause to step back and really see how crazy we might be getting about all of this.

Hockey has always been a huge part of the Canadian culture; something is always in the background whether in the off-season or on. Even those who don’t much care for sports know that The Maple Leafs are Toronto’s team and the Canadians are Montreal’s. Likely, most anyone would be able to point out the logos - symbols nearly as recognizable as the golden arches. For nearly a century, it is safe to say that the love of this sport has been inherently Canadian, and united most of the country in some strange way.

That being said, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, when such a strong central focus is poured into what is really just a game played by ardent professionals. It’s understandable why hockey, or other sports in general, draw people in.  For some it’s a genuine love of the game, for others it’s keeping in that game as an active spectator when dreams of going pro finally die, and for nearly everyone who watches it’s just an easy past time.

What has been boggling the mind lately, however, is that this group of fans doesn’t amount to just a minor niche but is actually reflective of what has become an outright obsession nation-wide.  And while this may be perfectly normal for a segment of the population, hockey mania is likely one of the top concerns of the average Canadian, eclipsing even that of political discourse.

The hockey arena today is built with the most modern infrastructure, composed of high ceilings, icy colours and choirs of voices singing anthems with an unflinching seriousness rarely witnessed otherwise. The domain of Hockey Night in Canada has become a present-day cathedral, hyped to the highest proportions of both patriotism and consumerism. With a stagnant economy and massive layoffs, especially south of the border where many of the teams are, most games are nevertheless stunningly packed to the rafters by the unerringly faithful.

Especially with the rise of social media, everyone has an opinion on the current disaster that is ensuing. The thing is it’s a disaster for those involved, if you can even call it that. That’s not to say that athletes shouldn’t be recognized for putting themselves on the line and making their owners rich in the process. But how soon this dispute is settled doesn’t affect our own bottom line, so why do we care so much?  Why are Canadians more interested in job negotiations involving hockey players rather than public teachers, where lowering job standards have a much bigger impact on the average worker?

Like most guys, I would’ve loved to be playing pro sports like football, but when that doesn’t happen, life goes on. It may be exciting when your team wins or Canada gets the gold, but at the end of the day we have to realize we do not personally profit from this acclaim. The typical “armchair quarterback” can get distracted by what others are doing, worrying more about someone else’s stats than his own. Does it matter how good a hockey team is even as the average Canadian slips further into obesity, a disease fuelled by their own inactivity?

Most of us can’t be in the pros, but there are still a lot of chances to be active yourself and directly impact your life and community rather than simply vicariously watch others have fun or live life. It’s a sad, silent and woefully incorrect implication that as we get older we don’t need to bother cultivating our own athleticism and stay competitive. Perhaps, it’s this need that causes us to mistakenly plug into sport voyeurism, as we settle into the sedentary, complacent middle-class.

Some of the latest news has been that now beer sales have been suffering, too. Hopefully, this means that television viewership has also declined, leaving us to enjoy the great outdoors instead while putting some time aside for a more civic-minded life, at least until the puck finally drops again. We should remember that a healthy, vibrant country means not only a diverse citizenship, but a diversity of interests and activities - people actively working towards things such as social justice and preserving the halls of academia, lest we somehow slip back into some sort of  neo-dark age.

By Abdullahi Sheikh

With the United States’ election day come and gone, it’s no small wonder that we pay so much attention to their politics.

We may have players as interesting as Justin Trudeau and as vile as Stephen Harper, but we’re almost a high school play compared to the Broadway musical that is American politics.

Regardless of how you feel about the candidates, you’ve probably got your own opinion on who should win and why and I’d bet your neighbour’s got one too.

Now, I’m not trying to say that we should focus solely on our own politics and ignore the rest of the world (probably exactly the opposite of what any newspaper should be advocating) but instead we should take a minute to assess why we are so fond of turning on the television to watch what new debacle whichever presidential candidate has caused.

I think that, ultimately, we’re just more interested by what’s happening just past the border, and it’s not just because they’ve got an African-American president, Silicon Valley and an IHop in every city (although that last one certainly helps.)

It really is more than that. Our infatuation with our Southern cousins must have some basis in reality, right?

There’s got to be a reason that American politics gets our hearts racing while Canadian politics make us check for a pulse.

Well, as someone whose been on both sides of the fence, I think it really just arises from a discontent we, the Canadian people, have regarding our own government and its inner workings.

Whether it’s our style of government (first-past-the-post tends to leave us annoyed the most) or the actions of our officials, we’ve become a bit bored with our government as a whole.

American politics serve as an interesting diversion from the regular tedium of Canadian politics. In a way, Canadian politics can be seen as a Big Top while American Politics represent Cirque du Soliel.

Although going to a circus can be fun, can it really compare to seeing horses trot to the musical styling’s of Michael Jackson?

Now, you don’t have to agree with me on this one, but next time you turn on the television, I want you to see which news channel you’d rather watch when they start to talk shop about politic

And, more importantly, I want you to think about why.

As for Michael Jackson, no, obviously not. Now if only we could get Romney’s horse in Cavalia.

By: Erin Rooney

 

As an international exchange student at Mac, I didn’t really know what to expect from my first Canadian Thanksgiving. I knew there would be turkey, and I knew pumpkin pie would be involved at some point (a pie I was highly suspicious of, despite normally welcoming all desserts, equally and indiscriminately), but that was the extent of my knowledge.

By Monday night I felt more than a little jealous of all of you who get to have this event every year… and not just because it means you get two Christmas dinners.

At both the Thanksgiving meals I went to (I took full advantage of all turkey offers), I was struck by how welcoming and generous-spirited the people I met were. The ‘more the merrier’ logic really did seem to apply. It seems like Thanksgiving is another great chance, like Christmas, to bring the family together but without all the stress and commercialism that so often overtakes December.

Plus, as a student at this time of the year when supplies are running low and pasta becomes a repeat offender, getting to have a huge home-cooked meal is a serious blessing.

So what did I learn over the long weekend to make me a Thanksgiving pro? Well, number one, going out on the Friday of Thanksgiving probably wasn’t the best idea. ‘A lot of people must to go home for the weekend’ was the first thought that crossed my mind as we entered an empty club. I’m almost certain there was some tumbleweed rolling in front of the DJ booth. But hey, at least our group got discounted entry because the bouncer felt sorry for us dancing in the ghost-town. Lesson number two: fullness is just a state of mind. There is always, always room for more turkey if you are determined enough. And finally number three: despite reservations, I discovered pumpkin pie is delicious. I take back every doubt I once had, and replace them with second and third helpings.

Having now experienced my first weekend of Thanksgiving fun, it’s safe to say that I’ve been converted into a die-hard fan!

By: Miranda Babbitt

 

Dear Drinking Age of Canada,

Canadians always have had a knack for comedy, eh? Constructing our national flag around the glorious symbol of peace, unity and strength - otherwise known as the majestic maple leaf. Sure to intimidate any rivals from overseas with our alarming abundance of maple syrup. We. Will. Drown. You. With sugary goodness. But what’s even more intimidating than a maple leaf, you ask? Our ancestors will announce in gleeful unison, “But a beaver, of course!” I’m sorry to tell you this, you may want to sit down, but our flag very well may have had the dominating presence of a beaver in its center. It was a seriously considered option. The only reason we went against it was the fact that maple leaves are easier to draw. Our sense of Canadian logic really is remarkable.

But there is one central part to Canadian society that simply defies all logic:  the drinking age that came a year too late to make any sense at all.

With Canadians’ clever sense of humour in mind, I can almost imagine the scene unfolding: Sitting ‘round a table made out of a tree they fetched from their backyard, a polar bear politely sleeping at their feet, their graying heads somberly nodded in mutual agreement over the age that will enable us to vote, to risk our lives in fighting for our country, to whisk our lover away to get married, and deciding on what age will finally let you saunter into that sketchy piercing shop, your chest puffed up with pride, without your anxious mother trailing behind you, stifling your independence, and just not giving you your space, man. But then, amidst all the quiet and reasonable discussion, one voice piped up from the far end of the table, with the familiar, mischievous twinkle in his eye reserved only for your younger brother on April Fool’s Day. “You know what would be really funny guys? If we were to delay the drinking age by just one year. Come on. Just one totally pointless year. Keep ‘em guessing. It’s like if we put it to age twenty seven or thirty three, entirely random, but even more brutal because all the kids will be able to taste it, they’re so close.”

So all the boys crack up and loosen their ties, throw off their wigs donning white ringlets and pound their fists together in a joke well pulled.

Obviously, the Quebecois were more of the partying type, understanding that by the time we have the opportunity to go abroad and educate ourselves, leave the abode of our parents, and do almost everything else, we should have the right to drink.

Perhaps it’s that nonchalant air, the exotic taste for croissants in the morning or snails served with olive oil. It’s that je-ne-sais-quoi of our francophone neighbours that let them take a breather for a minute and come to the sensible realization for themselves. And so it was that my friends in Quebec, where the boys and girls speak French in pretty little accents, twirling around with freedom at their toes, had the Frosh Week of champions.

As they were drunkenly frolicking with the Montreal natives, intoxicated with that irrepressible, youthful desire to live each moment to the fullest, and yet somehow not “throwing their lives away” in the face of this strange, dangerous liquid before them, I attended an ice-cream social in the basement of my residence. Hold on though, I did get pretty crazy with the endless variety of syrups and sprinkles. Maybe I even acted a little irresponsibly. Maybe, Canadian Drinking Age, I went a little overboard on the chocolate sauce and it tampered with my blood sugar levels. Maybe I am tainted as a socially responsible individual now. Better raise the Sundae Consumption Age immediately.

But don’t get me wrong. I will never deny myself the luxury of a sundae on a weekday, and our Frosh Week leaders truly milked whatever they could out of the given circumstances, but the irony is plain to see. We’re a collection of adults being educated as the leaders of tomorrow and they had to face the fact that in some senses, we’re being held back to the status of children.

It’s not as if we’re some foreign species from all other nineteen year olds who are deemed fully matured and capable enough to consume this beverage. As I wait to turn nineteen, I am eagerly awaiting a full body and mind transformation, because apparently that’s what is expected to happen within a single year.

But let’s be honest, the drinking age in Canada really is just an optimistic suggestion, isn’t it?

 

Cheers,

Canadian First Year Students of Canada