Bob

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Only in this post did you begin to define what you meant by a language being "Canadian". Which leads us into the next part of your post... I am saying that based on practical need. English is overwhelmingly the predominant language in Canada. Would you still support French maintaining its official language status in the event of its diminishment in Canada? What if in the future French is only the first language of 10% of Canadians? What about 5%? Is French's official status eternal? Alright fine, I completely understand. But are we to keep the social fabric static and not fluid? There are large Chinese-Canadian communities along the West Coast, can we not define them as cultures that have developed in Canada? Don't you think Chinese communities in Canada differ, at least somewhat, from the communities they come from? Can Mandarin or Cantonese ever become part of the Canadian national fabric? So you believe that French-speaking Canadians should have special "linguistic rights" afforded to them because of their first language. That's fine. The law obviously endorses your position and grants French-speakers those protections. Clearly, I'm uncertain how I feel about that. Intuitively, I am not sure it's a worthwhile endeavour. At the very least, we've been too aggressive in our moves to provide French services throughout all levels of government. I stand by that statement. One of the unintended consequences of bilingualism policy in Canada has been the installation of a largely leftist demographic into our government. More generally, though, Francophones are overrepresented in our government, at the expense of everyone else. At least we can agree that that is unfair. A leftist like you should at least concede that. Remember also, that all people who live in this country whose first language isn't French or English are compelled to learn one of our official languages. In the hypothetical future scenario where French's status as an official language is removed, French folks will join the rest of the Canadians who had to learn English. Let's not pretend that most Francophones don't speak English, anyways. It's not like removing French's status as an official language would really place great hardship on the French community in Canada.

That's a good compromise. Unfortunately, aggressive French legal activism has done a lot of damage in this respect. All sort of positions at all sorts of levels in the government are unjustifiably requiring bilingualism. Beyond that, many companies that do business with the various governments also have bilingual requirements as a function of this phenomenon. Even worse, I'm sure we've all heard the stories of unequal requirements for English and French - basically, lots of forgiveness for bad English, not so much the other way around. This is the result of aggressive French activism. I'm sure most of us are familiar with these problems.... and remember, this brings lots of French folks into the government system, which contributes to leftism. Definitely.

If I was Harper, and I cared about this issue, I'd have a team that I trust do some research on this case and have them give me an unofficial analysis/judgment. If it's a very difficult thing to do, though, at least I'd try to make some moves to at least speed up the process of the legal system. As has been said, however, the PM has more pressing priorities and cannot be expected to deal with this intensively.

Maybe I'm naive to think that no matter what, I would never lose my English skills. Decay, of course... but loss of practical fluency? Never.

My parents are also Russian immigrants, by the way. My father was 37 and my mother was 29 when they arrived in Canada. Obviously, their Russian has persevered. They also use it every day with each other, and virtually all of their friends are Russian. Many business colleagues, as well. Still, my parents have told me that their Russian is certainly not what it used to be, which is completely understandable because they never write/type in Russian, anymore. They also read very little Russian. Still, it seems to me that there is a big disconnect between our official policies in Canada and reality. Practically, there isn't enough French in this country to justify its status as an official language. We spend a lot of energy and resources ensuring that bilingualism permeates all facets of our government, to benefit a minority of Canadians with a sense of entitlement. It seems to me that a realistic way to address this problem would be to put more emphasis on French education in primary and secondary schooling. If it's a waste of time, however, I'd like to see some courageous leadership take on the French nationalist establishment and begin to strip away their special status and privileges - starting with French being an official language. I guess politically, it's simply too hot of a potato and just not that pressing of an issue. I guess we'll indefinitely see one out of every second government employee with a last name like LaFrancois.

Look, if this guy's innocent, Harper should step up and say something - that doesn't necessarily mean he should do what Ignatieff did, however. If he's likely guilty of what he's being accused of (which wouldn't surprise me, I don't really trust Eastern Europeans... although at least he isn't Russian), then let him deal with Foreign Affairs and the Mexican legal system.

Why should I feel compelled to reply to all false accusations that are blatant misrepresentations of events? It's tiring and frustrating. Sometimes I have the patience to do so, other times I do not.

Are you sure you're not using the term "completely fluent" a bit loosely in reference to your skills? I cannot see how someone who is completely fluent in any language can lose it from disuse. I do know that language skills do deteriorate from disuse. I would assume that the degree to which someone's language skills deteriorate are based on several factors - the level of language at the initiation of the degradation of the language skills, just how severe the disuse is, and perhaps some other element of innate abilities. Consider your English fluency. If you never used English for the next five years, do you really think you'd get to the point where the number of English words you remembers could be counted on one hand? I would assume that if your Hebrew has degenerated to that point, that you weren't completely fluent to begin with. Anyways, assuming an increased focus on French education in Canada IS a waste of time, and assuming that French cannot or should not be removed as an official language in this country, then the status quo will continue with overall advantages being afforded to Francophones in many spheres of work. This advantage, whether or not Canadians realize it, is certainly one of the primary motivations for Francophones to aggressively maintain French as an official language and aggressively pursue bilingualism wherever they can. It's too bad, I think.

double post.

Yes, you are a Canadian. What kind of question is that? You're not making any sense. I asked a simple question - why is French given official language status? English's status as an official language is understandable given its prevalence. The same cannot be said for French, however, unless it's an argument based on "we were here first", or something of that nature. Certainly French is a prominent language in Canada, with more speakers in Canada than any other language (aside from English, of course). Imagine one of the Chinese languages matches up with the prevalence of French... would we then grant official language status to Mandarin or Cantonese? I'm just trying to understand why you think French deserves the special recognition is has in Canada. I also have a lot of sympathy towards preservation of French being a worthy goal against social/economic forces, but there is a legitimate argument to be had regarding the best way to achieve these ends - with or without government involvement, or, to what degree government should be involved in these measures (i.e. bill 101?). I have no idea what rights you seem to think I'm attacking. What are "linguistic rights"? I'm simply talking about the justification for holding French as an an official second language in this country, as well as the advantage is clearly gives towards Francophones with respect to government-related jobs - as well as how this damages Canada (in my humble opinion) through overepresentation of Francophones in positions of power, given the tendency of Francophones to be leftists.

I didn't want to say it because I didn't want to seem like a complainer, but these editorial threads are quite tiresome and annoying, regardless of which political party is being attacked or promoted with simplistic arguments.

Hang on a second, why should French be a protected language in Canada above other languages? There are Canadians who don't speak English or French, should the government of Canada guarantee them services in their language(s)? As far as pragmatics go, there's a strong argument to be made that only English should be an official language in this country, given that it is the language of choice for 80% of Canadians in this country (at least when made to choose between English or French). You are stating, quite clearly, that Canadians who are French-first should have rights to get services from their government in French, without guaranteeing that right to Canadians who don't speak French or English. The argument for having English as an official language, on the other hand, has strong practical support given the huge volume of English-speakers in this country. Do you not see where I'm coming from? The only arguments I see in defense of French's status as an official language in Canada is historical and political. It's a large minority group, it was hear in the foundational era of Canada, and has done a great job politically organizing itself for special recognition. Is in the best interests of all of Canada? I don't think so. Mind you, not being in the interests of the greater good isn't necessarily an argument against French's status as an official language.... At the end of the day, it seems quite likely that the status quo will remain, and we will continue to see overrepresentation of Francophones in our government (which is bad for Canada given the tendency of Francophones to be leftists), and government-affiliates. It's too bad, but I think this is an intractable problem in Canada unless we really focusing on teaching high-level French to all Canadians - which I think is entirely doable, albeit unlikely.

I couldn't read more than half of that copy-paste job... it's all simplistic spin. Literally 100% of the "failures" I read are misrepresented. From the UAE thing to the AG report, it's all spin. Why can't you come up with legitimate grievances against the Harper government? He didn't cut nearly enough wasteful spending and continues to fund useless projects and departments. He appeases French nationalists, although he is harder on the separatists than the other parties. He chose to engage in Libya. He made a ridiculous 1% GST reduction that did nothing for anyone. Where's the leadership on improving educational standards in primary and secondary schools (and no, I don't mean spending more money)? - although it is an issue largely under provincial control. And on and on and on... Try coming up with legitimate beefs, and not simplistic leftist talking points that are 100% pure spin.

Maybe you're right about a language being lost with disuse. I know that languages that aren't used become rusty, but I don't think that the students would lose French completely if they receive good instruction throughout their education. I also think that if the number of high school graduates in Canada who learn to speak French is significantly increased (a tough thing to do, indeed), I think they will find avenues through which they can use their French skills. Still, many other countries do MUCH better than we so with respect to teaching two languages to most their students. There just isn't a political will to increase emphasis on French education across Canada. On a personal note, I don't think any person who receives a strong education in a second language would ever regret the time investment and label it a "waste of time" if they were able to develop strong language skills in the secondary language. Or, we can go the easy and more practical route - and remove French's official language status in Canada, which is politically unlikely. Looks like the status quo will continue where Francophones enjoy overrepresentation in our government - which is part of the reason our country seems to eternally tilt to the left (as leftist politics tend to support those who exploit the "French nation" concept for political ends).

I wish I knew more about the actual regulations involved, but I will not automatically trust the decision made by Elections Canada, "just because". In other words, just because Elections Canada says that the votes are valid, to me, doesn't prove that the votes are indeed valid. Anyways, for those interested, the official Elections Canada statement can be found here. I think it's important to realize that this early voting event doesn't make sense given that early voting is supposed to be for extenuating circumstances (the military, the ill, people who will be out of the country i.e. "snowbirds"). It's also strange that many of these students will likely be voting in a riding to which they don't belong. Lastly, how ill Elections Canada prevent double-voting when students who come from elsewhere return home after their exams are completed? It is sad that Elections Canada cannot even handle the basics of its role.

Exactly. That's what I thought, thanks.

From the perspective of official bilingualism in this country, you're right. But at the end of the day, about 80% of Canadians have stronger English than they do French. So although both languages are equal on paper, they're not equal in terms of their usage or importance to Canada at the broadest level. You need to concede that. I understand. I myself have some prejudices towards French-Canadians, although they are accurate. We're getting into the complicated subject of national identity as it is defined in Canada, and it's not something I really want to get into at the moment. Anyways, I completely understand your sentiment towards those that oppose your self-identification as a) French-Canadian. Still, who exactly is it that is opposed to your rights (do you mean national rights?)? All the opposition I'm familiar with is the rejection of a divided sense of national identity in Canada, with the French-Canadian nation on one side, and the rest of Canada on the other. Personally, I hold reservations about the legitimacy of French-Canadian identity as distinct and equal to the "other" Canadian identity. To me, I think it is largely fake and exploited as a political cottage industry that has been successfully pimped out to garner political support (votes) and to steal money from the Federal Government. Ooops, looks like I got into it, after all...

Why is that funny? This kinda thing happens all the time. Unjustified expenses that are imposed on governments can certainly be described that way. I'm certainly not alone in recognizing that the Gay Pride Parade isn't really a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars.

That's not what I meant. Unless of course, you're referring to French-only speakers. I certainly think a French-only judge on the Supreme Court would be quite ridiculous. I don't think the critics of the proposed law to require Supreme Court judges be bilingual have anything against Francophones, but they are simply opposed to French being given official status in Canada. I'm ambivalent about the issue, myself. I just think that Canada should do a lot more to improve the emphasis on bilingualism in school. The standards for high-school graduation, for example (outside of Quebec and other French communities), are generally quite low with respect to French language requirements. If we're going to declare ourselves as bilingual, Canada should do a better job of really promoting bilingualism and imposing higher standards on English-first students to learn French.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it be to state that Elections Canada is breaking its own rules and sending out an inconsistent message. Elections Canada's own statement gave some wishy-washy explanation about not wanting to punish "voters" for misinformation that they were exposed to. In other words, they didn't want to throw the votes away (as they should have) because they didn't want to alienate the voters. Remember, this is the same Elections Canada that still has not put into place protections to prevent non-citizens from voting. And we should all know that many non-citizens are receiving their voter-cards. Here's a recent story about this problem. I have an in-law that has also received voter cards in the past, despite the fact that she isn't a Canadian citizen. It's quite depressing that Elections Canada can't even get the most simple things in order...

Wait a second, if I recall correctly, all ballots cast at a voting station are for the same riding. If I'm correct, than all voters at this early voting run are voting for the same constituency. Beyond that, early voting is supposed to be reserved for legitimate extenuating circumstances, which certainly aren't applicable to students. The rest of the world, who are much busier than students (taxpayers, anyways), have to make their own arrangements for voting (and labour law requires that employers give people time do so). Are we seriously supposed to believe that these students needed special arrangements to vote early due to their ultra-busy schedules?

Elections Canada also prohibited future early voting done in the same manner as this story, which sends a mixed message. If the methods used at this early voting run were legitimate, making the votes that were cast kosher, then why isn't Elections Canada permitting similar events going forward? It's very strange, and we're left wondering why you won't acknowledge this. Basically, Elections Canada is saying that these votes are kosher... but nobody is permitted to repeat this process.

Nobody's opposing "more people voting". The opposition is to a voting campaign done outside the rules of Elections Canada.

I think a lot of people who are critical of the law are also critical of official bilingualism in Canada. At the risk of being presumptuous, I think many critics of the proposal to require bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are opposed to bilingualism in Canada. Aside from that, bilingual policies, necessarily, are advantageous to Francophones in Canada, broadly speaking. This is due to the fact that Francophones are more likely to learn English in Canada than Anglophones are to learn French.

Bryan, arguments about how our democracy is somehow limited due to the monarchy is strictly philosophical. It's just not really important in the Canadian context, and it's certainly irrelevant to current affairs. When you made that self-aggrandizing statement expressing your deep concern for democracy and how the current monarchy is an affront to those values (or something to that effect), you portray yourself as Mr. Amateur Hour when it comes to politics. This is justifiably an unimportant "issue" to Canadians. I'm not trying to dis you, I'm just saying that ToadBrother has a right to mock you for that statement.