Machjo

Read Claude Piron, a former UN interpreter and now professor of psychology at the University of Geneva. According to him, many Swiss fail to learn their second-language too. They just live in isolation from one another. Bear in mind though that they also speak the languages of neighbouring countries. Swiss Germans can interact with Germans. Siss French with Frenchmen. Swis Italians with Italy, etc. Quebec is trapped if it fails to learn English, unless it crosses the Atlantic. Yet according to European research, those who do learn Esperanto in school are more likely to succeed than those who learn English or French. So clearly the internal structure of the language itself does in fact help in acquisition. The problem in Canada is that it is not recognized by our Ministries of Education as it is in the Italy, Poland, and Hungary. And our Ministries of Education compel pupils to learn certain second-languages, unlike the case in the UK and the US. It is possible to learn a second-language well outside its environment if one of three conditions are met: 1. Motivation. 2. Full access to all the resources necessary to ensure success, including time, teachers, money, textbooks, videos, supportive parents, an ideal language environment, etc. 3. the language being studies is designed to be easy to learn. 1. above is not always within a person's control. 2. is not always available. 3. might not always be officially recognized. If we want to achieve full bilingualism in Canada, our Ministries of Education need to give our pupils more second-language options that can allow each pupil to exploit the 3 conditions above to the extent possible. This woud mean having to give schools more freedom to choose the second-language of their choice, or resources permitting, to make a common planned auxiliary language compulsory. In the short term, we wouldn't have enough teachers to make it compulsory and so would likely have to just introduce it as an option.

Canadien. I would not agree however that we should have a right to speak any particular language, but rather the freedom to do so. There is a difference. If it si a right, then all in Canada must learn it to provide us with services in it. If it is a freedom, we are free to use it, but no one else has an obliation to reciprocate. English and French together are a heavy burden on Canada's indigenous peoples, who were here long before we were. A common planned auxiliary language could alleviate them from that burden. I'm a stong believer in equality for all, including Canada's indigenous peoples. I think the only way to exercise that equality would be to require everyone to learn two language: one their own language, the second the common auxiliary language, a lanuage designed to be easy for all to learn. That is the only policy I can see that would truly be in conformity with the principle of justice.

English is a compulsory second language in Quebec already, and French in Ontario. Yet the majority fail to learn their second official language in either province. The bottom line is that both languages are difficult to learn. As a result, beyond learning enough to pass tests, the endeavour remains fruitless in spite of all the resources invested in it. It's just logistically untenable. The second language needs to be easy to lern if we expect the whole populaiton to learn it well.

The jury's till out on the conspiracy theory so I'll leave it at that until more evidence comes out. Now as for fortress America, I ust want to clarify to avoid any misunderstandings that when I say world unity I am including the US too. I'm just saying that I woud want our world to be 'us', not 'us vs them.' A fortress America scenario would be 'us vs. them. Whereas inviting the US into a larger world union would allw a more balanced integration. I just wanted to clarify that I would want the US to be included in such a union should it want in.

Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose we did have a common world citizenship. this would mean that Sudanese and Somalians could more easily enter Canada. One major problem I could see with this would be the language barrier. Well, let's suppose we wave a magic wand for a moment and erase that issue. Beyond that, I don't see how ethnic conflicts in those countries would affect us in Canada. Canadians and Quebecers in China use Chinese, so their Canadian disputes become irrelevent there Likewise, the cultural context is different here, so foreign ethnic conflicts are not likley to just spill over a continent away.

I can fully understand that. Yet ironically enough, one article I'd read had used the exact same argument you are, titled 'French, a factor in social cohesion'. It talked about how different people from different nationalities could all communicate with one another if they all learnt French. Clearly, if you're living in a community dominated by Enlgish, you'll learn English sooner or later. Or if you're living in a community in which there is no common language but everyone is struggling to learn English, again, English will become the common language. But now imagine living in a community that's half English and half French, with many who know neither. At that stage, they might not be too sure anymore which of the two languages to learn. And because both communities are fairly large, the ideal environment to learn the other language might be lacking. As a result, both sides simply choose to segregate themselve. As soon as language shift occurs, though, we suddenly start to see one side having a growing acces to economic resources, while the other side's access dwindles. Sure the other side could try to learn the other language, but then that leads to another problem, with one group having to invest more in language learning while the other group develops more profitable skills. This naturally puts one group at an advatage and the other at a disadvantage, which results in resentment and thus tensions. It's the same the world over, and Canada is no exception. Language is the key to all social interactions, economic, social, political, cultural, scientific and every other opportunity. It's not just a symbol, but the most important tool to determine one's opportunities in life. So you bet it's going to be an emotional issue. A fight over language is also a fight over access to economic resources, science, technology, information, news, culture, etc.. whether it's explicitely mentioned or not. Language develops identity owing to the social bonds it establishes. Those who speak a common language can associate with one another. Those who cannot, cannot. As a result, a language community develops. The same doesn't apply to other skills. If I'm a profesional cook and you're a professional taxi driver, but we share a common languge, we can still communicate with one another even though you might not know how to cook and I might not know how to drive a car. Language is not just a job skill, but a social skill. It can determine whether I can call 911 or not, whether the police officer or paramedic will understand me, etc. It goes well beyond an ordinary job skill. it's a social skill required of all in all trades or professions and beyond. Wow, now that I can agree with. Though I would say that the nature of the tensions would change. If all Canadians could speak both English and French, this would certainly put an end to the ethnic dimension of language tensions, but would then raise the economic dimension of it. After all, neither English nor French are easy to learn. To ensure universal success in these languages as second languages would involve such an investment in time and money on the part of our society, and would involve such an opportunity cost in learning other skills, that all Canadians would certainly arise together to oppose such a strategy. The same would certainly have occured in Indonesia or Malaysia following the same strategy. But there is an alternative strategy, and that would be to create or adopt a lanuage designed to be easy to learn. This would allow all Canadians to become fluently bilingual in a common language with litlte investment in time and money on either side. That could be logistically manageable and would not require much sacrifice in opportunity cost either owing to the ease with which such a language could be learnt. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here. Now I could agree to that in part, depending on our vision of Canada. If our vision excludes Quebec, then I could fully agree. English Canada would be English-speaking, and Quebec would be French-speaking. English Canada would forge ties with the English-speaking world while Quebec would forge ties with the French-speaking world. But if Canada includes Quebec, and we insist that we are one people, then we'd need to establish a common language to make this vision manifest, real. So in the end, this would really depend on our sense of patriotism. If our patriotism is limited to only English Canada or only French Canada, then you're right. Otherwise, a common language would be necessary. To take Indonesia as an example. If we perceive it as over 300 separate nations, then a common langugage is not necessary. If we perceive it as one nation, then a common language is necessary to maintin its unity. Same with Canada. Without a common language, it is difficult to fully integrate Canada to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the nation's economic resources. If English were easy to learn, we wouldn't even be debating this right now. All Quebecers would know English and so could fully access Canada's economic resources. Since english is difficult to learn, however, it becomes a gateway for the privileged who have the opportunities to learn it. The rest have but one way to react. If they fail to learn English, the alternative is to at least protect their own linguistic turf so as to maintain at least part of the economic pie for themselves, and that naturally leads to conflict. There is no other way arond it. Now another option would be English-language reform. Some have promoted spelling reform. Some have promoted grammar reform, etc. That could be another option, but to do so would also break the link to classical literature, something many English-speakers would not be willing to do. This is why a planned auxiliary language would likely be the best bet.

You're analsysis is plausible, but not inevitable. I think perhaps the biggest problem is a lack of sensitivity on the part of many English-Canadians to the role language plays in every aspect of everyday life. We often take language for granted when it's spoken everywhere. It's like the air we breathe and we don't even think about it. But when it suddenly stands in our way, we notice it. Many Quebecers do notice it on the world stage. As long as this language barrier remains, you're right; our federation shall remain fragile at best. The only way to achieve any kind of stable union would in fact be to establish a common second language. And that would have challenges of its own: 1. Convincing English-Canadians that they must carry part of the communicative burden too. This would be challenging especially when many English-Canadians just take Englishfor granted even in their travels abroad. 2. convincing Quebecers that English-Canadians would be wiling to do this. Bilingual Quwbwcers might oppose this if their main interest is in preserving their privileged status. Monolingual Quebecers would likely be divided. Some might not want to bother with it and would rather just separate. Some might be willing to go for something like this. It really would be a coin toss as to how such a new idea would go in Canada.But in the end, it's the last option left. If it fails, we might as well neotiate separation now because the problem will just fester on from generation to gneration. In fact, the percentage of monolingual French-Canadians has been growing in Quebec over the years as French grows in Montreal. The trend ain't positive.

Actually, it would be cheaper than English or French as second languages since it would be easier to learn. How should he find a decent job in the process? I'd say either learn the language before you go, or save up money and then go to learn the language in school, or have a qualification that guarantees you a job in spite of not knowing the local language. But no, I could not recommend that a monolingual French-speaking Quebecer straight out of high school just pack his bags, move to Ottawa, and expect to find a job! He'll find himself in serious trouble if he does that. In fact, he'd have a hard time of that in Montreal, let alone Ottawa. I never proposed that. I'm proposing a common second language, which would imply universal bilingualism. Now of course it would still be preferable to know the local language. But what aobut conferences, for example? Should compatriots rely on interpreters? In Montreal, I'd actually served as an interpreter. Yes, there wre foreigners inthe goup too. But amazingly enough, some Canadian-born locals genuinely did not know French, and some did not know English. I can't get over the idea that Canadian supposed compatriots need interpreters to communicate with one another. but they are not equally open to all. Let's face it. A Nunavumiut who speaks neither English nor French will have to work much harder than his European counterparts to access the country's resources. A Canadian born into a bilingual family (I'm among them) clearly has an advantage over those who aren't. Look at the statistics. I know a few languages myself, but my luck in having a bilingual environment, good parents, good teachers, etc. played no small role in this. We can't be so arrogant and so ungratious as to ignore the privileges that have helped us to become bilingual or multilingual. A child raised in a poor monolingual family in a poor monolingual neighbourhood with teachers who know their second-language poorly and bad parents are not likely to benefit from Canadian bilingualism as much as we have. Less so now, but in the 1960s in Montreal a monolingual Briton could find a high-paying job much more easily than a Quebecer with poor English skills. Now the situation has improved somewhat for French speakers, but even now it still applies to some Montreal suburbs.Do you not see a problem with language-shift, whereby a community's access to econmic resources shrinks from year to year without having tough laws to counter it? Alot of pilots are monolingual English speakers. Clearly they had more free time to develop their piloting qualifications than a French-speaker who has to develop his English-skills too. By no means a level playing field. The same applies in other countrie too where some monolingual English-speaker can get certain jobs abroad while others need to learn English to do the same. This gives a clear and unjust advantage to native English-speakers.

You do have a point there. When I was in Charlevoix, most of the locals I'd met who'd travelled outside of Quebec had never been to other parts of Canada, except perhaps Labrador. A few had travelled to Ottawa, but very few. More of those I knew had travelled to France than to Ottawa. So whether it would be more advantageous for an independent Quebec to build stronger ties with l'hexagone, or for a province of Quebec to maintain ties with French Canadians outside the province is debatable. When I'd lived in Montreal, where most are bilingual, clearly their English was advantageous to them in a united Canada, federalism dominated, so it was a non-issue. In Charlevoix, where most are monolingual French speakers, sovereigntism dominated, often on the argument that the rest of Canada was foreign to them (understandably when we consider that they don't read the same books, magazines, newspapers, don't watch the same TV stations or listen to the same radio stations as most other Canadians). But as to their thoughts on French Canadians outside of Quebec, strangely enough, the issue seldom came about. They were clearly aware of Labrador, and I'd assume that they'd want to maintain relations with Canada at least to a degree for that reason. But for whatever reason, that issue had never really come up. I also tended not to talk too much about politics with them either, since they had very strong beliefs about sovereigntism. I guess we'd have to look more into their thughts on that to have a clare idea. But I'd really be curious to know how easy it would be for a monolingual French Canadian to find work in those places you'd mentioned. Honestly, Ive never lived in any of the provinces above except Ontario, and that in Ottawa, where it woud be awfuly difficult for a monolingual French speaker to find employment except possibly in certain key industries where he might have cetain specialist skills that were in demand. But then we'd be talking not of the average Quebecer but of highly educated classes. I'm not denying your assertion, but I'd need to see more proof that a monolingual french speaker could in fact live a decent life and earn a decent income in those areas. Labrador is an exception, since that is clearly French-dominated. But in Southern Manitoba, I'd imagine that most Francophones would know English and would use it in their daily economic lives for the most part. I would need some convincing here, and that might be part of the problem too. Are monolingual French-speaking Quebecers aware of these possibilities that you mention? Would they be great opportunities, or very limited to menial jobs?

So in your opinion, which would be preferable between the following options: 1. Across Canada, many English Canadians try but fail to learn French, and many French Canadians try but fail to learn English. Or 2. All Canadians successfully master a common planned second language, systematically designed to be easy for all to learn, and thus allowing all Canadians to fully exploit the country's resources from coast to coast to coast in this common language while still preserving their own. And all this at no extra cost to the educaiton system. After all, we'd just be trading a more difficult language in for an easier one. And which of the two options above do you think is more in line with the justice? And which do you think should best identify Canada between justice on the one hand, and elite bilingualism on the other?

For bilingual French speakers, it would shrink. For monolingual French speakers, no difference. Certainly bilingual French Canadians have an interest in remaining in Canada. Monolingual FrenchCanadians have an interest in expanding their opportunities within their provicne by ensuring that al economic resources are available in French. Not just govenrment, but jobs too, thus Bill 101. Bilingual French Canadians would want to see more integration into Canada, and more privileges for bilignuals. Monolingual French Canadians would see an interest in reducing the advantages of English in Quebec, which separation woud do, so as to help promote less economic division between bilinguals and monolingual Francophones. Of course the division would always be there, but in a separate Quebc, it would become less extreme. Bilnguals would lose much overall, while monolinguals would gain a little. Overall, Quebec would probably lose. But we need to consider ethnic issues there too. Some resent the economic status conferred onto the bilinguals and woudl probably be more than happy to make a small sacrifice just for the principle of more equality between the languages. Not rational, no, but the emotional side needs to be taken into account when analyzing how different groups might react.

No problem. THough I can be emotional about topics, I don't offend easily.

On everyone. Not at all. Not at all. It is merely a communication tool. Yet without communication, there is nothing. Communication is the first exchange that occurs between two people. .... Sorry, I'm wrong. You're right. We could say that we can feel just as much at ease in Quebec city as we could in Toronto. This would apply to neither a monolingual English speaker of a monolingual French speaker. They'd both be nearly guaranteed to be unemployed for some time in their host city. Now as for language being a tool, if that's all it is, when why could bwe not devide the rols of languages. For example, we could say that one's first language is his ethnic language, serving as a source of ethnic identity. His second language could serve as a source of cosmopolitan identity, and that language would be designed to be easy for all to learn. Just to take an example from one planned language, tell me which you think would be easier to learn and remember between English, French, and the language below. Which would give all Canadians a more equal access to our economic resources?Which would likely cost less to lern as a second language?Which would take less time to learn? Which would be forgotten most slowly? Clearly language planning and pegagocial cybernetics have a role to play in our second-language teaching policies. Some countries have already begun to apply the latest research in this field, yet Canada, one of the nations in greatest need of this, is lagging behind, putting the future unity of the nation at risk. So look at the examples below, and tell me which language would be easier to learn: I am mi estas you are vi estas he is li estas we are ni estas you are vi estas they are ili estas big granda small malgranda tall alta short malalta open fermi close malfermi I am mi estas I was mi estis I shall be mi estos man viro woman virino boy knabo girl knabino ox bovo cow bovino sun suno solar suna moon luno lunar luna man viro manly, virile vira woman virino womanly virina health sano healthy sana mal- direct opposite sana healthy ulo person ejo place malsanulejo hospital

Quebec can be what it wants within Canada. But wihtout a common language, monolingual French-speakers would be wise to stick to their own corner of the country. What woud be wrong with universal bilingualism with each Canadian knowing his own languge plus a common auxiliary language designed to be easy to learn?It has worked in Indonesia, why not Canada? After all, language is not just about culture, it's also about basic communication. It's a tool, a technology, and a means of identity. it is all these things and more.

I'm not the one who typed what you quoted there. But as for patriotism and nationalism, I make a clear distinction between them. Here's how I use the terms: patriotism: love of one's country nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another. Based on those two definitions, I would not call myself a nationalist, but cerainly a patriot.

Not entirely true. A monolingual French-speaking Quebecer is employable, but not in Ottawa. Likewise, I can only wish a monolingual English speaker luck in finding work in Quebec city. And those who know neither English nor French. How successful have they been? I know in Vancouver I'd met some restauraneurs who were successful even though I had to communicate with them in Point-and-Show. Bear in mind though that they were also located in communities with a large number of speakers of their language, and so could relyon a solid clientelle base from them. Looking at it that way, I suppose a monolingual French-speaking resauranteur might be able to succeed in Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa. But such people would be far and few between. But it doesn't fully control its borders. One thing that frustrates many Quebecers is foreigenrs who get their citizenship in English outside of Quebec and then try to settle in Montreal's English suburbs. This forces the market to know English, and thus puts pressure on Quebec schools to teach English too. It is self-imposed to some degree. Some argue that the day all Quebecers know English is the day French really begins its freefall. So there is a fear factor there. Beyond that, however, there is the frustration among some Quebecers of the lack of effort among English speakers to learn any second language, thus imposing assimilation on the rest of the world. After all, all is not equal in pilot and ATC applicants. Clearly the English speaker has the edge.

This is an interesting point. One of the sparks igniting the movement for the preservation of French, the sovereigntist movement, and Bill 101 was the anglicization of Montreal in the 1960s. The result was that while a Briton could easily find a job in Montreal, a native of Quebec city was deprived of the economic resources of the city. A common study we find among immigrants in Montreal, as this is a concern for assimilation into French or English, is the salary disparaty between those who know English and those who don't. Though Bill 101 has improved the situation somewhat, it becomes clear that language is a decisive factor in determining how much access one has to economic resources. Clearly, a monolingual English-speaker has a greater acces than a monolingual French speaker, who in his turn has greater access than the monolingual Inuktitut speaker. This being the case, the best way to maintain peace and unity in a nation is to ensure that all have equal access to the nation's economic resources. Seeing how difficult both English and French are, and how they do block those who fail to learn them from equal access to resources, it becomes clear that the adoption, revision, or creation of a planned language, as had happened in Indonesia, is necessary. Indonesia understood this. They understood that they had to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the nation's resources, and that that meant the need for a common language that all could learn easily. Why Canada can't understand that, especially when we've got a vibrant sovereigntist movement in our country, is beyond me.

I'd lived in Charlevoix, known as the most sovereigntist county in Quebec, for a school year. They tended to identify their nationality by language and culture more than by a dry civic definition. Language and culture are not just concepts, however. They also determine one's ability to understand and be understood. In that county, few were even functional in English. They read French-medium newspapers from Quebec and abroad. They watch French-medium TV from Quebec and abroad. They listened to radio stations from Quebec and abroad. They knew little of what was going on in the rest of Canada except anything affecting them, which was mainly in the political sphere. I remember once seeing Chretien on TV speaking English, dubbed into French. Imagine how foreign your PM seems to you when he's speaking in a foreign language. Sure Chretien knew French. But owing to his linguistic environment in Ottawa, he also spoke English alot of the time, and that showed up on TV alot too. French Montrealers might take this for granted and just watch English TV sometimes. But when they don't know English, it's conspicuous. So when we look at the whole package, language plays a significant role in how we identify with our nationality. I'm not disputing that. But what would be an even more interesting poll would be one that would also identify which languages they knew. I wouldn't be surprised to find that while nearly all English-knowing Quebecers would be more capable of feeling Canadian, that a large majority of monolingual French-speaking Quebecers would find it more of a foreign concept, with their own national capital being inaccessible to them for the most part except through an interpreter, with no chance of employment there for them, even as a busboy in a restaurant. Benefit is a manifestation of something deeper. Sure national identity is not necessarily calculated in dollars and cents. But it is calculated, in part, in its sense of inclusiveness. When we consider that a monolingual French Canadian is a complete stranger to a monolingual English Canadian, they are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to one another. How can you have a sense of belonging to a people that is completely foreign to you, regardless of the internet, telephone, trains, etc.? Again, that poll makes no distinction indicating how language might play a role in this. Imagine those 8% of Nunavummiut who know neither English nor French. For them, I"m sure Canada is a very foreign concept in their minds. It would be interesting to split the poll among language groups. I wouldn't be surprised if most bilingual (French-English) Canadians would be more likley to have a sense of Canadian identity than the others, exceptions aside. In fact, I'd be one of those exceptions. Though I'm fluently bilingual in French and English, I've seldom lived in bilingual communities (though I have lived in Montreal for a short time and now live in Ottawa, which is not truly bilingual in my opinion), but I have lived in both monolingual English and monolingual French communities. This might have influenced my sense of Canadian division. When I'd lived in Montreal, that's where I felt most at home owing to the sudden freedom I felt to speak whichever of the two languages I wished, and referring to either English or French cultural concepts, knowing that most would understand me. InEnglish Canada, not only must I limit myself to English, but must also limit myself to an English world-view. For example, there'd be no point discussing an article I might have read in Le Devoir in an English-speaker unless I'm prepared to translate the article for him first. I'd found thesame sense of restriction in Charlevoix, but the other way around of course. It truly was like living in two different nations. I'm sure that the poll would have found that difference among monolingual French speakers. Maybe around the world, but not in Ottawa. My first week in Ottawa, I'd tested the locals by asking directions to places in French. The only response:Sorry, I don't speak French. The only reason Canada has that false reputation abroad is owing to marketting. You truly are Anglocentric. In fact, so much so that you didn't even notice the one thing all those Quebecers have in common. You just took ot for granted. They all knew English. This does not apply to 55% of Quebecers. Could you imagine your PM not knowing English? It would be inconceivable, wouldn't it. Just to take an anecdotal case from a few months ago. I'd met a French-Canadian in Ottawa whose English was extremely poor. She was saying she had a hard time finding work because of it. As it turns out, she'd moved to Ottawa with her boyfriend. He was supporting her initially, but then they broke up. Now I have no idea why she didn't just go back to Quebec, but clearly she did not have equal access to Ottawa's resources, and thus wealth. Now you might counter-argue that she's but one exception, and not the norm. True. Most would know from the start that if they don't know English, they'd be wise to stick to their own corner. But by doing so, they're also indicating thatthey know their place, and that they know that they do not have acces to the rest of Canada's economic resources (beyond a social assistance check and public health care) if they don't know English, which again represents, according to Statistics Canada, 55% of Quebecers. And my travels through Quebec support that. So, no, they do not have equal acces to our economic resources. No, it isn't, but it is about equality among all citizens. Monolingual English Canadians have access to about 80% of Canada's economic resources. Monolingual French Canadians, about 20%, and monolingual Nunavummiut, not even 1%. Clearly a sense of one group getting unfair privileges does not promote national unity.A sense of national identity is part of a stable and healthy country too, and a common language is an indispensable part of that. That is strictly a civic definition of a country. What about the cultural component. Culture, mainly expressed through language, is the glue that keeps a country together. Perhaps. But that voice is limited to politicians. As for the voice of the people, monolingual French speakers can write articles in French-medium newspapers, or call in to French-medium talk shows, etc. English speakers have their own. But unless they're bilingual, which most aren't, never the twain shall meet.

For those 55% of Quebecers who don't know English, of what advantage is confederation? It's not like they can ust pack up and go find work in Ottawa now, is it? In a few articles that I've read in French, there is much discussion of the idea that an independent Quebec could have more control over two things that would be particularly advantageous for those Quebecers: 1. Control over foreign policy. Quebec could forge new relationships with othr francophone countries to make it easier for French-Canadians to travel, work, and study abroad in the French-speaking world and reciprocate. And 2. Reform the Quebec education system to allow for more second-language options so as to build the language resources needed for Quebec to forge new friendships with the wider world. As for the second point, especially pertinent for those Quebecers who've failed ot learn English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and other such languages are much easier to learn than English, and that helps to build strongr bonds of friendship between these communities. I've heard some Quebecers tell me how much easier Spanish is than English for them, and how though they don't feel very confident in English, they do in their other Romance language. Clearly they would also see an advantage to Quebec forging stonger ties with the Latin world than English Canada would. Generally speaking, English Canada is les sensitive to these needs when addressing immigration, labour movement, visa, and language policy. While English Canada might view forging relations with the Commonwealth and the US as most beneficial, Quebec tends to look more towards the Francophonie and the Latinity. The only way to build practical bridges with monolingual French-speakers or the few who've failed to learn English but succeeded in a Latin tongue would be either: 1. Canada must become more sensitive to their needs by allowing easier access to Canada from Francophone and Latin nations, 2. Finding ways to make a common second-language more accessible (which would involve the adoption, revision, or creation of an IAL to be offered in schools across Canada), or 3. Both 1 and 2 above. To simply talk theoretically about the advantages of confederation doesn't cut it. People want to see concrete advantages in their lives. Clearly if Confederation simply holds a Quebecer who doesn't know English back from forging new relations with other nations, then that confederation would be viewed as more of a nuisance than an advantage.

But language is not just about uniquenes. In Nunavut, about 8% of the populaiton knows neither English nor French. This does not just make them unique; it prevents them from accessing the nation's economic resources. It would even find it hard to run for MP, seeing that its languages would not necessarily be represented in teh Canadian Parliament. In Quebec, 55% of the population is not just unique; it would be incapable of finding work in most other provinces across Canada. It's acces to Canada's economic resources are considerably limited. The English-speaking populaiton likewise does not have access to all of Canada's economic resources, but certainly has much more access than his non-English-speaking compatriots. Also, isn't our sense of unity without a common language somewhat superficial? Imagine a monolingual English-Canadian, a monolingual French-Canadian, and a monolingual speaker of Inuktitut sitting in a room. They'd all be Canadian citizens. They might even all have a Canadian passport. But what could they really exchange with one another? They might not even have nursery rhymes in common, let alone a common culture. Yes, we could say that they are united under a common civic union, but that is but a dry legal definition of unity. It is but a superficial unity at best. Is this all we share in common as Canadians? And is this what we want to satisfy ourselves with?

Or to put it even more simply. High speed train or no high speed train, if a monolingual French-speaking Quebecer walked into your workplace one day to apply for a job, would he be able to get it no matter how high his credentials? Now multiply him by 55% of the Quebec population. That gives a rough idea of how divided our nation is. In fact, forget employment. Who among you would even be able to carry out a simple conversationwith him without any frustration?

The following article might be of interest too: http://www.vigile.net/Le-bilinguisme-dans-l-independance Some Quebecers are also looking at giving their schools more freedom to choose the second-language of their choice in school as a means of promoting more openness to the world. Though the author is clearly a sovereignist, if we consider that about 50% of Quebecers are sovereigntists, then his views might still be representative of quite a few Quebecers. The following poll among sovereigntists also seems to indicate a preference in the direction of more choice of second-language in Quebec secondary schools: http://www.independance-quebec.com/forum/about6615.html In it, 68% voted in favour of no giving more choices besides just English. If we consider that sovereigntists make up about 50% of Quebec's population, this would still leave us with 34% in favour of no longer making English compulsory in Quebec secodnary schools. So the idea of pushing even more English onto them is not likely to be very welcome among many Quebecers. This is where an easier language option could be a direction to move into as a means of promoting more bilingualism, though not necessarily French-English bilingualism, among the majority of Quebecers who don't know English. But what shocks me more than anything is the inability of Canadians to understnd that the language barrier might very well be the single greatest contributing factor threatening the unity of this nation. It's absolutely amazing that so few federalist politicians ever make so much as a peep about language policy reform to solve this problem. My guess is that the reason is that it's simply too boring a subject. True, language teaching policis in school certainly don't have the same oomph that we'd find in discussions about building new high speed bullet trains, or the newest military gadgets for the Canadian forces, or being togh on crime. Without a doubt. But maybe this is what we need. Not a politician with pizzaz but a really boring politician who's not out to try to get people all excited, but to just bring us back to the most basic elementary principles needed to unite this nation.

Are you referring to this one: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=13898 It's clearly focussed on Ontario. This one here, however, has made no reference to Ontario whatsoever and is clearly looking at it as an issue of promoting communication across provincial boundaries. The other thread was focussing more on how to promote overall bilingualism in the broadest sense of the world bilingual, within the province of Ontario specifically, with no clear reference to pan-Canadian communication. They are similar but still clearly distinct in topic.

I'm assuming you're referring to the one in the Ontario Politics section. This one is focussing more on the topic of the need for a co-ordinated inter-provincial and territorial second-language teaching policy. The one in the provincial politics section was focussing more exclusively on Ontario's second-language teaching policy.

That would be expensive. Even in Western Europe, often lauded as a model for bilingualism, a study in 2001 had found that only about 6% of the population could translate a common sentence correctly from English. When I was in La Malbaie a few years ago, about the only people in town who knew English wre the English teachers and a few people working in the local tourist industry, specifically in the Casino de Charlevoix. Even local high school teachers were not fnctional in English. When I'd asked them about it, they'd answered that after graduation, they'd never had a need for English and so lost it. Needless to say, this results in even teachers not listening to English radio, watching English TV, reading English books and newspapers, etc. So with the exception of the English teachers, the students' world is completely closed off from the English speaking world. And this can only lead to a sense of foreignness, not a good thing if we want to promote national unity. As for teaching English and French in all schools, we don't have enough qualified teachers to go around. When I was in BC, one of the high school French teachers wasn't so good at French himself. So if we can't even find enough techers, how in the world are we going to pull that off. Add to that that for 8% of Nunavumiut, just teaching one of English or French, let alone both English and French, has proven a challenge. This is why I'd say the Indonesians, the Korean, the Italians, the Hungarian were smart. They understood all the complexities, which include: 1. the difficulty inherent in learning a second language. 2. the lack of a learning environment. The commonality among their solutions, quite radically different from the one in Canada, was not to keep trying in vain to find a better way to teach the language. Sure that is important, but when the unity of a nation depends on it, we have to think outside the box and find real solutions too. They flipped the tables around and concluded that if the languages are too easy to learn, then why not simplify the language itself or create a new language. A simple and brilliant solution. Scrap all the illogical spellings and make it phonetic.Scrap the exceptions to the rules. Scrap all unnecessary rules. Streamline the language and perfect it as an efficient high-tech communicative machine.This is exactly what the Indonesians did, and with great success. Why could we not do the same?