Second-language teaching policies.

[CANADIEN]

I've explained before how these things happen in politics. If you have a riding which has, say, 20% Francophones, that riding will almost always be represented by a Francophone MP/MPP. The reason is that if one party runs a Francophone candidate, all the Francophones will vote for him/her. In a three way race, that means that candidate usually only needs, maybe a fifth of the remaining votes to ensure victory.

That must be why I never voted Liberal, not one single time.

It works the same on a larger scale. The NB government knows that nothing on Earth, nothing in the universe, not life, health or wealth, not their children, not the safety of their food and drinking water, nothing is more important to Francophone than the sacred nature and protection of the French language and culture.

.

You mean, the same way way some people (yes, meaning you) use the "what about health care, what about safety, what about protecting our children" pathetic substitute for an argument when they realise there is no logical reason to trample on the rights of others?

Really, you argument that life, health, water safety etc. are of secondary importance to French-speaking Canadians is laughable. After all, the fight to obtain and maintain government services in the Canadian language of one's choice is about improved access to health care, water and food safety information, etc.

Not that I am not flattered to be part of the select group of people you consider less worthy than you - the gays, the immigrants, Muslims, the unemployed... Am I forgetting anyone here? Stick to promoting slavery, will you?

Edited April 19, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Machjo]

Smallc, I would appreciate you not being so defamatory in saying "people like you" as though you have any inclination what my opinion on the matter is. I never once said I agree with Quebec seperating from Canada, nor did I say that it would be good for the country. All I'm suggesting is that ethnic nationalism leads to war. It has happened before in Canada (the FLQ crisis) and it certainly could happen again. Especially considering the Inuit as a nation have been given autonomy with Nunavut, I'm convinced Quebec will eventually seek sovereignty again.

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.

[Smallc]

Smallc, I would appreciate you not being so defamatory in saying "people like you" as though you have any inclination what my opinion on the matter is.

Machjo and you do not believe in patriotism or nationalism...on any level. You have said as much in the past. That was a direct reference to that.

[Smallc]

You may believe there's no reason for a country to split over language and culture, but it happens all the time. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's probably the biggest reason for war and conflict anywhere.

What happens in other places does not have to happen here. This is not other countries. This country is different, and it always has been. There are people committed to the multicultural society that we've developed. Quebec can be who it wants...within Canada. Because of that....and the fact that a majority of people in Quebec don't want to leave (and the numbers are getting smaller again after being inflamed by the sponsorship scandal), there is no reason to believe that this country will split over such a thing.

There are those of us that don't believe in ethnic assimilation or genocide and really do care for this country.

That's nice...and if it were to happen....I suppose that statement might mean something.

[Smallc]

What poll? Cite please

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/452136

What is Confederation about then?

Confederation is about the land and people on the northern part of North America coming together in peace...along with many other things.

Sooooo it's not about benefits, but the fact Quebecers get to "share the wealth" which means "sharing MY wealth" that's not a benefit at all?

Wealth does not only refer to money...and besides...you're a civil servant, so you share my wealth.

Yes, thank you. That's a country. But what's a nation? Hint: a nation is not the same as a country.

Well, it depends on what language you are talking about, but you're right, in French a nation isn't a country.

Confederation isn't about benefits, that's what people like you don't seem to understand.

You're right...but even so, the two do benefit from eachother.

[Machjo]

Machjo... where to begin?

Boy, do we EVER start out with a different set of assumptions!

Top of mind things: a century of hard effort would not make Canada on the whole as francophone as Ottawa is today, so if a unilingual francophone can't go to Ottawa and find a job, then that person is just plain unemployable, and should be seeking those skills that would make them employable.

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.

This area, near the GTA, has many, many people who are fluent in neither official language. I am more likely to hear German, or Tamil, or Dutch, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish... on the street than I am to hear French, even though my next door neighbour and dear friend recieved much of her education just outside of Paris; even though family members work internationally primarily in French; even though one of my oldest friend lives and works (in French) in Quebec; even though family members are languages instructors; on and on....

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.

Quebec already controls much of its own foreign policy, and fully controls it's own education system.

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.

Bottom line: Quebec's isolation, , both the language based parts and the the culturally espoused parts, is 100% self-imposed. French itself is not an especially useful second language for most of ROC, official or not. That makes it something of an irrelevancy in terms of net personal gain for seeking it out to learn. Those combined facts render much of the whole French/English thing into more of a local, rather than national, issue.

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.

[Molly]

But where, Machjo, does all of that place the onus?

Is it LESS disorienting and off-putting for an Anglophone to hear their prime minister speaking in French? Would I, a unilingual anglophone, be more employable in francophone Quebec than a francophone would be in anglophone Canada?

Is the francophone worldview less dissimilar to the anglophone worldview than the anglophone worldview is to the francophone? Is it easier for 25 million anglophones to learn French so as to understand the issues of 6 or 7 million francophones than it would be for 6 or 7 million francophones to learn English, and so grasp the iperspective of the 25 million?

I still insist that language isn't really the barrier. Language is merely a communications tool, a useful skill set. It can be set aside and lost in less than a single generation; where usefulness is concrete, it can be picked up- more easily for some than for other, but functionally, in quite short order. It has been falsely elevated. Language is, as Argus suggested, a tertiary or beyond, concern, and IMV, the greater 'segregation' problem lies in a worldview that demands artificial segregation.

....

As well, you identify yourself as an exception to an assertion that bilingual folk would feel a greater sense of national identity. I truly doubt that you are the exception, but rather share the common experience. My own experience, anecdotal as it is, would suggest something of a transcendance from nationalism goes with multilingualism- an abandonment of tribalism/parochialism in favor of global citizenship- a casting off of local identity.

[Machjo]

Machjo and you do not believe in patriotism or nationalism...on any level. You have said as much in the past. That was a direct reference to that.

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.

[Machjo]

What happens in other places does not have to happen here. This is not other countries. This country is different, and it always has been. There are people committed to the multicultural society that we've developed. Quebec can be who it wants...within Canada. Because of that....and the fact that a majority of people in Quebec don't want to leave (and the numbers are getting smaller again after being inflamed by the sponsorship scandal), there is no reason to believe that this country will split over such a thing.

That's nice...and if it were to happen....I suppose that statement might mean something.

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.

[Molly]

And those who know neither English nor French. How successful have they been?

Successful enough to choose to be HERE, instead of where they came from!

[Smallc]

Based on those two definitions, I would not call myself a nationalist, but cerainly a patriot.

Then I apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.

[Smallc]

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.

If they were to separate, the area they would have to stick to wouldn't change...in fact...it would shrink.

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.

There would be nothing wrong with it at all.

[CANADIEN]

I still insist that language isn't really the barrier. Language is merely a communications tool, a useful skill set. It can be set aside and lost in less than a single generation; where usefulness is concrete, it can be picked up- more easily for some than for other, but functionally, in quite short order. It has been falsely elevated. Language is, as Argus suggested, a tertiary or beyond, concern, and IMV, the greater 'segregation' problem lies in a worldview that demands artificial segregation.

Language is more than a communication tool. It is a component of one's identity. That dimentison cannot be ignore in a debate on language policies and language rights.

It is easy to say language is a secondary or tertiary concern when the language one speaks is the dominent one. I doubt that English-speaking Quebecers would agree with you that language is a secondary issue when they are told by the government how much of it they can put on a sign, whether or not their children can be schooled in it, where they can or cannot get health service in their language.

You talk about segregation... What French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec have been fighting for and have obtained is NOT segregation; it is the tools to be fully members of society.

[Machjo]

But where, Machjo, does all of that place the onus?

On everyone.

Is it LESS disorienting and off-putting for an Anglophone to hear their prime minister speaking in French? Would I, a unilingual anglophone, be more employable in francophone Quebec than a francophone would be in anglophone Canada?

Not at all.

Is the francophone worldview less dissimilar to the anglophone worldview than the anglophone worldview is to the francophone? Is it easier for 25 million anglophones to learn French so as to understand the issues of 6 or 7 million francophones than it would be for 6 or 7 million francophones to learn English, and so grasp the iperspective of the 25 million?

Not at all.

I still insist that language isn't really the barrier. Language is merely a communications tool, a useful skill set. It can be set aside and lost in less than a single generation; where usefulness is concrete, it can be picked up- more easily for some than for other, but functionally, in quite short order. It has been falsely elevated. Language is, as Argus suggested, a tertiary or beyond, concern, and IMV, the greater 'segregation' problem lies in a worldview that demands artificial segregation.

It is merely a communication tool. Yet without communication, there is nothing. Communication is the first exchange that occurs between two people.

....

As well, you identify yourself as an exception to an assertion that bilingual folk would feel a greater sense of national identity. I truly doubt that you are the exception, but rather share the common experience. My own experience, anecdotal as it is, would suggest something of a transcendance from nationalism goes with multilingualism- an abandonment of tribalism/parochialism in favor of global citizenship- a casting off of local identity.

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

[Machjo]

Then I apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.

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

[Machjo]

If they were to separate, the area they would have to stick to wouldn't change...in fact...it would shrink.

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.

[Machjo]

There would be nothing wrong with it at all.

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?

[Molly]

What's wrong with it is simply practicality.

We already (rightly) spend a great deal of money on language accommodation, but universal multilingualism is .... not within reach. There's not enough money in this country to accomplish it, and absolutely certainly not the will. I'd go farther and say it isn't even desireable, given what would be lost in the process.

I have reply to a couple of your comments... primarily the suggestion that a monolingual would be wise not to move beyond their own borders. That is false. To be disadvantaged and to choose to remain so... not wise at all.

But equally false is the assumption that one should be able to move beyond ones borders and remain unilingual. Those who would choose not to learn to communicate with their fellows well deserve such disadvantage as that inability visits upon them.. yet your comments are full of that assumption.

The doors are open to us all. We choose individually whether we walk through them or not.

And this: " One thing that frustrates many Quebecers is foriegners who get their citizenship in English outside Quebec and 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." To which I reply: 'And the problem with this is...? '

And: "After all, all is not equal in pilot and ATC applicants. English speakers clearly have the edge." Since English is the language of air traffic well beyond Canada, isn't that insanely obvious? English speakers do NOT have the edge when it comes to working oilpatch in Niger, or reading the French language news, or getting a job at the post office! Either you have the tools to do the job or you don't. Get them, or be poorly qualified!

[CANADIEN]

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?

The one serious flaw with the "common planned second language" idea is the one that plagued esperento: the lack of one essentail component of any language, a population using it as its primary language.

The problem the teaching of second languages is two-fold: the methods used to teach them, and the lack of opportunities to practice them. That kind of opportunities come with with contact with people and communities that use them as their primary languge (or one of their primary language) of daily life. Creating a language with a set of simple rules will not work, because there will be no group of people using it as their primary mode of communication.

[CANADIEN]

" One thing that frustrates many Quebecers is foriegners who get their citizenship in English outside Quebec and 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." To which I reply: 'And the problem with this is...? '

The exact same problems as with French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec putting pressure for services and schooling in French. No more, and no less.

Edited April 19, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Smallc]

For bilingual French speakers, it would shrink. For monolingual French speakers, no difference.

Not true. A monolingual French speaker could live in parts of Ontario, New Brunswick, or Manitoba with very few problems. That would be less available to them with a separated Quebec.

[Machjo]

Not true. A monolingual French speaker could live in parts of Ontario, New Brunswick, or Manitoba with very few problems. That would be less available to them with a separated Quebec.

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?

[cybercoma]

Machjo and you do not believe in patriotism or nationalism...on any level. You have said as much in the past. That was a direct reference to that.

Now you're just lying. I made it very clear in another thread recently that I don't know what's better, patriotism or nationalism. The problem in this thread is that you don't understand the difference between civic nationalism (patrioticsm) and ethnic nationalism (nationalism). You don't understand the problems that can arise in a multinational country when national pride gets in the way of reasoning. You want to believe that patriotism overcomes all, and while it may for some amount of time, it is not permanent. The tides can shift at the drop of a dime, then you get what happened in Bosnia. All it will take is for one Prime Minister to stand up to the Bloc Quebecois and say that Canada's interests supersede Quebec's interests. And the sabre rattling rattling will begin.

What happens in other places does not have to happen here. This is not other countries. This country is different, and it always has been. There are people committed to the multicultural society that we've developed. Quebec can be who it wants...within Canada. Because of that....and the fact that a majority of people in Quebec don't want to leave (and the numbers are getting smaller again after being inflamed by the sponsorship scandal), there is no reason to believe that this country will split over such a thing.

No, you're right. This is not other countries. That's why we have decided to embark on a nationalism experiment with the Inuit by giving them autonomy over Nunavut. When tensions inevitably boil over with Quebec again because something happens in Parliament that the separatist Bloc doesn't like, Quebec will demand more independence than the Inuit: in other words, sovereignty. They already have their own flag, their own laws and their own government. In fact, they call their provincial government the National Assembly, do they not? You may like to think that Quebec can be who it wants WITHIN Canada, but I promise you... at the drop of a dime, Quebec will once again insist on being who it wants OUTSIDE of Canada. The framework is already in place for these conflicts to continue, whether you believe so or not.

[Machjo]

What's wrong with it is simply practicality.

We already (rightly) spend a great deal of money on language accommodation, but universal multilingualism is .... not within reach. There's not enough money in this country to accomplish it, and absolutely certainly not the will. I'd go farther and say it isn't even desireable, given what would be lost in the process.

Actually, it would be cheaper than English or French as second languages since it would be easier to learn.

I have reply to a couple of your comments... primarily the suggestion that a monolingual would be wise not to move beyond their own borders. That is false. To be disadvantaged and to choose to remain so... not wise at all.

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.

But equally false is the assumption that one should be able to move beyond ones borders and remain unilingual. Those who would choose not to learn to communicate with their fellows well deserve such disadvantage as that inability visits upon them.. yet your comments are full of that assumption.

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.

The doors are open to us all. We choose individually whether we walk through them or not.

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.

And this: " One thing that frustrates many Quebecers is foriegners who get their citizenship in English outside Quebec and 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." To which I reply: 'And the problem with this is...? '

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?

And: "After all, all is not equal in pilot and ATC applicants. English speakers clearly have the edge." Since English is the language of air traffic well beyond Canada, isn't that insanely obvious? English speakers do NOT have the edge when it comes to working oilpatch in Niger, or reading the French language news, or getting a job at the post office! Either you have the tools to do the job or you don't. Get them, or be poorly qualified!

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.

[Machjo]

No, you're right. This is not other countries. That's why we have decided to embark on a nationalism experiment with the Inuit by giving them autonomy over Nunavut. When tensions inevitably boil over with Quebec again because something happens in Parliament that the separatist Bloc doesn't like, Quebec will demand more independence than the Inuit: in other words, sovereignty. They already have their own flag, their own laws and their own government. In fact, they call their provincial government the National Assembly, do they not? You may like to think that Quebec can be who it wants WITHIN Canada, but I promise you... at the drop of a dime, Quebec will once again insist on being who it wants OUTSIDE of Canada. The framework is already in place for these conflicts to continue, whether you believe so or not.

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.