Machjo

From my observation, the Chinese in Scarborough (including those with weak English) were doing quite well for themselves. Yet just today I was begged in English by a white man.. Come to think of it, I don't ever remember seeing a Chinese beggar in Canada. In China, yes, but not in Canada. Maybe you have.

Many Chinese (which includes Hongkongese and Taiwanese and Singaporeans among others) are very well educated and wealthy to boot. From what I could see in Scarborough was that they all seemed gainfully employed in the free market too. Contracts are part of the free market, government administration is not. The Government has no moral right to try to slant job opportunities in favour of any particular ethnic group by imposing its,language onto the free market. The Chinese succeed in spite of Chinese having no place in the Government sector. The English and the French still can't find work even when the Government gives them the advantage by adopting their languages for its administration. And because they still can't find work, they then ask the government to try to slant the private sector in their favour too. I'm not a fanatical free marketeer and the recognize the value of government services in key sectors of society, but I don't see why the government should over regulate language policy in the private sector. And yes, a privately owned strata corporation is a private business.

Did we not use to do that through the separate school system (still in effect albeit in a modified form today, the Indian Act, the Indian residential school system, the Gradual Civilization Act, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the forced relocation of Japanese Canadians from the Pacific Coast onland, the Official Languages Act, and the abrogation of the freedom of German and Ukrainian Canadians to send their children to school in their languages (which is still in effect today)? Is anyone suggesting we return to these?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he probably did sign a document typed in English that did not state anything about the corporation's linguistic policy, and so he should have a right to be served in English. I think the disagreement is on WHY he should be served in English. If I understood TimG correctly, his argument is that the corporation should serve him in English just because English is the de facto language of Government in BC and that he should have a fundamental right to understand the corporation's correspondence with him in whatever language he chooses, that that alone is reason enough to guarantee him service in English. My argument is that the only reason he should be served in English is because the agreement he signed could have given him a reasonable reason to believe (by virtue of the language in which it was presented to him with no explanation of the corporation's linguistic policy) that the corporation would serve him in English. In other words, my argument is that the corporation should serve him in English not because of whatever language the Government uses in its internal operations or because he has a fundamental right to an interpreter in the language of his choice, but only because the contract gave a reasonable impression that the corporation would serve him in English. So the disagreement here is not on whether he should be served in English, but on WHY he should be served in English.

Now that I think about, my binational upbringing (French-Canadian mother and British father) and military-childhood background has likely influenced me more than I realise. The combination of not identifying purely as a French Canadian or English Canadian made me feel comfortable living as a minority (French speaker in BC or English-speaker in Quebec), and my geographical uprootedness made me feel comfortable seeking work abroad. This probably explains my later interest in Esperanto after having had to learn a few languages already. This upbringing has likely contributed to developing my belief that the individual has the obligation to learn to adapt to his environment and not that the Government must serve him in his own language. I suppose there is an irony in that a so seemingly nationalist upbringing (i.e. in both official languages on various military bases) should have made me so cosmopolitan whereas a person with a monolingual civilian upbringing (which one would stereotype as less nationslist) should become such a nationalist. I guess a multilingual and mobile upbringing will tend towards a more cosmopolitan world view making it very difficult for me to understand the nationalist mind.

Who's 'we?' I feel like a minority of one everywhere. Or are you referring to some ethnic collective?

But even airforce brats want to settle somewhere eventually. I'd hate to say that I have no right to contribute to my new community since I wasn't raised there. The new residents pay taxes like the old. No one has the right to suppress the freedom of an airforce brat because he enjoyed the privilege of living in the same city all his life. Good for him. He also had a lifetime to adapt to the fracking place whereas I have to adapt on the spot. If I have to adapt to the real world, then so does he. Why should I sacrifice my right for his privileges because he was lucky enough to live in the same place all his life Whereas I wasn't? If that's the attitude, then maybe we should choose an island in Canada (I'd choose the Island of Montreal myself) where the children of diplomats, military personnel, and international entrepreneurs etc. could settle and live in a truly open city (maybe declare the island a Special Administrative Region that would be open to trade, work, and immigration). After all, our kind have a very different life experience tHan that of provincials. We are used to moving, adapting, being the outsiders, and so should have a right to our own city that reflects that dynamism. Provincials would be free to remain in their ghettos if they wish, and we'd have our cosmopolitan city open to the world, just what we are used to, freedom in a welcoming city. But of course the provincials even as far away as Richmond BC would oppose that too, saying that while they won't welcome our globetrotting kind there, Canada shouldn't welcome us anywhere. After all, their parents didn't choose to join the airforce, so our parents could have done the same. Why should they suffer for our parents' decisions? When a person is used to moving around all his childhood, he definitely sees the world differently from the one who was raised In the confines of his ghetto.

My experience says that English Canada and French Canada do behave like separate nations. I often get the impression that when many people say 'Canadian,' they consciously or subconsciously mean English-Canadian, French-Canadian, or Anglo-French Canadian. I also believe that when many people say'Canada,' they consciously or subconsciously mean English-Canada, French-Canada, or Anglo-French Canada.

If two people freely agree to sign a contract in Klingon, then that Klingon contract would be legally enforceable. The defendant would just need to hire a certified translator to translate it in the event of a contract dispute in court. I've read Quebec's Bill 101 and even it explicitly states that a legally binding contract can be signed in any language the two parties agree to as long as the business has offered to present a French version. Should the other party turn down the offer, then no French version need exist. Are you saying BC's linguistic laws are even stricter than Quebec's?

So French Quebec is a ghetto compared to English in Canada, English Quebec is a ghetto in Quebec, and the English-speaking world is a ghetto in the world considering that some languages are more spoken than English worldwide. With even Chinese representing not even a quarter of the world's population, we could say that even the Chinese world is a ghetyo. So who doesn't live in a ghetto?

Also, with Chinese outstripping English in Richmond, which is the "normal" community and which is the ghetto: the English or the Chinese?

I think it is perfectly fair as follows: 1. If it only involved Chinese moving in, then your property value rises with population density and the old English businesses remain, just that Chinese ones have been added in bucketfuls. 2. If it involved not just Chinese moving in, but the English moving out, then don't they forfeit their right to the area by moving out? Who knows, maybe some of them moved abroad too, maybe some even to China. Isn't it reasonable that the English-speaking community maintain its rights to the degree that it maintains its representation? I was raised on multiple military bases, always moving around as a kid. So what should have been our community right? Movement is the reality of the world. We need to learn to adapt to it, not try to suppress what we can't suppress. And no, local Government should not intervene to keep out-of-towners from moving in.

Now I'm confused as to the line between agreement and disagreement between us; so if you'll allow me to sum up where I believe we agree and disagree and please correct me if I misunderstood: 1. Where I believe we agree. If I understand correctly, you do agree -at least in principle- with the idea that a strata company should be legally required to provide service in any written language of any contract that a buyer signed if that contract does not specify any alternative written or spoken linguistic policy. I also don't get the impression you oppose (or at least not in principle) a corporation specifying its linguistic policy in a contract. 2. Where I really don't know where you stand. Whereas I believe the government should clearly define linguistic obligations in the law so as to avoid expensive court battles, I get the impression that you might believe it's precisely at the HRC or the courts that this conflict should be settled, but I'm not sure if I read you correctly. 3. Where I believe we disagree. If I understand you correctly, Whereas I would say that a strata corporation should be entirely free to present a contract in the language of its choice (which even Quebec's Bill 101 allows by the way!) as long as it understands that it will need to present a certified translation in the official language of the province in a contract dispute, and that it should be entirely free to offer services in its official languages according to its freely-chosen linguistic policy as stayed in its agreements, you would say that a strata corporation should be required by law to offer contracts and provide written and spoken services in English regardless of its chosen linguistic policy as stated in any contract. Also, Whereas I would say that the corporation should be legally required to provide only in the language of the agreed-on linguistic policy or, lacking such, in every language in which any contract was presented, you would say that even if a contract were never presented in a particular language and no linguistic policy inscribed in the contract stipulated that the corporation would provide service in that language, that it should be required to provide service in that language anyway should an owner request it. In short, you would likely view the inscription of any linguistic policy into a contract as meaningless since the strata corporation really shouldn't get to decide but rather provide service in any language requested. 4. Rationale. Maybe you could explain your rationale, but I'll explain mine here. 1. Impression. It is reasonable for a buyer to assume unless stated otherwise in the contract that he will be served in the language in which the contract was presented to him, and so it is reasonable for a law to impose this obligation on corporations. 2. Cost and economic efficiency. Translation and interpretation services are extremely expensive. For this reason, it would reasonable to conclude that unless the contract was presented in a certain language or that the contract stipulates it, the strata corporation should not be legally required to provide services in that language. It's reasonable to assume that if the buyer signed a document that neither included that language nor stipulated it, that there would be no reason for the buyer to have believed that the corporation ever intended to serve in that language. This would allow a corporation to keep its lanfuages and thus costs to a minimum while still respecting any impression it might have given concerning its commitment to service in that language. 3. Justice. The law should not try to give a particular linguistic community an unfair advantage beyond what is required (such as the government adopting an official language of administration for itself). 4. Unity. Though I could recognize the value of an international auxiliary language (which the nation's of the world will have to choose in the future), the next best option is the promotion of at least a common interpersonal language. Allowing a strata corporation to adopt a single official language should it wish to do so (as long as it respects its linguistic obligations as implied or stated in previous contracts) would help to promote a common language among members. To promote a common language for a province in the interconnected world we live in today is essentially meaningless. Short of promoting a universal auxiliary language, the next priority should be to promote a common interpersonal language locally where people usually operate in their daily lives. From my experience, though I live in the Province of Quebec (albeit right on the border with Ontario), and lived in Ontario, BC, and abroad before and will probably be moving to Scarborough within the next year, provincial boundaries mean little in the modern world.

I live in the Province of Quebec and think Bill 101 goes too far by infringing on the linguistic freedom of the private sector. If a business wants to advertise only in Klingon, it should be free to do so.I won't buy there, but that's my choice. Likewise if I should sign a strata agreement in Klingon, then why should I then be entitled to service in English or French? If I sign the agreement in English, that's a different matter. Bill 101's excesses are a reason for Quebec's economic woes. A single official language of government administration I agree with, but not a language imposed beyond that.

Actually the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the Deaf and those who don't understand legal proceedings to an interpreter in their language, whatever it might be.

What is "obvious" to a monolingual Enhlish-speaker might not always be "obvious" to others with a very different experience. We do have to avoid ethnocentrism here. If it were so "obvious," there would be no challenge in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, adopting a clearly-defined official language makes sense, and BC should do just that so as to make it explicitly clear in law what is "obvious" and what isn't, or what is acceptable and what isn't. Personally, I'd adopt one official language of Government administration. You want to deal with the Government, you'll have to do it I English or hire your own certified interpreter. Otherwise the private sector should be free to respond to the local, national, and global markets.

That said, BC might have certain laws requiring interaction with the Government in English in certain cases, and this might apply to making its strata bylaws available in English. I don't know. But that is not the same as a comprehensive Charter like Quebec's French Language Charter or the Official Languages Act. We'really talking here about disconnected laws containing ad hoc article requieting English.

I think you'remind confusing an official language with a de facto language of government administration. Though I do not believe BC has an official language (though please correct me by linking to the appropriate law), English is its de facto language of government administration. Chinese and Punjabi aren't. This means the BC Government uses Englishould as a convention, not because any law requires it to. The US Federal Government and the Government of THE UK have no official language either. As for languages on food labeling, that is a Federal responsibility, so that must be in French and English in most cases. Now we could ask the qiestion: should BC adopt an official language? But it does not have one at present.

As for Canada being an English-speaking country, I couldn't survive in most of Quebec without French given their high-school EFL knowledge

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes English and French official in Federal Government institutions, public education Canada-wide, and in those of the Government of New Nrunswick. BC has no official language if I am correct, English merely being its de facto language.

In fact, I'd come across one example about three years ago of two Algonquin who shared only Algonquin as a common language that they could communicate effectively in. One knew Algonquin and English. The other knew Algonquin, French, and a little English. The the strongest common language between them was Algonquin (though it did sound to me like many French words had crept into the language even when I listened to the one who did not know any French. I don't know how aware he was of the francicisms in his Algonquin. Though this is the only example I'd consciously come across in Canada (I remember meeting an English-speaking Alberta at an international congress in Beijing in 2004 communicating with me and others in Esperanto), I can imagine plenty of French and English Canadians breaking the language divide between one another through through Arabic and other languages too.

I agree, but we lack a common language already with English and French. If we had a common language, I could see your point. But since we already don't have a common language, a linguistic free market will contribute nothing to further divisions. In fact, other languages might even contribute to bridge the gap between English and French. As an example, while a monolingual English speaker and a monolingual French speaker can only remain strangers to one another in spite of a common citizenship, a French-speaker and an English-speaker who share an alternative common language (whether a common sign language, Algonquin, Esperanto, Chinese, or any other common language) could then interact with one another in their common language unlike their monolingual counterparts above. If Canada had only one common official language, unofficial languages might not be as useful. But with Canada lacking precisely that, unofficial languages can serve to bridge the official gap in a way that might not be necessary in states that have only one official language.

The same applies to monolingual English-speakers or French-speakers outside of their respective enclaves too, only that their enclaves are much larger. Also, Chinese entrepreneurs are not catering only to wealthy immigrants, but anyone who knows Mandarin, including me, a white Canadian-born native French-speaker tracing my roots back to New France on my mother's side and the UK on my father's. We can't ignore the combined relates of free trade (which encourages immigration and emigration, which in turn leads to Canadian-born learning other languages) and local linguistic critical mass (which eventually allows a person to maintain the language independently of official status, as is the case in parts of Scarborough). I'd learnt Mandarin neither at home nor in school, yet in Scarborough I'd instinctively initiated conversation with restaurant staff in Mandarin out of habit. How much more is this likely to be the case for those who'd learnt Mandarin at home and at Sunday school and who live in a predominantly Chinese-speaking community. Among the circle of friends and businesses I was exposed to in Scarborough in the last few days, it was clear that the instinctive language between strangers at neighboring tables and restaurant staff was Chinese. It was usually in Cantonese (bearing in mind that while most predominantly Mandarin speakers don't know Cantonese, most educated predominantly Cantonese speakers speak Mandarin. We could compare that to the educated bidialectal Scott or Texan who speaks his dialect with others who know it but can switch to a more standard British or American pronunciation if he must. Most of the people I'd met conversed in Cantonese which I can't understand, but if I addressed them in Mandarin, they would immediately switch to Mandarin to accommodate me no problem. I'd even found myself slowly picking up some Cantonese simply through exposure over the last few months, both in the National Capital Region and Scarborough. In the Ottawa region though, most Chinese is Mandarin except among my closer circle of friends who speak Cantonese with each other but Mandarin with me. The last year has made me far more aware of just how much communion occurs among family and friends compared to with Government officials. My circle of friends had expanded in the last year, with more time spent with my Chinese friends for various reasons. This is what made me so aware of how a language does not need to be official to be very useful.

My mastery of spoken and written English, French, and Esperanto; and my fluent knowledge of spoken and Romanized Mandarin have influenced my Canadian experience. Though I acknowledge many other linguistic communities, I can say from personal obserbation that Canada's Chinese-speaking community is quite econominally self-sufficient, at least in some geographical locations. I can also say from personal observation that a monolingual English-speaker would not find work easily in Quebec City or a French-speaker in Toronto. Yet a monolingual Chinese-speaker could find work in parts of Scarborough (and I presume Burnaby too). What linguistic knowledge and experience has informed your Canadian expeience?

I can also say that a lack of knowledge of English does not seem to prevent the Chinese brom becoming gainfully employed. Sure they are relegated to the non-Federal sector (restaurants, shops, etc.), but still doing well there. In fact, Federal policy probably contributes to the de-anglicization and de-francization of the private sector by having the Federal government suck up many of the English and French speaking human resources for itself. I would not be surprised to hear more English and French in neighborhoods offering more Federal employment as is the case in parts of Ottawa and Gatineau for example.