Canadians needs a bilingual education

[Guest eureka]

Canadien1 You write reasonably and make sense, mostly. You do not get to the nub of this, though. We do have asymetrical jurisdictions in Canada though people do not seem to realise it.

Some provinces could abolish French schooling - in law, that is - outside of the Charter application. Quebec could not. Quebec is not and has never been a French province. It is one that from the beginning has had a large English population. Less than a century ago, Montreal had an Anglophone majority and shortly before that, Quebec City was 35% English speaking.

It is an absurdity to think that the Government of Quebec has any power over either language other than the normal controls of government. Protection for religious schooling in Quebec was incorporated in the Constitution for the purpose pf ensuring that there would be equality in Language and cultures. With the makeup of the province at the time that was seen as the necessary protection for both - as much French as English since there had been an earlier attempt to remove protection for French.

Canadians can talk all they like about what should or should not be done to promote and protect the French language across Canada - and I think I have nade it clear where I stand on that, but, until these monstrous laws (they are a barbarity, BTW) in Quebec are nullified, there will be no will in Canada to accept any improvement of the French condition.

EliZabeth, EliSabeth, could it be another example of where Quebec must Francisize even names; or where it can control the naming of children?

[Stoker]

Thank you for clarifying for me and all of us that there should not be any funding (according to you) for government services in French or French schools outside Quebec. After all, we Francos should either stay in Quebec or assimilate, right?

Of course there will be none English services available outside of Quebec, just as there are services for the deaf or Chinese

WRT schools, they to can exsits outside of Quebec, be they private funded, or if deemded necessary by the province, public funded.

As for your suggestion that each and every province should decide on its own in which language(s) government services are provided and whether or not there should be minority language schools... You realize of course that, being equal to the other provincial governments, the Quebec government would then be entitled to go further that it does now and close all English schools within its borders if it saw fit. Would be interesting to see what you'd do then: still say it's strictly a provincial business, or declare that Quebec doesn't have the same rights as the other provinces?

Don't worry, Quebec would be treated equal.......Since English would be the offical language, it would be taught in all public schools, across all of Canada, including Quebec. It's up to Quebec, if they want to fund French programs on top of that.

And my point about her Majesty, Stoker, is that, since she and her ancestors have seen fit to acknowledge the rights of their French-speaking subjects in Canada, it is the height of absurdity to use the fact she is British to claim that English should be this country's sole official language.

Why is it absurd?

  I am pretty sure that, if we looked at the funding of most Highland Games in Nova Scotia or elsewhere in the country, we'd find some level of government funding. And why not? They are good for the local economy and they generate taxes.

Perhaps, but if it was at the provical or even municpliy level, that would be the consensus of the people of Nova Scotia, right?

But it's not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing here is the right of Canadians to choose to go to a publicly funded French or English school and to receive government services in French or English, as they individually decide to do. And it is clear that there are some who believe that this right should exist in English only, others who think it should be in French only in Quebec and in English only elsewhere, and others who know that right should fully exist all across our great country.

Thats exactly the point. If those in Quebec (or another province) want the right to be taught in French (or a different language), they should pay for it, be it through taxes to their province or directly via a private school.

[CANADIEN]

Eureka,

[Language of instruction 23. (1) Citizens of Canada

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or

( who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (91)

Continuity of language instruction (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.

Application where numbers warrant (3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province

(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and

( includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds. ]

Under the Constitutional Act of 1982, the education rights exist throughout all of Canada, and cannot be abolished by a provincial government.

You talk about good will. I certainly would not be one to ignore its importance. But as Clifford Johnson, a minister in the Bourassa government in the 1980's, said when resigning in protest of language laws, "rights are rights are rights". For me it's as simple as that.

As for Elizabeth/Elisabeth... the origin of the fword is to be found in the Hebrew language... why a different spelling occured in both languages is beyond me (although I would guess the French spelling is older than the English one). No case of linguistic correction here.

[Guest eureka]

You seem to be missing my points. I know about Sec. 23. I think you may not have noticed that I said outside of the Charter. However, Sec. 23 applied to Quebec is a reduction in the rights of the English speaking. The right to choose, before the Charter was absolute. The Charter does what a Charter, by definition, cannot do. It removes a right.

Clifford Johnson was correct and I was writing about that in the 70's in all elements of the Montreal press. Colleagues of mine publicly debated Trudeau and Allmand about the defincies of the Charter proposals and forced an alteration to the still unsatisfactory provisions we have.

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

Equality, in case you didn't figure it out yet, is a different concept than sameness. In other words, equality cannot and does not exist without respect for rights and for difference.

As your contention that French schools should exist where those who want them pay for them through their taxes, guess whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... I pay taxes in my province. So I guess I will enjoy my French schools while you whine, the same way people in Quebec who want to should be able to enjoy their English schools while the local language dimwits whine.

[CANADIEN]

I have indeed missed your point. And we are most certainly in agreement about the fact the Charter actually limits what should be an absolute right. My apologies.

[Stoker]

Equality, in case you didn't figure it out yet, is a different concept than sameness. In other words, equality cannot and does not exist without respect for rights and for difference.

Equality? Huh? Where does it stop? should we have perhaps twenty offical languages? Perhaps 50? How about every language know to man, becomes an offical language of Canada? We can cut other areas of government so as to make everybody happy because they can file their taxes in their native tonuge

As your contention that French schools should exist where those who want them pay for them through their taxes, guess whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... I pay taxes in my province. So I guess I will enjoy my French schools while you whine, the same way people in Quebec who want to should be able to enjoy their English schools while the local language dimwits whine.

And if the majority of the people in your province, wanted French programs paided for with public funds, good. Thats great. Go to town. Just as long as my tax dollars are not paying for it, I couldn't care less.

[CANADIEN]

Now you have an idea, stoker

Let's have each and every citizen's taxes go only to government investments they want.

For example, a vegetarian could ask that his money not be spent on meat inspection, a pacifist that his money not go to the military, a senior that his money not fund education (in any language), etc. For myself, let's see... no money for abortion clinics, prosecution of owners of small amounts of marijuana, the gun registry as it currently exists, state visist by President Bush... (I'll find more).

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

A right is a right is a right. ALL Canadians have a right to an education in French or English, publicly funded, regardless of what you or your fellow bigots, either those whining in French in Quebec or those doing it elsewhere, have to say. Anybody who doesn't like it is welcome to keep whining, or to find a place where they're be able to discriminite anyone they want and violate their rights.

Oh, and btw, if a majority of Quebecers decided through a vote to completely close English schools in that province through a vote, would it be OK under your own principles of majority allowed to negate minority rights and provincial authority on language issues? Or, as I suspect, would those principle become null and void because of your principle that English must prevail?

[JWayne625]

CANADIAN; Bilingualism in New Brunswick is not the success case the New Brunswick government would have everyone believe. In fact it has instead become a system of duality, in many instances. We have basically two Education Department's, and separate hospitals based on language. Although all hospital's are required to provide bilingual services, we still have hospitals that are designated as French.

When we have our former Education Minister state publically that the French Immersion Program was not designed nor expected to produce fluently bilingual graduates, and most government jobs have been designated as requiring applicants to be fluent in French, who do think is being awarded these positions. I can tell you that in most cases it is not English (mother tongue) graduates from the Immersion Program. If it is someone with an English surname, in most case it is someone who grew up in a French speaking area of the Province where they have spoken French from the time they were youngsters. The reality is that most government jobs requiring fluent French, as has been the case for the last number of years, those jobs are being filled by people who's surname is French.

This iniative of bilingualism was not supposed to elevate one culture over the other, but in reality that is what has happened, both in New Brunswick and in our Federal Institutions. It certainly has not created harmony between the two cultures, but since Bernard Lord went ahead an intrenched NB's Officially Bilingual Status in the Constitution, there is little we can do to turn this thing around to make it fair.

Maybe you should check and see how many unulingual English speaking New Brunswicker's have settled in Ontario, Manitoba, Sask. Alberta, and BC. I can tell you they are leaving here in droves, and before too many more years go by NB will be just another pain in the ass like Quebec. Maybe at that point the two will join together, and whine with their hand's out for more of your money. By then I hope to be living in Alberta with both of my kids.

[CANADIEN]

sob sob sob JWayne,

The usual story. Anytime an initiative appears that actually result in equal rights, there are people who whine that it causes them to have a lesser status. Like it or not, I am your equal as a Canadian, and my CANADIAN language is equal to yours in law.

So you can say anything you want about how French immersion does not by itself lead to fluency in French. That has nothing to do with my right as a Canadian to choose the language in which I receive schooling and government services. You can perpetuate the big lie that enjoying those rights gives me a priviledged status at your expense. You can regret the good 'ole days when the Cajuns "knew their place". You can squeal even louder than a Péquiste when he sees a sign in English.

After all, unlike you, I am in favour of equal rights of all Canadians... including your right to talk non-sense.

[CANADIEN]

As for the problem of jobs designated as French mostly going to people whose first language is French....

I have long been of the opinion that standards in that regard are far too stringent. One knows enough of the language to do the job, that's enough for me.

It is also true when the language requested is English. Which is why I always shake my head in disbelief everytimepeople complain that there are "too many immigrants who can't speak English who get government jobs" when the objects of their complaints have more than the linguistic skills required. What is your opinion on THAT, JWAYNE?

[Stoker]

Let's have each and every citizen's taxes go only to government investments they want.

I never suggested that. What was suggested, was that the decision to fund second language training should be made at the provincal level, then funded with provincal funds.

A right is a right is a right. ALL Canadians have a right to an education in French or English, publicly funded, regardless of what you or your fellow bigots, either those whining in French in Quebec or those doing it elsewhere, have to say. Anybody who doesn't like it is welcome to keep whining, or to find a place where they're be able to discriminite anyone they want and violate their rights.

Ahh so I'm a bigot now

Anyways, I do understand that currently that "right" you speak of is infact a "right"........I'm not debating that issue at all. What I'm debating is whether it should be a "right" in the first place.

Infact, I haven't even stated that French speakers shouldn't be taught in French......I don't care if they want to speak French until they are blue in the face. Doesn't bug me one bit. I just think that if you do want to speak French, you should pay for it on your own.

Oh, and btw, if a majority of Quebecers decided through a vote to completely close English schools in that province through a vote, would it be OK under your own principles of majority allowed to negate minority rights and provincial authority on language issues? Or, as I suspect, would those principle become null and void because of your principle that English must prevail?

They couldn't you see. Thats the beauty of my idea. English would be the offical language. They could vote if they wanted to keep french though

Now I'll type slow, so as to avoid confusion. All ten provinces and three terrorites (AKA Canada) would be officially English. Meaning that English is a mandatory course taught in all public schools, just like math and science.

Now for the sake of argument, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick vote to add French to their public school curriculum, well Nunavut decides to add Inuit and (my home province) of British Columbia decides to add Hindi in the Surrey School district and a Chinese dialect in other lower mainland school districts. The rest of the provinces put what was once money and resources spent on French, into other needed areas.

Whats wrong with that? Infact, I'd think that would unfiy Canada more. No longer would the west feel they are being force fed French by the east, and any province that has more pressing needs then the French language, would have additional funds to address them.

[RB]

check and see how many unulingual English speaking New Brunswicker's have settled in Ontario, Manitoba, Sask. Alberta, and BC. I can tell you they are leaving here in droves

I won't rely on your opinion that language is the reason why people leave NB.

Examine the unemployment rates in the entire East Coast

NB - 10%

NFD - 17%

PEI - 12%

Now look at the regions that your folks are migrating to rates look like this

ON and BC - 7%

MB - 6%

AB - 5%

There are greater opportunities for work in ON, AB and BC

[RB]

Stoker

Posted: Sep 5 2004, 05:29 PM

Economically deprived? Define deprived.

That’s very simple, see the big picture now, so first look around you in terms of unemployment, except for the two people you know who are making it.

Who do you think are finding it difficult to get work, to keep their job, and then are chronically (6 months or more) unemployed, take up menial jobs to survive, drives a taxi with a PhD. Would it surprise you if the rate is maybe greater than 70% first generation immigrants, talk about practice of social intolerance - least you know the demographics of where they orginate.

Deprived means historically some groups are not doing well are systemically discriminated against, and a major are the institutionalise barriers, that’s why there are some incorporation of laws to resist practice of nepotism based of ethnicity, color, race etc

At least people can dream a dream and watch a dream evolve in the US who are more overt in their behaviours but at least they practice capitalism, like if they think a person, any person regardless of their background will increase their profits margins hey who you think gets a piece of the action

Well my point initially was don't hold your breath to allow a third language such as Chinese, or Latin -- at this time folks are merely getting by, there are no resources or fight left and languages other than French and English is not PRIORITY

[Stoker]

Well my point initially was don't hold your breath to allow a third language such as Chinese, or Latin -- at this time folks are merely getting by, there are no resources or fight left and languages other than French and English is not PRIORITY

So if people are merely getting by, hence having no "fight" or "resources" for a third language, and by your own admission a third language would be costly, wouldn't it make sense to do away with French so as to free up "resources" and bring back the "fight" within people?

IOW, since we are just getting by with two languages and couldn't afford a third, wouldn't it make sense to do away with French so we can improve our situations?

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

In case you didn't get it, and you obviously didn't, I DO pay for the educational and government services I receive in French through my taxes.

As for notion that denying the rights of French-speaking Canadians through English unilingualism would unify the country, it's not a new one. We have all heard that fallacy through a variety of forms over the years: women's vote will destroy the family, non-white immigrations causes tensions, we should all belong to the same church/vote for the same party, Quebec's language law promote linguistic peace. All the ravings of people unable to accept difference and equality of rights.

Disunity in this country is not caused by people attending a publicly-funded French school in Vancouver or a publicly-funded English school in Sherbrooke. Responsibility for the tension is caused, and caused solely, by the likes of you.

[RB]

So if people are merely getting by, hence having no "fight" or "resources" for a third language, and by your own admission a third language would be costly, wouldn't it make sense to do away with French so as to free up "resources" and bring back the "fight" within people?

i did'nt say the French are depressed people or fit the criterion of being descrimated against

"the others" need the fight for their jobs to establish economic status, you give them language status how is it going to help them economically

my rational is simple - if if don't make common sense and understandable as rules it is not a go

the French language exist now, it has a culture, there is some relation for kis to think smarter, its written in our law as a rule, a system works, all that is needed is to practice and follow the rules

[Stoker]

In case you didn't get it, and you obviously didn't, I DO pay for the educational and government services I receive in French through my taxes.

Yes, and with my idea, you still could recieve your educational and government services in French, if the majority of the people in your home province wished.

As for notion that denying the rights of French-speaking Canadians through English unilingualism would unify the country, it's not a new one. We have all heard that fallacy through a variety of forms over the years: women's vote will destroy the family, non-white immigrations causes tensions, we should all belong to the same church/vote for the same party, Quebec's language law promote linguistic peace. All the ravings of people unable to accept difference and equality of rights.

Who wants to deny rights? People can still recieve educational and government services in French if their respective provinces wish to. Is it a right for a person that their culture is preserved by another?

Disunity in this country is not caused by people attending a publicly-funded French school in Vancouver or a publicly-funded English school in Sherbrooke. Responsibility for the tension is caused, and caused solely, by the likes of you.

Thats a chicken and an egg debate if I have ever seen one........regardless I'll bite.

Let's say this tension is caused by "people like me" (even though my "tension" is in responce to something being forced upon me), wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be no tension, if nothing was forced upon "people like me"?

If the majority of Western Canadians are opposed to French language spending, are you not taking away their/our rights? Does it cut both ways with you folks out east?

[CANADIEN]

Who wants to deny rights, Stoker? You, and the likes of you. To say that a right should exist only when the majority consents to it is to deny it should exist in the first place.

As for the argument that tensions are caused because rights are "forced" on others, it is an age-old fallacy. It is not non-white immigration that causes tension, it is the opposition from anti-immigration folks. It is not working women that cause tensions, it's Neanderthals.

Now to the claim that the right for all Canadians to obtain publicly-funded education in either French or English as they personnally choose violates the rights of those who don't want pubicly-funded education in French. I'll pass on the fact I could easily turn your argument around and claim publicly-funded English schools in Quebec violate the rights of those in Quebec who don't want them. I'll concentrate on the real stuff instead.

The real stuff is that there is no truth whatsover to your claim. NO right of ANY Canadian is violated because another Canadian can get publicly funded education in either French or English as he/she chooses. You think there is a right violated? Prove it. Show where in the Constitution, or federal or provincial human right codes that right is to be found. If that's not enough, go to British legislation. You can even go fish in the US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or the old Soviet Constitution if you want.

And don't waste our time arguing it is about "financing of cultures". It is not, it is education rights and access to public services.

[Stoker]

Who wants to deny rights, Stoker? You, and the likes of you. To say that a right should exist only when the majority consents to it is to deny it should exist in the first place.

Whose rights are being quashed? If the vast majority of western Canadians don't wish to pay for French language programs, why should they? Unlike paying into say defence, education or Healthcare, the French language has no benifits to us.

You want it, you pay for it!

I'd like a new Corvette, but since I can't afford one, does that mean that my rights are being taken away from me?

As for the argument that tensions are caused because rights are "forced" on others, it is an age-old fallacy. It is not non-white immigration that causes tension, it is the opposition from anti-immigration folks. It is not working women that cause tensions, it's Neanderthals.

Well since you are so enlightened, you should have no problem explaining to this Neanderthal, why it is that we (as in the West) need French language programs?

You see, I don't understand, why it is when Healthcare is in such a crisis, we need to have French language programs in Western Canada........please explain.

Now to the claim that the right for all Canadians to obtain publicly-funded education in either French or English as they personnally choose violates the rights of those who don't want pubicly-funded education in French. I'll pass on the fact I could easily turn your argument around and claim publicly-funded English schools in Quebec violate the rights of those in Quebec who don't want them. I'll concentrate on the real stuff instead.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 1000 French speakers within BC, and let's further say that for the sake of argument that the population of BC is 1 million. Now the BC provicncial budget is finite, and let's say fo the sake of argument that the money spent on French programs in BC could pay for 6 new doctors, 30 nurses, two X-ray machines, a CT machine and three new ambulances, what do you think the vast majority of British Columbians would pick? French textbooks or healthcare?

The real stuff is that there is no truth whatsover to your claim. NO right of ANY Canadian is violated because another Canadian can get publicly funded education in either French or English as he/she chooses. You think there is a right violated? Prove it. Show where in the Constitution, or federal or provincial human right codes that right is to be found. If that's not enough, go to British legislation. You can even go fish in the US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or the old Soviet Constitution if you want.

As in my hypothetical example above, are you saying that in these days of finite budgets, that teaching a useless language and culture is more important then Healthcare, education, the Enviroment, unemployment, national defence, debt reduction etc?

[CANADIEN]

As I suspected, Stoker. Since you cannot prove that equal access to publicly-funded French or English school violates your rights, you resort to the tired "French education or hospital beds" arguments. It would suffice to say that, under your "logic", Quebecers would be better off if they close English schools and invested the money in health care.

It boils down to a question of rights. Each and every Canadian HAS a right to choose in what language (Englsi or French) he/she receives publicly-founded educational and other government services. No so-called economic arguments, or false rhetoric about government services or mention of an imaginary "rights violation" will change that. You don't like it? Too bad.

[maplesyrup]

How do you spell Montreal in French?

How do you spell Poland in French?

This exemplifies one of the problems with unilingualism - complete and utter ignorance of the world in which we live!

[Stoker]

As I suspected, Stoker. Since you cannot prove that equal access to publicly-funded French or English school violates your rights, you resort to the tired "French education or hospital beds" arguments. It would suffice to say that, under your "logic", Quebecers would be better off if they close English schools and invested the money in health care.

If I have one dollar, and I want a candy that costs a dollar and a pop that costs a dollar, what do I do?

It boils down to a question of rights. Each and every Canadian HAS a right to choose in what language (Englsi or French) he/she receives publicly-founded educational and other government services. No so-called economic arguments, or false rhetoric about government services or mention of an imaginary "rights violation" will change that. You don't like it? Too bad.

When we have only so much money to burn, it does become a mater of rights. I feel that I have a right to decent Healthcare, education and a armed forces that can defend me. These are things that all Canadians can benifit from, which can't be said for the French language programs.

Thought I throw some numbers into the mix:

Official Bilingualism Has Its Costs — and Opportunities

Since the inception of Canada’s Official Languages Act in 1968, official bilingualism is estimated to have cost Canadians approximately $60 billion. Today, the cost of translating federal government documents and operating various programs, such as French language training for federal public servants, is estimated to be some $4 billion annually. And these figures do not take into account the cost of publishing bilingual documents and providing bilingual services at the provincial and municipal levels, or similar costs incurred by private enterprises.

Thats odd, the Armed Forces say that they need an extra couple of billion dollars a year........I'm sure healthcare could use topping up also.

French translation is a lucrative cottage industry in Canada. While the federal government’s Translation Bureau handles the bulk of translation work — and many private firms exist that specialize in English–French translation — much of the actual translation work is done by individuals who work at home, hired under contract by either the Translation Bureau or by private firms. With a typical rate of between 22 and 28 cents per word, or $50 to $60 per hour, it’s not difficult to see why translation can be a wise career choice in Canada, where work is always plentiful.

Are you a government translator CANADIEN? If you are, I see why you are getting so bent out of shape.......this sounds like another scandel in the making

One of the reasons that Canadian translators are kept busy is that, despite attempts by the federal government to enshrine both official languages as equal in government offices — and hiring practices designed to encourage bilingual representation in the public service — the working language (in most cases) is still English. Reports, e-mail messages, documents of all kinds, are typically drafted and circulated in English. Only when they are ready to become "official" documents are they normally translated into French. In my experience, the reverse process — French to English translation — occurs from time to time, but is rare. Even more rare is to have documents developed in both languages simultaneously, as this is simply impractical and few people possess sufficient command of both languages to do so.

So why are we keeping French again?

The Cost of Official Bilingualism

Beyond the direct costs to taxpayers, bilingualism also adds to the cost of doing business – almost every product sold in Canada must have labels in both English and French.

Me thinks I might have some Diner Kraft, L'Original for dinner tonight........

How much is it, anyway?

The commission, headed by Keith Spicer, found that while most Canadians saw bilingualism as a positive quality in a person, they were suspicious of it as federal policy. One person quoted in the commission's report condemned it as a waste of $4 to 5 billion a year; another said it cost $10 billion.

"The only way you could do that is by knocking on the door at every major corporation in the country," says Scott. "We have a study on the cost of bilingual labels, but everything else is too deeply hidden. Those numbers just don't exist."

Allan pegs the cost of bilingualism at an average $7 billion a year since the passage of the Act, and says it's up to about $18 billion a year now.

18 billion dollars, thats 6 billion more then we spend on national defence

[Guest eureka]

I wouldn't take too much notice of Reid, if I were you, or the others. They have axes to grind. I once knew a Concordia professor who did a more reasoned costing - I don't recall his figures.

However, he took into account the returns on the monies spent. Returns such as the economic activity engendered and the taxes payed.

The results showed a much more modest cost: a cost that he, and I agreed, were well worth it.

He was a professor of finance by the way and a strong fighter for English rights in quebec. He was not a publicity seeking MP and he and his wife (a McGill Professor) were instrumental in launching the most comprehensive challenge to the language laws.