Fraser Institute Publishes new study on Official Languages

Machjo · May 16, 2009

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.we...agePolicies.pdf

According to this study:

Governments spending up to $1.8 billion every year to meet federal bilingualism requirements.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Machjo

Smallc · May 16, 2009

And? It isn't really something that's about money, it's about fairness to both French and English.

August1991 · May 16, 2009

And? It isn't really something that's about money, it's about fairness to both French and English.

Fair? Smallc, I don't think you understand how complicated that Anglo-Saxon word can be.

I was thinking of starting a new thread on this topic but I'll use this thread instead to present un aperçu de mes pensées.

----

In Canada, we officially recognize two languages and even require that governments offer education in these two languages "where numbers warrant". This clause in our Constitution has gone through various federal Supreme Court decisions. Indeed, there was a recent constitutional amendment concerning denominational (religious) education. AFAIK, the Constitution now explicitly requires that both Ontario and Newfoundland offer denominational schools.

Compare this to the US where the Constitution makes no reference to official languages and certainly not separate language or denominational schools. Indeed, the US federal Supreme Court imposed integration and even forced children to travel by bus to achieve mixed schools.

----

In short, the State in Canada has adopted policies that explicitly create separate systems. For example, in addition to education, both the common law and civil code are used in Canada. In the US, the State has insisted on equality and even imposed it.

What is fair? In the US, integration is considered a good word whereas in Quebec (and presumably Ontario and Newfoundland), assimilation is considered a bad word.

Should everyone in a country study in the same language using the same school books? Or should people be allowed to study in the language of their choice using the books they choose?

Edited May 16, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · May 16, 2009

For example, in addition to education, both the common law and civil code are used in Canada. In the US, the State has insisted on equality and even imposed it.

What legal system does Louisiana use?

The rest is all of your usual opinion pieces, which I have little interest in and little interest to respond to.

August1991 · May 16, 2009

What legal system does Louisiana use?

If you think that Louisiana uses the Civil Code, you are mistaken - and you miss the point.

By convention, Canada's federal Supreme Court has three judges from the Civil Code. (Meech Lake would have made this convention part of our Constitution.) Louisiana may be a state among 50 but there is no such convention in the US Constitution.

The rest is all of your usual opinion pieces, which I have little interest in and little interest to respond to.

If you don't like my opinions or what I write, then I suggest that you read only the Toronto Star. If you ignore the articles about Ruby Dhalla, you'll feel good about life.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

If you think that Louisiana uses the Civil Code, you are mistaken

Just like in Quebec, the law is made up of a combination of common law and civil law. Neither jurisdiction uses the civil code (he original one). You are mistaken.

By convention, Canada's federal Supreme Court has three judges from the Civil Code.

Three judges from Quebec yes...from the civil code...no.

If you don't like my opinions or what I write, then I suggest that you read only the Toronto Star.

I'll read whatever I like...whether or not I agree with the conclusions drawn...and I'll point it out when I disagree. What you present is often based on your view and presented as truth, ad I won't let such things go unchallenged. I expect that I will be treated no differently (and I'm not).

Edited May 16, 2009 by Smallc

August1991 · May 16, 2009

Just like in Quebec, the law is made up of a combination of common law and civil law. Neither jurisdiction uses the civil code (he original one). You are mistaken.

I cannot disagree with you but the Civil Code plays a much larger part in Quebec than it does in Louisiana. (The recent testimony of Mulroney shows to what degree.)

Three judges from Quebec yes...from the civil code...no.

The province of birth is not the deciding factor. I believe that among current supreme justices, Fish was born in Montreal but schooled in the common law whereas Charron was born in Ontario and studied the Civil Code.

----

In any case, this is neither here nor there. My point was that in Canada, to achieve "fairness", we explicitly recognize our differences. In the US, to achieve "fairness", they choose to ignore these differences.

Fair? To be honest, I am not even certain which method is more likely to succeeed in the long term.

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

Fair? Smallc, I don't think you understand how complicated that Anglo-Saxon word can be.
I was thinking of starting a new thread on this topic but I'll use this thread instead to present un aperçu de mes pensées.

----

In Canada, we officially recognize two languages and even require that governments offer education in these two languages "where numbers warrant". This clause in our Constitution has gone through various federal Supreme Court decisions. Indeed, there was a recent constitutional amendment concerning denominational (religious) education. AFAIK, the Constitution now explicitly requires that both Ontario and Newfoundland offer denominational schools.

Actually, a 1997 constitutional amendment replaced Newfoundland's faith-based school system with a secular one.

In the case of Ontario, the BNA mandates the funding of Roman Catholic schools. The idea of funding for other denomitional schools has been put forward a number of times (and was a factor in the poor results by the Conservatives in the last provincial election), but there is nothing mandating it in the Constitution. Attempts at having the Supreme Court abolish the status of the catholic schools as unconstitutional or extend it to other denominational schools have failed.

Compare this to the US where the Constitution makes no reference to official languages and certainly not separate language or denominational schools. Indeed, the US federal Supreme Court imposed integration and even forced children to travel by bus to achieve mixed schools.
----

In short, the State in Canada has adopted policies that explicitly create separate systems. For example, in addition to education, both the common law and civil code are used in Canada. In the US, the State has insisted on equality and even imposed it.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. We are two different countries, with different histories, and we have come to issues of rights and identities through different routes and have adopted different solutions. The Canadian model of acknowledging minorities and rights, first religious and now linguistic, would not be suited to the U.S. Similarly, the melting pot model would not fit us.

Even the issue of whether or not separate schools enhance equality or are an obstacle to it has to be viewed through the light of each countries' history.

The segregation of Black schools, in the U.S. and here (little jnown fact: the last segregated school in Ontario closed in the mid-1960's) was a tool in keeping African-Americans in an inferior social and economic situation, and desagragation was a tool to reverse that. The notion of a right to a state funded religious education, where it took hold in Canada (mainly Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland) was aimed at protecting religious minorities against an hostile majority.

Should everyone in a country study in the same language using the same school books? Or should people be allowed to study in the language of their choice using the books they choose?

Tell me what the country is, and I'll give you the answer.

In Canada, for historical reasons, parents should be free to choose between English and French (and, depending on the location, Fiist Nation languages).. In the case of religious schools, the conditions that existed in Ontario in 1867 (a public education system essentially Protestant in nature and anti-Catholic) do not exist today.

August1991 · May 16, 2009

The segregation of Black schools, in the U.S. and here (little jnown fact: the last segregated school in Ontario closed in the mid-1960's) was a tool in keeping African-Americans in an inferior social and economic situation, and desagragation was a tool to reverse that.

CANADIEN, would you say that the "segregation" of Quebec was a tool to keep French-Canadians in an inferior social and economic situation?

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

CANADIEN, would you say that the "segregation" of Quebec was a tool to keep French-Canadians in an inferior social and economic situation?

The use of the word segregation in this case would be quite a misnomer, wouldn't it not?

Molly · May 16, 2009

A strong word, Canadien, but not an inaccurate one.

g_bambino · May 16, 2009

[W]ould you say that the "segregation" of Quebec was a tool to keep French-Canadians in an inferior social and economic situation?

Only in as much as the equivalent segragation of the rest of Canada was a tool to keep English-Canadians in an inferior social and economic situation.

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

A strong word, Canadien, but not an inaccurate one.

Innacurate as it could be. French speaking canadians were not kept off English-language schools. In fact, outside of Quebec, it was quite the contrary.

You are of course welcome to serve again the non-sense that refusal to assimilate was and is a form of self-segragation. Was not true the first time you said it, won't be this time either.

Mr.Canada · May 16, 2009

You are of course welcome to serve again the non-sense that refusal to assimilate was and is a form of self-segragation. Was not true the first time you said it, won't be this time either.

I'd like you to explain how a refusal to assimilate ISN'T self-segregation please.

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

I'd like you to explain how a refusal to assimilate ISN'T self-segregation please.

Refusal to assimilate, that is the refusal to give up one's identity, is quite different from refusal to integrate.

You refuse too have anything to do, or even to see or hear, anything that is not from your own culture. Does not mean that those who do not assimilate feel the same, that they refuse to be in contact with the world arounf them. Many, and I have seen myself, are more than happy to learn and take from the larger community while remaining who they are.

It is those who refuse to have anything with people different from them who are self-segragating.

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

deleted

Edited May 16, 2009 by CANADIEN

Machjo · May 16, 2009

And? It isn't really something that's about money, it's about fairness to both French and English.

Et pourquoi le français et l'anglais seulement? Pourquoi les Canadiens de descente européenne devraient être garantis plus d'accès aux services gouvernementaux que leurs homologues autochtones? Sommes-nous plus égaux qu'eux?

À mon avis, la justice doit s'appliquer à tous ou à nul. Dans une démocratie, chaque citoyen canadien, que sa langue maternelle soit l'anglais, le français, l'inuktitut ou l'inuinnaqtun,devraient avoir le droit à l'accès aux lois de son pays. Ne serait-il pas plus démocratique, au lieu de dépenser de l'argent sur TV5, rediriger cet argent vers la traduction de documents du gouvernement au profit des peuples apparamment moins égaux?

Le français et l'anglais sont des langues du monde. Elles n'ont pas besoin de protection contre l'extinction. Couper le financement de la CBC/SRC ou TV5 ne tuera pas ces languges et ne réduira pas l'accès aux services et à l'information gouvernementaux de la part des Canadiens de descendance européenne. Réorienter ces fonds en vue de traduire les documents en Inuktitut ou en inuinnaqtun pourrait non seulement aider à maintenir les petites langues, mais aussi et surtout, de donner l'accès à de plus amples informations aux peuples du nord du Canada, favorisant ainsi la démocratie.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

First, Inuit people do have special language rights....in Nunavut. First Nations people also have special language rights on their reserves and services can be accessed in their own language on reserves. It was decided that Canada would have two official languages because of our history and because of the way our country was formed. In the future we may add more languages...or not. It really depends on how we shape our country going forward.

Machjo · May 16, 2009

Fair? Smallc, I don't think you understand how complicated that Anglo-Saxon word can be.
I was thinking of starting a new thread on this topic but I'll use this thread instead to present un aperçu de mes pensées.

----

In Canada, we officially recognize two languages and even require that governments offer education in these two languages "where numbers warrant". This clause in our Constitution has gone through various federal Supreme Court decisions. Indeed, there was a recent constitutional amendment concerning denominational (religious) education. AFAIK, the Constitution now explicitly requires that both Ontario and Newfoundland offer denominational schools.

Compare this to the US where the Constitution makes no reference to official languages and certainly not separate language or denominational schools. Indeed, the US federal Supreme Court imposed integration and even forced children to travel by bus to achieve mixed schools.

----

In short, the State in Canada has adopted policies that explicitly create separate systems. For example, in addition to education, both the common law and civil code are used in Canada. In the US, the State has insisted on equality and even imposed it.

What is fair? In the US, integration is considered a good word whereas in Quebec (and presumably Ontario and Newfoundland), assimilation is considered a bad word.

Should everyone in a country study in the same language using the same school books? Or should people be allowed to study in the language of their choice using the books they choose?

I personally believe that justice requires that a policy applies to all or none. As such, to spend so much on the CBC/SRC, TV5, etc. simply adds to the sepcial privilege we Canadians of European descent have over our Northern neighbours. While we not only enjoy complete translation of all government laws into our languages, we also enjoy government support for our arts and entertainment, on tope of all the benefits we have in the free market already.

Meanwhile, many of Canada's Northern Peoples still don't have access to their government's laws in their languages, and would be hard pressed to get the government to hire an interpreter if they wanted to communicate with an MP other than their own.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we increase government spending on the Northern Peoples. If I'm not mistaken, they do have some government funding for the CBC in their own langugages, education, etc. and those federal laws that are most likley to impact their lives are translated into their languages too, I'm sure. But that's a far cry from having the government translate all laws, as a basic right for citizens to know so as to be more effective participants in democracy.\

So while I'm not necessarily asking that the government increase spending on the Northern Peoples, I do believe, concerning the clear advantage we have over them already owing to sheer numbers of people, that the government cut spending on official bilingualism beyond translation of government laws. There are plenty of private English and French TV and radio stations to not need government pampering for that. While I can agree on such spending for the Northern Peoples, our languages are far from being threatened.

Mr.Canada · May 16, 2009

Refusal to assimilate, that is the refusal to give up one's identity, is quite different from refusal to integrate.
You refuse too have anything to do, or even to see or hear, anything that is not from your own culture. Does not mean that those who do not assimilate feel the same, that they refuse to be in contact with the world arounf them. Many, and I have seen myself, are more than happy to learn and take from the larger community while remaining who they are.

It is those who refuse to have anything with people different from them who are self-segragating.

I'm willing to have lots to do with people who are different but I'm not going to change who I am in order to do that. This is my country, not there's they need to change to me not me to them.

If people refuse to assimilate they are self segregating period. I self segregate too, that's why I live where I do. I want my neighbors to look like me and speak English as I do, have had roughly the same upbringing as I did etc. I just feel more comfortable around my own kind. I'm sure they feel the same way and I personally don't care. I want them away from me suits me just fine.

I have nothing in common with people who kill each other in the streets or deal drugs openly or chop others heads in the name of their God or perform honour killings because their daughters refuse to wear a head scarf. I have nothing in common with that so I choose to live far away from that. Liberals obviously feel a close connection with the scum of society so they enjoy living close to that. Not me, sorry. Funny how the only place Liberals can get votes is near Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal and shutout everywhere else isn't it.

I just wanted to see if you had the guts to admit as such, that everyone self segregates, as most people want to live around what makes them comfortable.

Argus · May 16, 2009

And? It isn't really something that's about money, it's about fairness to both French and English.

Don't be silly. Virtually none of that money is spent on services to the public.

It's about power and politics and pride.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Argus

Machjo · May 16, 2009

First, Inuit people do have special language rights....in Nunavut. First Nations people also have special language rights on their reserves and services can be accessed in their own language on reserves. It was decided that Canada would have two official languages because of our history and because of the way our country was formed. In the future we may add more languages...or not. It really depends on how we shape our country going forward.

As for the Inuit having special rights, I have mentioned that just in the post above. There is a difference between accessing services and having access to all government documents. For example, a citizen might want to know what federal laws apply to Canada's military abroad. THough this might not impact on his personal life, he might still want to know as a matter of principle, to hold the government accountable for tis actions. After all, in a democracy, the citizens are the government. While all such documents would be available for the scrutiny of French and English Canadians, they are not available for an Inuit. Sure, we could argue that an Inuit who is interested in such things is likely to know one of our European languages already. But it's the principle that matters here. It could occur that an Inuit who is not gifted in languages is still intelligent and wishes to have access to a wider world. If he is a Canadian citizen, and if Canadians of European descent are guaranteed access to all federal documents, then so should the Inuit. If the Inuit don't, then neither should we.

And notice the ethnocentrism in your post:

"It was decided that Canada would have two official languages because of our history and because of the way our country was formed."

Clearly you're excluding the First Nations from the 'our', which thus makes 'them' 'them' and 'us' us'. So Canada recognizes 'our' history, but not 'their' history. Are they or are they not part of Canada? If so, then tei history should be included in our history, making their langugaes about 30,000 to 50,000 years more legitimate than ours.

As for adding more languages to our official languages, let's not forget that translation is also expensive. There are various solutions confomant to justice and equality that I can see:

1. All Canadians have access to all federal documents in their language. This would be extremely expensive, but would conform to the principle of equality.

2. No language is official, government use of language being but defacto. This would likeley mean that access to government information would be more or less proportional to Canada's language demographics, with most documents available in English, many in French, and few to none in Canada's other languages. It could save much money, but would also marginalize Canada's linguistic minorities, especially in central Quebec and Nunavut. Though such a policy would be hegemonic and would thus likely lead to political conflict, it would save money on translation, though the savings would likely be lost in conflict.

3. Creating a common auxiliary language. This would cost moeny in second-language teaching, as the federal government would need to guarantee that all Canadians could learn this language well. But it would save money on bilingual services, as the government could then simply translate everything into that language. It would be equal as all would have to learn a second language and all would have access to government in that language. A major challenge there would be its defiance of hegemony, likely resulting in English and French speakers opposing it.

I'm sure there are other solutions, but these are some, 1 above focussing on justice, and 2 above focussing on saving money at all costs, while 3 aims at a synthesis of the two. And like I said, I'm sure other solutions exist that could promote more equality between Canada's citizens of European descent and those of Aboriginal descent.

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

I'm willing to have lots to do with people who are different (...)

Then you move out of the cities because there are too many people different from you.

This is my country (...)

And theirs.

I self segregate too, that's why I live where I do.

Thanks for admitting it.

I have nothing in common with people who kill each other in the streets or deal drugs openly or chop others heads in the name of their God or perform honour killings because their daughters refuse to wear a head scarf.

Me neither, and neither do most immigrants.

I just wanted to see if you had the guts to admit as such, that everyone self segregates, as most people want to live around what makes them comfortable.

Since I don't self-segregate, and I know plenty of people who don't either, why would admit to something that is not factual?

CANADIEN · May 16, 2009

Creating a common auxiliary language. This would cost moeny in second-language teaching, as the federal government would need to guarantee that all Canadians could learn this language well. But it would save money on bilingual services, as the government could then simply translate everything into that language. It would be equal as all would have to learn a second language and all would have access to government in that language. A major challenge there would be (...)

(...) artificial language do not work.

Mr.Canada · May 16, 2009

I'm willing to have lots to do with people who are different but I'm not going to change who I am in order to do that. This is my country, not there's they need to change to me not me to them.
If people refuse to assimilate they are self segregating period. I self segregate too, that's why I live where I do. I want my neighbors to look like me and speak English as I do, have had roughly the same upbringing as I did etc. I just feel more comfortable around my own kind. I'm sure they feel the same way and I personally don't care. I want them away from me suits me just fine.

I have nothing in common with people who kill each other in the streets or deal drugs openly or chop others heads in the name of their God or perform honour killings because their daughters refuse to wear a head scarf. I have nothing in common with that so I choose to live far away from that. Liberals obviously feel a close connection with the scum of society so they enjoy living close to that. Not me, sorry. Funny how the only place Liberals can get votes is near Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal and shutout everywhere else isn't it.

I just wanted to see if you had the guts to admit as such, that everyone self segregates, as most people want to live around what makes them comfortable.

I know it's hard for downtowners to understand this. Not everyone wants to live around dirt and scum which is what downtown is. It's dirty, smoggy, smelly and full of undesirable people if we have to call them that. I'd rather not be harassed by beggars every time I leave my house, ty.