Ignatieff calls bilingualism the essence of Canada

[CANADIEN]

Because of Quebec's ethnic cleansing program,

Care to show the map of the mass graves?

You know my opinion of Quebec language laws. But the use of that term, in that context, is an insult to the victim of the Yugoslav Civil War, and their families.

Yet while the federal government dedicates itself to ensuring that there was full reprsentation for all Canadians in hiring, so that at least a quarter of public servants were Francophones, virtually no anglophones were hired by the Quebec government. Nor has that changed since. Anglophone Quebecers are the most bilnigual group in Canada, but the Quebec government places no importance whatsoever on bilingualism. In fact, it was part of the law - not sure if it still is - that you cannot require biilngualism in a job, public or private, without special permission from the province.

There is not enough Anglophones in Quebec provincial public service. But let's compare apples with apples, shall we? Let's compare with other provinces, since we are talking about the government of a Province.

Most importantly, the "Quebec is mistreating its linguistic minority" line, while based on a fact, is something better delivered by people who are not using it as a veil to hide their opposition to official bilingualism.

[Machjo]

Care to show the map of the mass graves?

You know my opinion of Quebec language laws. But the use of that term, in that context, is an insult to the victim of the Yugoslav Civil War, and their families.

There is not enough Anglophones in Quebec provincial public service. But let's compare apples with apples, shall we? Let's compare with other provinces, since we are talking about the government of a Province.

Most importantly, the "Quebec is mistreating its linguistic minority" line, while based on a fact, is something better delivered by people who are not using it as a veil to hide their opposition to official bilingualism.

Now I oppose Official Bilingualism too, at least in its current form, but will venture to add that while Quebec goes too far in its language laws, the principle of one official language only still stands in terms of economic efficiency as it saves in translation and interpretation costs. Though I would limit it to internatl government administratio only. As for communication between government employees and citizens, the employee shoud still be free to address the client in any language they share in common and agree to use. A'd also say that this should limit itself to government administration and should not impose itself on the private sector. In fact, imposing it on the private sector can raise costs owing to unnecessary translation and interpretation costs, especially in predominantly English-speaking towns or neighbourhoods.

[CANADIEN]

Argus, if you could read, you'd have noticed in my previous posts that I do agree that Quebec has gone too far with its Bill 101. That still doesn't change the fact that I also believe that Quebec is closer to the right balance than the rest of us. At the federal level, bilingualism has gone too far (translation, interpretation,training, etc. all cost money). At the provincial level, many provinces don't even have official languages, thus making the government's duty to provide services in this or that language ambiguous which thus leads to constant questions about whether it has a duty to provide services in this or that language and when. In Quebec, though I don't agree with all the details, I do agree with the principle at least of having a clearly defined language policy that leaves little ambiguity as to what the government's responsibility is: to guarantee services in French to anyone who wants to be served in French.

I should point out though that I think you're exaggerating too. English-speakers do get services in English where numers warrant. ThatI think is reasonable. Why should the Quebec governmenet be guaranteeing services in English in central Quebec where any anglophone living there is almost sure to know French anway?

I think Ontario could learn from that. Instead of making this or that town bilingual, why not just provide services in French where numbers warrant? The federal government could learn from Quebec on that front too. Why do we need bilingual staff in Victoria BC for instance. It's our tax dollars paying for this.

So though I don't agree with the details necessarily, I do agree with the principle of Quebec having but one official language. The other provinces could learn from that. It's more efficient and saves money.

Quebec is NOT closer to the right balance. What you call administrative efficiency (a term that could also be applied to any good 'ole dictatorship - remember the saying about Italian trains under Mussolini) is nothing more than blatant discrimination.

English-language services aare NOT provided by the Quebec government as numbers warrant. They are provided where more than half the population speaks English. That ratio is unreasonably high, and is discriminatory. It's the Quebec government that should learn from the Federal government, and from the Ontario government for that matter, not the other way around.

As for municipalities being proclaimed officially bilingual. That should be for municipalities to decide. Even in the case of the only Ontario city designated as bilingual by a provincial act, Ottawa, the decision was suported by a majority of the elected members of City Council.

Edited May 31, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Machjo]

Quebec is NOT closer to the right balance. What you call administrative efficiency (a erm that could also be applied to any good 'ole ddictatorship - remember the saying about Italian trains under Mussolini) is nothing more than blatant discrimination.

English-language services aare NOT provided by the Quebec government as numbers warrant. They are provided where more than half the population speaks English. That ratio is unreasonably high, and is discriminatory. It's the Quebec government that should learn from the Federal government, and from the Ontario government for that matter, not the other way around.

As for municipalities being proclaimed officially bilingual. That should be for municipalities to decide. Even in the case of the only Ontario city designated as bilingual by a provincial act, Ottawa, the decision was suported by a majority of the elected members of City Council.

OK, I misexpressed myself there. I do agree that the exigencies in Quebec are too high, but the principle still remains valid.

As for municipalities, that I can fully agree with. The locals are payng the taxes and so they should decide. Same should apply in Quebec for that matter, another example of Quebec going too far.

On your comment about dictatorship, there are limits. To take an extreme example, do we say that the government should have the duty to communicate with us in any languge of our choice? I've experimented with Conlanging before. What if I created my own language? Would the government then have a duty to learn it for the sake of equality?

There are limits to democracy, and communication is such an important part of a society that a clear language policy, at least one for internal government administration, is a wise move.

If I should go to a job interview for the federal government in Kitchener Ontario speaking Inuktitut, should I be accommodated in the nameof democracy?

[Machjo]

Administrative efficiency must be taken into account too.

[CANADIEN]

Administrative efficiency must be taken into account too.

The primary role of government in a democratic society is to be society's tool in advancing the rights and security of its citizens. Administrative efficiency cannot trump this role.

There are many things that would appear to be a lot more efficient than what the governments do now: eliminate local governments and centralizing; remove the right of a convicted criminal to appeal his/her sentence; re-instating the death penalty and apply it within minutes of sentencing; outlawing labour unions or emasculating them; censorship; even dispensing with elections. We'd have China. I'd rather have "inefficient" canada any day of the week.

[Machjo]

The primary role of government in a democratic society is to be society's tool in advancing the rights and security of its citizens. Administrative efficiency cannot trump this role.

There are many things that would appear to be a lot more efficient than what the governments do now: eliminate local governments and centralizing; remove the right of a convicted criminal to appeal his/her sentence

I'd all be in favour of making the appeal process more efficient. Yo seem to be confusing removing a service with making the delivery of the service more efficient.

And as for centralization, in fact a more decentralized system can be more efficient in some cases as it alows fr more rapid and locally-suitable responses to problems.

; re-instating the death penalty and apply it within minutes of sentencing;

I'd be in favour of applying the death penalty in some cases as long as the evidence is strong. And again, if there is an efficient yet humane way of carrying it out, I'd be all for it. If not humane, no. But again, there's a difference between sacrificing a humane form of execution and making a humane form of execution more efficient.

; outlawing labour unions or emasculating them;

Labou unions are highly inefficient and even counter-productive. They go on strike to get more money, yet the very act of going on strike impoverishes the company, making it incapable of giving in to the demands. Essentially, a labour union is even counter-productive in that way. To achieve the same objective, would it not be preferable to disband labour unions and instead just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? THis way, whenever there's a dispute, the BOD can make a quick decision with representation from the workers rather than halt production through astrike or lock out that hurts both sides in the dispute. Why does our culture have to be so confrontational all the time? Can we not use a more collaborative approach to dispute settlement?

; censorship;

What about defamation laws? Do they not promote self-censorship? Yet I support them as they make it the government's duty to protect our reputation from defamation. But again, if there are more efficient ways than now to do so, I'd be for it.

; even dispensing with elections.

Again, you're confusing making a service more efficient and dispensing with it altogether. Making elections non-partisan wold certainly save us money in not having to fund political parties anymore. Still democratic, but more efficient. In fact, more efficient and democratic at the same time.

Now going back to official bilingualism, I'd certainly be in favour of giving hiring preference to the bilingual staff member, as that increases servicces for unilinguals on both sides. We could even define bilingualism in local contexts. For example, anEnglish-Mandarin speakers could be given hiring priority in Vancouver over a French-English speaker. Much more democratic in terms of local services, don't you think? Yet we wouldn't do that and hire the French-English speaker instead. Ho would that be more democratic?

Also, how is it democratic that a public servant should get free language training at tax-payers' expense while private sector employees don't get the same privilege? Isn't democracy about equal opportunity and access to services? If so, then if public sevants get free language training, all citizens should. Needless to say, that could strain the budget. So in an all-or-nothing paradimg of equal opportunity for all citizens, then I'd rather nothing. We hire the most qualified for the job, and so bilinguals would normally get priority. beyond that, however, we use the resources we have to their maximum effectiveness. In this respect,by no longer giving public servants this special privilege anymore, we'd be promoting more equality and democracy while at the same time making government administration more efficient.

Dremocracy and efficiency don't necessarily have to conflict with one another.

[Machjo]

And if the argument is democracy, then don't unilingual speakers of Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut have the right to use their languages in Vancouver just like the French-speaker?

Or are some citizens more equal than others?

[CANADIEN]

I'd all be in favour of making the appeal process more efficient. Yo seem to be confusing removing a service with making the delivery of the service more efficient.

Actually, i am not making that confusion. It seems, however, that for you individual rights is less important that administrative efficency. Like it or not, it's supposed to be the other way around.

I'd be in favour of applying the death penalty in some cases as long as the evidence is strong. And again, if there is an efficient yet humane way of carrying it out, I'd be all for it. If not humane, no. But again, there's a difference between sacrificing a humane form of execution and making a humane form of execution more efficient.

I was actually referring the idea of eliminating the appeal process as it is a waste of money, and therefore inefficient.

Labou unions are highly inefficient and even counter-productive. They go on strike to get more money, yet the very act of going on strike impoverishes the company, making it incapable of giving in to the demands. Essentially, a labour union is even counter-productive in that way. To achieve the same objective, would it not be preferable to disband labour unions and instead just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? THis way, whenever there's a dispute, the BOD can make a quick decision with representation from the workers rather than halt production through astrike or lock out that hurts both sides in the dispute. Why does our culture have to be so confrontational all the time? Can we not use a more collaborative approach to dispute settlement?

That idea was very popular in fascists ewgimes (not that I would say you're a fascist). I am not a big fan of unions either. That being said, the right of workers to form and join a union is a fundamental human right. And that trumps any notion of "efficiency".

What about defamation laws? Do they not promote self-censorship? Yet I support them as they make it the government's duty to protect our reputation from defamation. But again, if there are more efficient ways than now to do so, I'd be for it

Anti-defamation law are reasonable in that they protect .

Again, you're confusing making a service more efficient and dispensing with it altogether. Making elections non-partisan wold certainly save us money in not having to fund political parties anymore. Still democratic, but more efficient. In fact, more efficient and democratic at the same time.[/

Now going back to official bilingualism, I'd certainly be in favour of giving hiring preference to the bilingual staff member, as that increases servicces for unilinguals on both sides. We could even define bilingualism in local contexts. For example, anEnglish-Mandarin speakers could be given hiring priority in Vancouver over a French-English speaker. Much more democratic in terms of local services, don't you think? Yet we wouldn't do that and hire the French-English speaker instead. Ho would that be more democratic?

Also, how is it democratic that a public servant should get free language training at tax-payers' expense while private sector employees don't get the same privilege? Isn't democracy about equal opportunity and access to services? If so, then if public sevants get free language training, all citizens should. Needless to say, that could strain the budget. So in an all-or-nothing paradimg of equal opportunity for all citizens, then I'd rather nothing. We hire the most qualified for the job, and so bilinguals would normally get priority. beyond that, however, we use the resources we have to their maximum effectiveness. In this respect,by no longer giving public servants this special privilege anymore, we'd be promoting more equality and democracy while at the same time making government administration more efficient.

Dremocracy and efficiency don't necessarily have to conflict with one another.

[benny]

Did you not read the post or are you simply trying to be a smart ass like a few other posters around here.

What do you mean by "The French language actually improved the English language"?

[Machjo]

Actually, i am not making that confusion. It seems, however, that for you individual rights is less important that administrative efficency. Like it or not, it's supposed to be the other way around.

I was actually referring the idea of eliminating the appeal process as it is a waste of money, and therefore inefficient.

Well, if we could make the system more efficient while still protecting rights, I'd be all for it. I'm not saying get rid of the appeals process, but is there ay way to streamline it? maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if there is such a way, that alone would not be anti-democratic if it still guarantees an appeals process.

That idea was very popular in fascists ewgimes (not that I would say you're a fascist). I am not a big fan of unions either. That being said, the right of workers to form and join a union is a fundamental human right. And that trumps any notion of "efficiency".

The US and Japan continue to have the death penalty I believe. As for unions, fine, give them their freedom to exist and strike. But why not give a more efficient alternative? Why not give workers a vote on Boards of Directors, or allow for a voluntary arbitration process the decision of which would be binding or other alternatives to striking that would not cause production to suffer. Would giving them more voting rights on the boar od directors or giving them alternative options be all that bad if it can maintain production?

Anti-defamation law are reasonable in that they protect .

Perhaps I shold clarify that I am not a democrat. I do believe in an elected process, but also believe stongly in order. Yes, that is a point shared by fascists too. Fair enough. But one advantage with order and efficiency is that it increases productivity and reduces waste and though that provides more wealth that can go towards heloing the less fortunate members of society.

Also, I subscribe philosophically to the idea of human duties rather than rights. I have no right to help from society, but have a duty to help it, and so give some of my time and money to charity on that basis. If I should receive a service, it is out of someone else's kindness, not because I have a right to it. If I give to charity, it is out of a sense of duty on my part. In that respect, it's only natural that I'll have a very different view of society from a society that emphasizes rights over duties.

[CANADIEN]

I'd all be in favour of making the appeal process more efficient. Yo seem to be confusing removing a service with making the delivery of the service more efficient.

Actually, i am not making that confusion. It seems, however, that for you individual rights is less important that administrative efficency. Like it or not, it's supposed to be the other way around.

I'd be in favour of applying the death penalty in some cases as long as the evidence is strong. And again, if there is an efficient yet humane way of carrying it out, I'd be all for it. If not humane, no. But again, there's a difference between sacrificing a humane form of execution and making a humane form of execution more efficient.

I was actually referring the idea of eliminating the appeal process as it is a waste of money, and therefore inefficient.

Labou unions are highly inefficient and even counter-productive. They go on strike to get more money, yet the very act of going on strike impoverishes the company, making it incapable of giving in to the demands. Essentially, a labour union is even counter-productive in that way. To achieve the same objective, would it not be preferable to disband labour unions and instead just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? THis way, whenever there's a dispute, the BOD can make a quick decision with representation from the workers rather than halt production through astrike or lock out that hurts both sides in the dispute. Why does our culture have to be so confrontational all the time? Can we not use a more collaborative approach to dispute settlement?

That idea was very popular in fascists regimes (not that I would say you're a fascist). I am not a big fan of unions either. That being said, the right of workers to form and join a union is a fundamental human right. And that trumps any notion of "efficiency".

What about defamation laws? Do they not promote self-censorship? Yet I support them as they make it the government's duty to protect our reputation from defamation. But again, if there are more efficient ways than now to do so, I'd be for it

Anti-defamation law are reasonable in that they protect the reputation of the individual.

Again, you're confusing making a service more efficient and dispensing with it altogether. Making elections non-partisan wold certainly save us money in not having to fund political parties anymore. Still democratic, but more efficient. In fact, more efficient and democratic at the same time.

First, elections are not service, it's the tool by which the citizens choose their representatives. And if 'efficiency" and "economy" is to dictate how we are to be governed, elections, even without party politics, cost money. They take time. A disctatorship is far more "efficient".

Now going back to official bilingualism, I'd certainly be in favour of giving hiring preference to the bilingual staff member, as that increases servicces for unilinguals on both sides. We could even define bilingualism in local contexts. For example, anEnglish-Mandarin speakers could be given hiring priority in Vancouver over a French-English speaker. Much more democratic in terms of local services, don't you think? Yet we wouldn't do that and hire the French-English speaker instead. Ho would that be more democratic?

We have two national languages, English and French, that have, as they should equal status. Federal government services is provided in either language as numbers warrant, as it should be. I also believe that federal government services should be available in First Nation languages where numbers warrant. As for Mandarin, to take your example, it is not, with all due respect for that language, a Canadian language, any more than French is a Chinese language. I do not have a particular problem with a government employee talking to a citizen in Mandarin, but not doing so does not violate a Canadian's right.

Also, how is it democratic that a public servant should get free language training at tax-payers' expense while private sector employees don't get the same privilege? Isn't democracy about equal opportunity and access to services? If so, then if public sevants get free language training, all citizens should. Needless to say, that could strain the budget. So in an all-or-nothing paradimg of equal opportunity for all citizens, then I'd rather nothing. We hire the most qualified for the job, and so bilinguals would normally get priority. beyond that, however, we use the resources we have to their maximum effectiveness. In this respect,by no longer giving public servants this special privilege anymore, we'd be promoting more equality and democracy while at the same time making government administration more efficient.

As employers, governments are providing their employees with training on computer skills (new softwares), management skills, time management skills, proooject skills. If in the military, they are provided with weapons training. In other words, governments as employers are providing training to increase their employees' efficiency, the same as any employer does.. Language training is no different. Surely, you are not arguing that the government should provide free time management training to all citizens, or offer free course in piloting a CF-16 to everyone? Nor are you, I am sure, advocating that governments should stop offering their employees opportunities to learn ays to do their jobs better and more efficienctly. That would not help (or hinder) democracy, but it would sure make governments less efficient.

Edited May 31, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Perhaps I shold clarify that I am not a democrat. I do believe in an elected process, but also believe stongly in order.

That explains it all. Sorry but in the long run, diictatorships (even ones that use an election process as a facade) do not work, for one reason. Human beings.

As Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

[Machjo]

That explains it all. Sorry but in the long run, diictatorships (even ones that use an election process as a facade) do not work, for one reason. Human beings.

As Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

There is a difference between a dictatorship and an elected government whose population supports order. Is it a democratic ssytem? To the degree that the government is elected, yes. But if the population has a strong belief in law and order, not entirely. So I guess it then becomes a kind of hybrid system, but certainly not a dictatatorial system, or at least not in the purest form.

[CANADIEN]

The duties of a member of society are simple:

- to respect others, their dignity and their rights

- to respect the laws, to the extent that they respect the rights of citizens

- to take part in the democratic process (if they choose to) and in society's debates in a fashion respectful of the law and of others

- in exceptional ciscustances, to defend that society (unless prevented by legitimate consciencious objection)

Anything apart from that, or that is not an extension of that, can only exist in a society that places itself above the individual and makes the individual a servent of the state, instead of things being the other way around.

[CANADIEN]

There is a difference between a dictatorship and an elected government whose population supports order. Is it a democratic ssytem? To the degree that the government is elected, yes. But if the population has a strong belief in law and order, not entirely. So I guess it then becomes a kind of hybrid system, but certainly not a dictatatorial system, or at least not in the purest form.

There is a difference between order and a regime where the rights of the citizens are abrogated in the name of "efficiency".

[Machjo]

The duties of a member of society are simple:

- to respect others, their dignity and their rights

- to respect the laws, to the extent that they respect the rights of citizens

- to take part in the democratic process (if they choose to) and in society's debates in a fashion respectful of the law and of others

- in exceptional ciscustances, to defend that society (unless prevented by legitimate consciencious objection)

Anything apart from that, or that is not an extension of that, can only exist in a society that places itself above the individual and makes the individual a servent of the state, instead of things being the other way around.

We must remember though that the actions of individuals can affect other individuals too. Just to take an example, government services to guarantee too many rights to the individual cost money which could otherwise be used to help the less fortunate members of society. In this respect, giving people freedom but not necessarily rights (two ideas I distinguish clearly) can help take some of the burden off the shoulders of government to reduce spending and thus eventually reduce taxes which cold then be redirected towards charities, etc.

With Official Bilingualism guaranteeing the right to use French in Vancouver or English in Quebec city would be one example of a policy that's too expensive for what it offers, and which thus drains the economy of economic resources that could otherwise have gone towards tax cuts so that we can give even more of our money to tharity than we do now. Same could appy to other areas, where the government gives too many rights. I agree we should have more freedoms, but not necessarily more rights. There is a difference between the two concepts, rights put a duty on the government to provide this or that service. Freedom merely puts a duty on the government to stepp out of your way, but not necessarily to cater to yor every whims.

[Machjo]

There is a difference between order and a regime where the rights of the citizens are abrogated in the name of "efficiency".

So, should a unilingual speaker of Inuktitu have a right to access to governmetn services in his language in Vancouver? Is it a democratic right?

[CANADIEN]

We must remember though that the actions of individuals can affect other individuals too. Just to take an example, government services to guarantee too many rights to the individual cost money which could otherwise be used to help the less fortunate members of society. In this respect, giving people freedom but not necessarily rights (two ideas I distinguish clearly) can help take some of the burden off the shoulders of government to reduce spending and thus eventually reduce taxes which cold then be redirected towards charities, etc.

With Official Bilingualism guaranteeing the right to use French in Vancouver or English in Quebec city would be one example of a policy that's too expensive for what it offers, and which thus drains the economy of economic resources that could otherwise have gone towards tax cuts so that we can give even more of our money to tharity than we do now. Same could appy to other areas, where the government gives too many rights. I agree we should have more freedoms, but not necessarily more rights. There is a difference between the two concepts, rights put a duty on the government to provide this or that service. Freedom merely puts a duty on the government to stepp out of your way, but not necessarily to cater to yor every whims.

The "freedom instead of rights" thing is often nothing more than a justification for conscripting governments in efforts to deny others their rights and their freedoms. It is not a coincidence that the cry of "freedom" was bastardized by the opponents of the civil rights movement in the U.S. A government that says "we value freedoms, not rights" is the one that is the most likely to take away both.

Rights is not about services. Rights is about the relationship between citizens and government.

The right to government services in French in Vancouver and in English in Saguenay is about far more than the provision of service. It is about what Canada is, and what it is to be a Canadian. There is no "better way" to say to an English-speaking Quebecers "you do not belong here" or a Franco-Ontarian "go back to Quebec" than to tell them that services won''t be available in their Canadian language.

Right is not about whims. Freedom, when rights are ignored, is about whims.

[CANADIEN]

So, should a unilingual speaker of Inuktitu have a right to access to governmetn services in his language in Vancouver? Is it a democratic right?

If there is sufficient numbers, absolutely. And we are not talking about Quebec numbers.

[Machjo]

If there is sufficient numbers, absolutely. And we are not talking about Quebec numbers.

So what about French? Same standard? And waht about Chinese seeing that there are more Chinese in Vancouver than French speakers?

[Machjo]

If there is sufficient numbers, absolutely. And we are not talking about Quebec numbers.

So now you agree with me that there are limits to rights. You said 'sufficient numbers', which suggests that you agree that efficiency is an important consideration, and the there must be a limit to rights. One lone speaker of Inuktitut in Vancouver should not have a democratic right to require the government to fly someone over from Nunavut at a moment's notice because someone in Vancouver wants his language services.

[CANADIEN]

So what about French? Same standard? And waht about Chinese seeing that there are more Chinese in Vancouver than French speakers?

It is aactually tthat standard already. As for Chinese - sorry, but it is not a Canadian language.

[CANADIEN]

So now you agree with me that there are limits to rights. You said 'sufficient numbers', which suggests that you agree that efficiency is an important consideration, and the there must be a limit to rights. One lone speaker of Inuktitut in Vancouver should not have a democratic right to require the government to fly someone over from Nunavut at a moment's notice because someone in Vancouver wants his language services.

Nice try. Practical consideration in how the government respects a right is not a limit to that right.

And what you are trying to do is justifying removing the linguistic rights of Canadians, or render them meaningless. Won't work.

[Machjo]

It is aactually tthat standard already. As for Chinese - sorry, but it is not a Canadian language.

Fair enough about Chinese. But I'm assuming you would agree that this standard should apply to all of Canada's indigenous languages?

And as for French and English, no, the standard goes beyond that. I've knwen people in the military who'd had to undergo French language training even though their job simply didn't require it. We don't see the same service for Cree, Ojibwe, or Inuktitut now do we?