What should Ontario's second-language teaching policy be?

[Machjo]

According to Statistics Canada in 2006 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo15-eng.htm), only about 12% of Ontarians know French in spite of the fact that French is compulsory in all Ontario schools.

According to Scott Reid, Canada's Official Bilingualism policy is costing Canada about 16 billion dollars per year (though we don't know the costs for Ontario specifically). In spite of all the money spent of Official bilingualism, including second-language teaching in schools, over many years, 12% is still the rate of success we've achieved in Ontario.

Looking at other countries, the rate of success there is not high either. In Western Europe, it's estimated at about 6% for English. In India, 4%.

One difference between us and Europe, however, is that while we have chosen to keep silent on the issue, some European countries have started to take the issue more seriously, and taken action as a result. In Italy, the Ministry of Public Instruction had taken the following policy shift as earlyas 1993:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

Hungry had followed suit as early as in 2000, Poland and Croatia in 2001, and England in 2005:

http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

US schools and some Australian schools are becoming increasingly experimental in this field too.

Considering how increasingly important bilingualism is in the age of globalization, what should the second-language teaching policies of our elementary and secondary schools be?

Should we just continue making French compulsory and accept the low success rate? (Quebec exhibits a low success rate in English too by the way, as do many other regions of the world)

Should the Ministry of Education just increase spending on second-language learning, providing however much funding as is necessary to make Ontario succeed where others have failed?

Do we allow more easier language options for schools and pupils to choose from which might be more within their grasp?

Do we just no longer require pupils to learn a second language at all?

Or is there some other solution?

[tango]

According to Statistics Canada in 2006 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo15-eng.htm), only about 12% of Ontarians know French in spite of the fact that French is compulsory in all Ontario schools.

According to Scott Reid, Canada's Official Bilingualism policy is costing Canada about 16 billion dollars per year (though we don't know the costs for Ontario specifically). In spite of all the money spent of Official bilingualism, including second-language teaching in schools, over many years, 12% is still the rate of success we've achieved in Ontario.

Looking at other countries, the rate of success there is not high either. In Western Europe, it's estimated at about 6% for English. In India, 4%.

One difference between us and Europe, however, is that while we have chosen to keep silent on the issue, some European countries have started to take the issue more seriously, and taken action as a result. In Italy, the Ministry of Public Instruction had taken the following policy shift as earlyas 1993:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

Hungry had followed suit as early as in 2000, Poland and Croatia in 2001, and England in 2005:

http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

US schools and some Australian schools are becoming increasingly experimental in this field too.

Considering how increasingly important bilingualism is in the age of globalization, what should the second-language teaching policies of our elementary and secondary schools be?

Should we just continue making French compulsory and accept the low success rate? (Quebec exhibits a low success rate in English too by the way, as do many other regions of the world)

Should the Ministry of Education just increase spending on second-language learning, providing however much funding as is necessary to make Ontario succeed where others have failed?

Do we allow more easier language options for schools and pupils to choose from which might be more within their grasp?

Do we just no longer require pupils to learn a second language at all?

Or is there some other solution?

What is the purpose of official bilingualism, majcho?

[Machjo]

What is the purpose of official bilingualism, majcho?

I'm guessing the real answer is to try to bribe Quebec into staying in the Canadian Federation.

However, I believe that the more PC answer would be to give equal access to government services to all English and French speakers across Canada.

But if that's the case, what about those who know neither English nor French? In Nunavut, about 8% of the population speaks neither English nor French. And considering that they've been on that land even before Columbus was born, why should we have more access to these services than they do?

[Machjo]

Not to mention the questions this raises about the co-ordination of educational policies Canada-wide, when most Quebecers can't speak English, most English Canadians can't speak French, and many of Canada's Innuit can speak neither.

[tango]

I'm guessing the real answer is to try to bribe Quebec into staying in the Canadian Federation.

However, I believe that the more PC answer would be to give equal access to government services to all English and French speakers across Canada.

But if that's the case, what about those who know neither English nor French? In Nunavut, about 8% of the population speaks neither English nor French. And considering that they've been on that land even before Columbus was born, why should we have more access to these services than they do?

I agree about Nunavut. In fact, Canada has many founding languages - Indigenous languages, French, English. I agree that Nunavut should have its own official language, the language of its people.

And yes, official bilingualism is about providing service in the founding languages.

It is NOT about how many anglophones learn French. That has nothing to do with it.

[Machjo]

I agree about Nunavut. In fact, Canada has many founding languages - Indigenous languages, French, English. I agree that Nunavut should have its own official language, the language of its people.

Nunavut has 4 official languages: English, French, Innuinaqtun, and Inuktitut. So even if we removed French and English, some of them might still not be able to communicate with one another.

And yes, official bilingualism is about providing service in the founding languages.

But is it fair that if a monolingual French speaker needs help in Vancouver, or a monolingual English speaker in Quebec city, we shall provide him with services in that language. But if he's a monolingual speaker of Inuktitut, we don't. How is he supposed to participate in our society?

Add to that that, government services aside, while a monolingual English speaker has access to about 75% of the nation's economic resources in terms of employment opportunities, a monolingual Quebecer has access to only about 25%, and a monolingual Nunavummiut, but a fraction.

It is NOT about how many anglophones learn French. That has nothing to do with it.

They're still very much related. To give a monolingual Quebecer access to government services in Vancouver is really nothing more than a symbolic platitude. In reality though, it won't serve him much. He won't be able to find a job, any more than the monolingual English-speaker in Quebec.

From that standpoint, though I don't agree with every aspect of Bill 101, it does have some merits. It recognizes that to just give monolingual anglophones in Quebec access to govenrment services is not enough. It recognizes that if that monolingual anglophone wants to become a full participant in every aspect of Quebec society, a common language is needed. Interpreters and translaters can't be there holing his hand 24/7.

Also, teaching English-French bilingualism in school and providing English-French interpreters and translaters in Canadian society is a redundancy. If they al succeeded in learning their second language, then there would be no need for translators and interpreters. In that respect, Official Bilingualism as a permanent strategy is an acknowledgement that the education system has failed.

[Machjo]

Another point. If official bilingualism is to be limited to government services, that is but a political platitude of no real substance. Do you honestly believe that a monolingual French Canadian will move to Vancouver to exploit this service if he can't find a job?

If Official Bilingualism was not about political maneuvering to bribe Quebec into remaining in Confederation, we would have recognized long ago that the only way to ensure real integration is to ensure that all Canadians share a common language. If, for example, all native English-speaking Canadians learnt French well, and all French Canadians likewise, and also all First Nations and Inuit, then they'd all be able to find work anywhere in the country, make friends anywhere and with any compatriot (even this very forum segregates monolingual French speakers to take an example of how segregated we are).

To ask you but a simple question: have you ever had the chance to exchange ideas with a monolingual French-speaking Canadian, or a Canadian who knew neither English nor French?

I have exchanged ideas with monolingual French-speaking Canadians, but only thanks to my knowledge of French. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Nunavummiut who speak neither English nor French, not face to face, nor online. I don't know their language, and obviously English and French are too difficult for them too. Not because they're stupid, but becaue English and French are genuinely difficult languages. Certainly it would not be fair to expect them to learn Englsih or French any better than Englsih and French speakers learn one another's languages. But at least they need to learn only one, the Nunavummiut must learn two, in addition to the mother tongue. A clear disadvantage for them.

[85RZ500]

Appeasing Quebec Is the correct answer in my opinion. I also believe that outside PQ english should be our official language, it's lopsided as hell right now. Quebec isn't really bilingual, even the House of Commons isn't bilingual.

As an old guy who may not be around to see it I think that the future will be a linguistic minefield.

Sooner or later our newest Canadians will be wanting in on the action, that should be fun.

[Machjo]

Appeasing Quebec Is the correct answer in my opinion. I also believe that outside PQ english should be our official language, it's lopsided as hell right now. Quebec isn't really bilingual, even the House of Commons isn't bilingual.

As an old guy who may not be around to see it I think that the future will be a linguistic minefield.

Sooner or later our newest Canadians will be wanting in on the action, that should be fun.

I don't agree with X just appeasing Y. Appeasment is a way to cop out of daling with the root of a problem, whatever that might be.

Instead of just appeasing Y, X shoud try to find out what is the source of the problem that has led to the feeling that X needs to appease Y and deal with that instead. Appeasement just stalls the inevitable. If we want to progress and move on, we should deal with the root of problems, not just thei symptoms as appeasement does.

[tango]

Appeasing Quebec Is the correct answer in my opinion. I also believe that outside PQ english should be our official language, it's lopsided as hell right now. Quebec isn't really bilingual, even the House of Commons isn't bilingual.

As an old guy who may not be around to see it I think that the future will be a linguistic minefield.

Sooner or later our newest Canadians will be wanting in on the action, that should be fun.

operative words ... 'founding languages'.

No point in catastrophizing.

That'll be up to the kids to deal with, and they can probably already talk to each other in different languages and have it translated immediately, so no worries.

Edited April 12, 2009 by tango

[Machjo]

operative words ... 'founding languages'.

No point in catastrophizing.

That'll be up to the kids to deal with, and they can probably already talk to each other in different languages and have it translated immediately, so no worries.

Non, pas de problème du tout.

[Molly]

'Founding' only means 'at one time, long ago'; does, and should have little bearing on the present. Time moves forward in a linear fashion.

Enforced language instruction in school is a different matter from official bilingualism. I don't really have a problem with the latter (except the manner in which it is executed and/or defended, at times), but the former is a rediculous waste of time and money. Languages will not be functionally learned without a willingness, if not eagerness, to learn them.

The resources that are now thrown away on demanding 'la plume de ma tante' from unwilling kids, who plan to forget the entirety of what little they may have absorbed as soon as the summer holidays hit, could be better spent providing much better, more functional--pointed, goal-oriented real, usable second- language classes for those who actually want to learn that particular skill, and plan to use it.

Let's aim for 10% learning a useful, enriching skill, instead of 100% learning a useless smattering of nothing.

[Machjo]

'Founding' only means 'at one time, long ago'; does, and should have little bearing on the present. Time moves forward in a linear fashion.

Enforced language instruction in school is a different matter from official bilingualism. I don't really have a problem with the latter (except the manner in which it is executed and/or defended, at times), but the former is a rediculous waste of time and money. Languages will not be functionally learned without a willingness, if not eagerness, to learn them.

The resources that are now thrown away on demanding 'la plume de ma tante' from unwilling kids, who plan to forget the entirety of what little they may have absorbed as soon as the summer holidays hit, could be better spent providing much better, more functional--pointed, goal-oriented real, usable second- language classes for those who actually want to learn that particular skill, and plan to use it.

Let's aim for 10% learning a useful, enriching skill, instead of 100% learning a useless smattering of nothing.

I have two answers to that. The first is inspired by my sense of justice and idealism; the second, based on pragmatic considerations.

As for the first, if the rest of the world is making the effort to learn our language, we also have a moral duty to try to meet the rest of the world half-way by learning a second language ourselves. One possible solution could be to grant schools the freedom to teach a second-language of their choice. Some countries allow their schools to teach Esperanto, which is designed to be from 5-10 times easier to learn than any other language.

Pragmatically, though, languages other than Esperanto are difficult to learn, and Canada doesn't have enough teachers to teach Esperanto. Based on that consideration, I'd think it reasonable to prohibit a school from making a second-language compulsory unless it can guarantee a reasonable rate of success. if it can't do that, then it should not make any second-language compulsory.

However, if it is within the capacity of the school to guarantee a reasonable chance of success, then I'd say it ought to make a second-language compulsory. So essentially, I'd say that the question of whether to make a second-language compulsory, and which second-language to offer pupils, should depend on the circumstances of each individual school. And if the Ministry of Education can't guarantee a reasonable chance of success, then it forfeits its moral right to make second-languages compulsory itself.

[Molly]

"Reasonable chance" and "success" both require definition.

If 'success' is inadequate to phone for emergency vehicle repairs; a functional vocabulary of under 200 words, all grotesquely mispronounced; text comprehension not up to reading a bus schedule or a menu and verbal comprehension too weak to understand directions to the loo...

Cumpulsary programs necessarily aim very, very low. Their existence consumes resources that might otherwise contribute to the 'reasonable chance' of presenting voluntary classes with a far higher standard of 'success'.

[Machjo]

"Reasonable chance" and "success" both require definition.

If 'success' is inadequate to phone for emergency vehicle repairs; a functional vocabulary of under 200 words, all grotesquely mispronounced; text comprehension not up to reading a bus schedule or a menu and verbal comprehension too weak to understand directions to the loo...

According to Statisics Canada in 2006, only about 15% of Canadians assessed themselves to know both of Canada's official languages. According to a European study in 2001, when a group of Europeans were asked to identify their second language, if any, about 50% (I can't remember the exact rate) claimed to know a second language. This was a self-assessment. But when they wre given a test in the second language they claimed to know, the rate suddenly dropped by about 10%! So it's reasonable to supppose that if 15% of Canadians claim to know both official languages, fewer still really know it.

As for chances of success, I would not consider 15% a reasonable chance of success. I don't know where exaclty the cut-off rate should be, but certainly above 15%! I'd say at least 70%.

Now as for 'success', I'd say that the pupil should be able to have reached a basic level of fluency in the language allowing him to function in every aspectof the day to day life of his new language community, not just be able to pass a test. I'm not saying that he should know every word of the language. Even native speakers can't do that. But he should know the language well enough that if he doesn't know a word, he can learn it by having it explained to him in the target language. In other words, he should be fluent enough in the language to be able to use it independently of his mother tongue.

This is not an unreasonable standard to meet. Research in schools in those European countries that do allow Esperanto have shown that even a dull European pupil can in fact reach this level of fluency by the end of his compulsory education.

One possibility that I could see would be for Canada's ministries of education to follow the European example and allow each school to teach the second language of its choice. This way, if the school deems French (or English in the case of Quebec. yes, it's true, they're no more succesful in learing second languages than the rest of the world) to be too difficult to learn, but that another language might be more within the pupils' grasp owing to local conditions, it could teach the second-language most appropriate for those pupils, taking either the local or family environment, or the comparative ease of another language, into consideration.

Failing all of this, then certainly the school should not be allowed to make any second language compulsory. There is no point forcing pupils to learn a second language unless the school can guarantee a reasonable (let's say 70% or more) chance of success in that language, even for the dullest of pupils. After all, this is a democracy, and all citizens should have a right to communicate.

I'd like to emphasize here though that this is byno means inspired by anti-francophone sentiments. I'm a native French-speaker myself. This is inspired by my belief in justice, and that involves an acknowledgement that:

1. not all pupils go on ot university.

2. schools have a moral duty to ensure a reasonable chance of success in any course it makes compulsory. The objective of education should always be to help pupils succeed, not ensure their failure.

Cumpulsary programs necessarily aim very, very low. Their existence consumes resources that might otherwise contribute to the 'reasonable chance' of presenting voluntary classes with a far higher standard of 'success'.

I disagree that compulsory courses should aim so low. Instead of having so many compulsory courses all aiming at a mediocre level of mastery, it would be preferable to have fewer compulsory courses, each aiming at the highest level of mastery and perfection, with al other courses being facultative, chosen by pupils according to their own aptitudes, abilities and interests.

Second-languages should be no exception. Either the school ensure a decent chance of mastery of the language, or it forfeits its right to make it compuslory, simple as that.

[JB Globe]

A few thoughts . . .

A lot more than 12% of Ontarians would be able to speak French if non-immersion/extended classes concentrated solely on speech-instruction. A student who's in immersion/extended obviously wants to be able to speak, read, and write French fairly fluently, and most do. Immersion/extended classes aren't the problem, it's Core classes: they basically take the same curriculum, chop it down and try and do speech, reading and writing in under 4 hours a week - that's simply nowhere near enough.

If those Core classes concentrated ONLY on speech, I'm pretty sure a lot more of us would be able to speak French in a basic manner, but because they try to do everything and there's not enough time we end up not having ANY French skills at all. There are a lot of students who are interested in spending a few hours a week learning to speak French, but don't want to spend several hours a day learning speech, writing, and reading.

We need to have realistic options that reflect the actual educational needs of students. It seems as though the current curriculum is based on politics: making it look like the education system is committed to producing students who can read, write, and speak French and thus "fully committed to bilingualism". The irony is that this policy ends up preventing students from at least learning to speak French and have SOME French skills versus no skills at all - thus you could say it hurts bilingualism more.

On a personal note, I assumed I would hate all language instruction based on my difficulties with Core French, until I started trying to learn Hindi speech-only, and realized how much quicker you learn to speak a language if you're not at the same time trying to read and write. You're able to advance quicker, which gives you more confidence and satisfaction, versus spending a year doing all three and still not being able to speak a proper sentence - which is extremely frustrating.

[Topaz]

Since the official languages of Canada is English and French, were's the problem. The First Nation have learned both in some cases and that puts them ahead of some Canadians by speaking 2-3 languages. Education is power and the more language one learns the more power they have. Students don't know what lies ahead of them and by learning another language may save their lives or others some day.

[Machjo]

A few thoughts . . .

A lot more than 12% of Ontarians would be able to speak French if non-immersion/extended classes concentrated solely on speech-instruction. A student who's in immersion/extended obviously wants to be able to speak, read, and write French fairly fluently, and most do. Immersion/extended classes aren't the problem, it's Core classes: they basically take the same curriculum, chop it down and try and do speech, reading and writing in under 4 hours a week - that's simply nowhere near enough.

If those Core classes concentrated ONLY on speech, I'm pretty sure a lot more of us would be able to speak French in a basic manner, but because they try to do everything and there's not enough time we end up not having ANY French skills at all. There are a lot of students who are interested in spending a few hours a week learning to speak French, but don't want to spend several hours a day learning speech, writing, and reading.

We need to have realistic options that reflect the actual educational needs of students. It seems as though the current curriculum is based on politics: making it look like the education system is committed to producing students who can read, write, and speak French and thus "fully committed to bilingualism". The irony is that this policy ends up preventing students from at least learning to speak French and have SOME French skills versus no skills at all - thus you could say it hurts bilingualism more.

On a personal note, I assumed I would hate all language instruction based on my difficulties with Core French, until I started trying to learn Hindi speech-only, and realized how much quicker you learn to speak a language if you're not at the same time trying to read and write. You're able to advance quicker, which gives you more confidence and satisfaction, versus spending a year doing all three and still not being able to speak a proper sentence - which is extremely frustrating.

I have a few issues here. You mentioned immersion French. Yes, that can raise the chances of success considerably. But think of th ecost. The teachers in an immersion programme must all be bilingual, which means higher salaries. Try emulating that province-wise without busting the Ontario budget. As far as I'm concerned, immersion French should be paid for out of the parents' own pocket. If not all pupils have access to it, then it's not fair that some get to benefit from it without having to pay higher taxes. So that definitely ought to be privatized.

Then you mentioned focussing on the spoken language only. That's cheating. I'm reasonably fluent in spoken Mandari, but I still don't know how to read Chinese. I can speak Mandarin all I want, but that wtill won't hep meto write a letter in the language or read a book in it. Considering Canada's vast geography, it is more lkely for the written language to come of use than the spoken, especially with modern technologies today. So if we wer to take shortcuts like that, I'd say focus on the written, not the spoken, language. Yet even that's not a good idea since some people will need the spoken language too. In the end, if we can't teach the whole language to a decent level of mastery before the end of compulsory education, it simply ought not to be compulsory. Or if we can offer an easier alternative language, that could be an option too. Or in some cases, the school can teach pupils to write the language they speak in the home if it's different from the regular school language. That way, school and parents would be working together as a team.

[Machjo]

Since the official languages of Canada is English and French, were's the problem. The First Nation have learned both in some cases and that puts them ahead of some Canadians by speaking 2-3 languages. Education is power and the more language one learns the more power they have. Students don't know what lies ahead of them and by learning another language may save their lives or others some day.

But for those First Nations or Inuit who fail to learn either, they're in a tough position. Do we provide their ballots in their language? May they run for federal office? If so, woud they have an interpreter on hand in Parliament? They're democratic rights are infringed upon with the current Official Bilingualism.

[lacticacid]

'Founding' only means 'at one time, long ago'; does, and should have little bearing on the present. Time moves forward in a linear fashion.

Enforced language instruction in school is a different matter from official bilingualism. I don't really have a problem with the latter (except the manner in which it is executed and/or defended, at times), but the former is a rediculous waste of time and money. Languages will not be functionally learned without a willingness, if not eagerness, to learn them.

The resources that are now thrown away on demanding 'la plume de ma tante' from unwilling kids, who plan to forget the entirety of what little they may have absorbed as soon as the summer holidays hit, could be better spent providing much better, more functional--pointed, goal-oriented real, usable second- language classes for those who actually want to learn that particular skill, and plan to use it.

Let's aim for 10% learning a useful, enriching skill, instead of 100% learning a useless smattering of nothing.

Well said Molly! Currently, the whole thing is a mess and will take a long time before it's reasonable.

[lacticacid]

Since the official languages of Canada is English and French, were's the problem. The First Nation have learned both in some cases and that puts them ahead of some Canadians by speaking 2-3 languages. Education is power and the more language one learns the more power they have. Students don't know what lies ahead of them and by learning another language may save their lives or others some day.

There's a lot more to power than speaking another language. Ask yourself why the First Nation people who may speak English, French, and their own language are in no better of a power position. The same goes for immigrants who have learned English and French (plus their own language). It has even been suggested that core course learning is dropping because some some students are spending so much time on language learning when they could be mastering the science and math in their mother tongue.

[Borg]

According to Statistics Canada in 2006 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo15-eng.htm), only about 12% of Ontarians know French in spite of the fact that French is compulsory in all Ontario schools.

According to Scott Reid, Canada's Official Bilingualism policy is costing Canada about 16 billion dollars per year (though we don't know the costs for Ontario specifically). In spite of all the money spent of Official bilingualism, including second-language teaching in schools, over many years, 12% is still the rate of success we've achieved in Ontario.

Looking at other countries, the rate of success there is not high either. In Western Europe, it's estimated at about 6% for English. In India, 4%.

One difference between us and Europe, however, is that while we have chosen to keep silent on the issue, some European countries have started to take the issue more seriously, and taken action as a result. In Italy, the Ministry of Public Instruction had taken the following policy shift as earlyas 1993:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

Hungry had followed suit as early as in 2000, Poland and Croatia in 2001, and England in 2005:

http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

US schools and some Australian schools are becoming increasingly experimental in this field too.

Considering how increasingly important bilingualism is in the age of globalization, what should the second-language teaching policies of our elementary and secondary schools be?

Should we just continue making French compulsory and accept the low success rate? (Quebec exhibits a low success rate in English too by the way, as do many other regions of the world)

Should the Ministry of Education just increase spending on second-language learning, providing however much funding as is necessary to make Ontario succeed where others have failed?

Do we allow more easier language options for schools and pupils to choose from which might be more within their grasp?

Do we just no longer require pupils to learn a second language at all?

Or is there some other solution?

No policy required

English is the international language of law, aviation, business, science and tech ........

Hell - even the Chinese, Japanese, etc recognize this.

Not required and in fact a waste of time effort and money

Let the folks in kebec (which is where all this eventually leads when discussed in Canada) learn English - or stay inside the borders of their province - better for all of us.

Borg

[CANADIEN]

No policy required

English is the international language of law, aviation, business, science and tech ........

Hell - even the Chinese, Japanese, etc recognize this.

Which is why they no longer authorize the use of Chinese languages in China or the Japanese language in Japan, right?

Borg

Telling choice of name... The assimilating machine whose motto is "resistence is futile", and who loses in the end.

[Argus]

A few thoughts . . .

A lot more than 12% of Ontarians would be able to speak French if non-immersion/extended classes concentrated solely on speech-instruction. A student who's in immersion/extended obviously wants to be able to speak, read, and write French fairly fluently, and most do. Immersion/extended classes aren't the problem, it's Core classes: they basically take the same curriculum, chop it down and try and do speech, reading and writing in under 4 hours a week - that's simply nowhere near enough.

If those Core classes concentrated ONLY on speech, I'm pretty sure a lot more of us would be able to speak French in a basic manner, but because they try to do everything and there's not enough time we end up not having ANY French skills at all.

So you'd prefer to have us able to speak French - but have nothing of value to say because they'd know nothing about core subjects, and be incapable of getting or holding a job or going on to higher education?

[Borg]

Which is why they no longer authorize the use of Chinese languages in China or the Japanese language in Japan, right?

Telling choice of name... The assimilating machine whose motto is "resistence is futile", and who loses in the end.

Not talking about other countries - so try not to run from the topic - divert, divert and divert - we are talking Canada

When in kebec speak the lingo - that is fine - not too many people moving into that wasteland - when in the world English is the primary international language - french is a waste of money and time in Canada - only thing kebec offers is the swing vote - we can only hope they leave - sooner the better - an expensive cost to Canada - and not much more.

Make it all english - you want more - you can pay for your own training.

Borg

Edited April 20, 2009 by Borg