Fraser Institute Publishes new study on Official Languages

[Machjo]

I'm sure that it is....hence the added costs in Fraser Inst. findings. I wonder if Ford Canada has to supply owner's manuals in both languages?

Actually, under the current circumstances, I would defend at a minimum that we translate all official government documents into both English and French, and that interpreters be available to MPs in Parliament.

What I mainly object to is giving hiring preference to French speaking public servants in Victoria BC or English-speaking public servants in La Malbaie, when their skills will obviously be of no use to them there anyway, not to mention that it also takes away valuable language resources form the private sector and risks givng some of the duller-minded compatriots of ours a false sense of linguistic security. To take one instance, I'd met a Quebecer in Ottawa who'd run out of money and was struggling to find work sinse her English was very poor. To be fair to her, I must say that it was her ex-boyfriend who'd brought her here from central Quebec. She had no money during the break up, wasn't getting along well with her family, and so was more or less stranded in Ottawa and dependent on social assistance. Again, I'm sure the government will provide her with some kind of trades training to help her get back on her feet, and her English will undoubtedly improve in the process in Ottawa's English environment. I'm not pointing fingers at her necessarily, but I would say that certain policies like Official Bilingualism do risk giving certain Canadians this false sense of linguistic security, that they can go anywhere in Canada knowing just one official language and function just fine. But when things don't work out for them, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for them, and it's not entirely their fault either since they were just misled into this false sense of security. Just because some federal government offices in a city are bilingual, this does not mean that you can just pack up your bags and relocate without first considering whether your language skills are satisfactory for the local job market. And if they're not, then why would we worry about bilingual public servants in cities where unilingual minorities should not be. Honestly, of what use would a federal office be to a unilingual Quebecer stranded in Victoria BC or an Albertan stranded in Quebec City?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, the double language curse.... I mean, if the US doesn't do it, it must be bad.

No, we just provide the legacy "Negroes" for your language segregation arguments.

[Machjo]

Car owners' manuals are a private sector issue and ought ot remain thus. If these companies value the French-language market, they'll translate them. Besides, they sell cars in europe too, so they would have to translate the manual anyway not for legal reasons but for market ones alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, under the current circumstances, I would defend at a minimum that we translate all official government documents into both English and French, and that interpreters be available to MPs in Parliament...

OK, but it was clear from the disruption at the bail-out hearing that automotive manufacturer reps were not prepared to comply with any such requirement. They fumbled with the earpieces and got through it as best they could, promising to translate documents after the fact.

One would think that after all these years it would be second nature to always "double down" in English and French.

[Smallc]

Car owners' manuals are a private sector issue and ought ot remain thus. If these companies value the French-language market, they'll translate them. Besides, they sell cars in europe too, so they would have to translate the manual anyway not for legal reasons but for market ones alone.

First, many cars are different in different parts of the world (as in, completely different vehicles...though Ford is about to change that) and second, some things can't be left up to the market. Sometimes companies have to be made to do things in the interest of fairness, what is right, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

Car owners' manuals are a private sector issue and ought ot remain thus. If these companies value the French-language market, they'll translate them. Besides, they sell cars in europe too, so they would have to translate the manual anyway not for legal reasons but for market ones alone.

I suspect that new production units are configured by dealers for predominantly French speaking markets. But the hardware stampings and badging are not changed (e.g. "unleaded fuel only").

[Smallc]

One would think that after all these years it would be second nature to always "double down" in English and French.

Yes, and what happened comes as a result of the auto companies dropping the ball. They should have known the policy that exists and it seems they didn't. Their bad.

[Machjo]

OK, but it was clear from the disruption at the bail-out hearing that automotive manufacturer reps were not prepared to comply with any such requirement. They fumbled with the earpieces and got through it as best they could, promising to translate documents after the fact.

One would think that after all these years it would be second nature to always "double down" in English and French.

But the car manufacuters are not government employees and so have, and ought not to have, any such obligation. It's the government's job toensure that Parliament has access to qualified interpretors.

Another point. Seeing that they might be signing legal documents or making legally standing comments at times in their discussions, Parliament also has s duty to ensure the best-quality interpretors are available and that they not be overworked at any time to ensure the highest-quality interpretation. I've done interpretation work on occasion before on occasion, and can say that it is mentally exhausing when done over any considerable length of time.

[Smallc]

I suspect that new production units are configured by dealers for predominantly French speaking markets. But the hardware stampings and badging are not changed (e.g. "unleaded fuel only").

I don't think so. There is a box to check when ordering a car on Ford.ca. It allows you to select that the car come with French labels.

[Smallc]

But the car manufacuters are not government employees and so have, and ought not to have, any such obligation.

I'm pretty sure Quebec's language laws would require the labels and manuals to be in French.

[Machjo]

Yes, and what happened comes as a result of the auto companies dropping the ball. They should have known the policy that exists and it seems they didn't. Their bad.

Not at all their bad. They are private sector and so should be free to use any of Canada's official languages. It's up to the government to provide interpretation.

[Smallc]

Not at all their bad. They are private sector and so should be free to use any of Canada's official languages. It's up to the government to provide interpretation.

No, anyone wishing to table documents to parliament must ensure that both a French and English translation is available. They should have known that and didn't.

[Smallc]

Actually, examining things further, it seems that it is up to each individual committee to set it's language rules, so it may not be something that they should have known, but rather it's something that should have been communicated to them ahead of time by the committee.

[Machjo]

I'm pretty sure Quebec's language laws would require the labels and manuals to be in French.

Sorry, I was referring to the federal level. But you are right that in Quebec they'd have to be in French, and rightly so. If Ontario wanted a law that they ought to be in English, that would be fair too. Then it would be up to the company to decide whether a particular market is worth targetting or not. But I don't think it's wise to impose universal bilingualism on all companies across the board as translation is expensive.

If a company does business across Canada, yes, it should have to abide by all provincial regulations and provide its manuals bilingually while providing services uniingually in each respective province unless the market warrants. It's just a plain matter of economics. But if it operates in one province only, or only locally, then why waste so much money on bilingual packaging, etc.? That just pushes costs, and thus inflation, up.

[bush_cheney2004]

First, many cars are different in different parts of the world (as in, completely different vehicles...though Ford is about to change that) and second, some things can't be left up to the market. Sometimes companies have to be made to do things in the interest of fairness, what is right, etc.

OK...but does that mean that "Airbag" or "SRS" must be translated on dashboard components? Parts come from all over the world but are made to specification, including English marks. TDC = Top Dead Center...what is that in French...Point De Morux"

[Smallc]

If Ontario wanted a law that they ought to be in English, that would be fair too.

Actually, I'm not sure that it would be ok. I think Ontario would have to be bilingual if it were to choose to have official languages...but I'm not sure on that...I know Manitoba would have to be.

[Smallc]

OK...but does that mean that "Airbag" or "SRS" must be translated on dashboard components?

I'm not sure about that. There may be both French and English parts that exist, but I don't know. Those things wouldn't realy be considered labels, so they wouldn't change possibly....unleaded only though...well, that would be a label.

[Machjo]

No, anyone wishing to table documents to parliament must ensure that both a French and English translation is available. They should have known that and didn't.

So if I as a citizen want to present something to Parliament, I'd better thank my lucky stars that I'm bilingual and can translate my own documents, while the poor unilingual sucker can dig out of his pockets. Not very democratic. All individual citizens and organizations should be free to approach the governmetn in the language of their choice. It's up to Parliament to translate. it's a matter of democratic access to government, which shold not be reserved only to bilinguals and those who can afford interpreters.

[Smallc]

Actually, examining things further, it seems that it is up to each individual committee to set it's language rules, so it may not be something that they should have known, but rather it's something that should have been communicated to them ahead of time by the committee.

Correction above.

[Smallc]

So if I as a citizen want to present something to Parliament,

It depends on what you're presenting:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...-e.htm#official

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, examining things further, it seems that it is up to each individual committee to set it's language rules, so it may not be something that they should have known, but rather it's something that should have been communicated to them ahead of time by the committee.

Wait a minute.....either it's a law or it isn't. How can the decision be so arbitrary? What actually happened was that the hearing was moving along nicely when one MP made a big stink about it. I was very surprised that the chairperson didn't know of such a requirement.

[Smallc]

The decision isn't arbitrary.

The reflection of linguistic duality also occurs in the context of the parliamentary committees. At the start of each parliamentary session, a number of committees pass motions providing that the documents provided by a witness shall be distributed only once they are available in both official languages.(32) This type of motion illustrates the potential conflict between the right of parliamentarians to receive documents in the official language of their choice and the right of witnesses to use English or French in their relations with Parliament. Following a complaint filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, an application for remedy was recently made to the Federal Court to dispute the validity of this practice. The applicant claimed that the practice was contrary to his right to use the official language of his choice before a parliamentary committee as provided for by subsection 4(1) of the OLA. The Federal Court, Trial Division, held that this practice does not infringe that right. In the Court’s view, this right allows all individuals to use their preferred official language in the debates and proceedings of Parliament, but does not include the right to distribute documents to the members of a committee. The decision to distribute documents falls under the absolute authority of parliamentary committees to manage their internal procedure and is protected by parliamentary privilege. The Court concluded that the language rights of the applicant were not infringed. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the conclusions of the Trial Division, then the Supreme Court of Canada denied Mr. Knopf’s application for leave to appeal, thereby putting an end to this case.(33)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...-e.htm#official

Edited May 18, 2009 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

The decision isn't arbitrary.

It seems that it is...."parliamentary privilege"....how convenient.

[Machjo]

It seems that it is...."parliamentary privilege"....how convenient.

Some are more equal than other?

[Smallc]

It seems that it is...."parliamentary privilege"....how convenient.

Either the committees pass a resolution at the start of the Parliamentary Session or they don't. If they do, the documents must be in both official languages. It isn't arbitrary and the Chair should have known about it. The reality is, if you're a company presenting to parliament, you should come prepared...in both English and French.