AFN asks Ottawa to declare all aboriginal languages official

Evening Star · July 10, 2015

Consecutive Québec governments have requested this.

Cite?

Even if this is true, unless the current QC government has made this request (which I doubt), I'm not sure I can regard this as QC's request.

Why a good idea? Official monolingualism saves money among other things, plus it would set a precedent for other province.

It would basically be an abandonment of the Official Languages Act, but only for one province. That makes no sense to me.

Argus · July 10, 2015

Consecutive Québec governments have requested this.

Why a good idea? Official monolingualism saves money among other things, plus it would set a precedent for other province.

I can see the NDP agreeing to this, but only in Quebec. They would cut their own throats and set themselves on fire before easing bilingualism in the rest of Canada. In fact, they have called for strengthening French services in the rest of Canada.

Bryan · July 10, 2015

In fact, they have called for strengthening French services in the rest of Canada.

Consistent with NDP policy: Advocate for whatever course of action costs the most and provides the least benefit.

Second-class Canadian · July 10, 2015

French as an official language is terribly impractical and expensive. How many french-speaking citizens in this country don't know english? I can't find the stats but it must be a very low %. Bilingualism is a matter of principle not practicality.

I'd lived in central Quebec and can ascertain from observation that the vast majority, probably well over 90%, do not know English to a practical degree beyond passing tests to get their high school diploma.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

Second-class Canadian · July 10, 2015

Is this really Quebec's wish? Has Couillard asked for this? Have the NDP, who represent the most Quebec seats federally, asked for this?

Edit: And even if they did ask for this, what would make this a good idea?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/montreal/charest-proposes-broadening-quebec-language-laws-1.1201421

I stand corrected. It was a campaign promise made by the Liberal Party of Quebec in an election campaign.

I can't see the NDP, LPC, GPC, and the CPC agreeing to this since it conflicts with official bilingualism which these parties officially defend. I could see the Libertarian Party supporting this so as to establish a precedent for other provinces. But then we'd see an odd coalition between Canada's indigenous peoples (those who most oppose official bilingualism) and the Libertarian Party of Canada given tensions between them in the past.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

Second-class Canadian · July 10, 2015

I can see the NDP agreeing to this, but only in Quebec. They would cut their own throats and set themselves on fire before easing bilingualism in the rest of Canada. In fact, they have called for strengthening French services in the rest of Canada.

Why would they agree to it anywhere given their official support for official bilingualism? Same goes for the Liberals, Greens and Conservatives.

segnosaur · July 10, 2015

I can see the NDP agreeing to this, but only in Quebec.

Why would they agree to it anywhere given their official support for official bilingualism? Same goes for the Liberals, Greens and Conservatives.

Votes.

Any other reason?

The NDP does seem to have a double standard... they have made demands to improve bilingual standards in the country (e.g. demanding all supreme court justices be bilingual) but wants to strengthen Quebec's bill 101.

From: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/graeme-hamilton-ndp-look-like-bloc-heads-in-quebec

...the NDP is promising to extend the French-first principles of Bill 101 to such federally regulated industries as banking, transport and telecommunications.

True, they haven't said that federal government services in Quebec would be unilingual-French, but the idea of supporting the oppression of english language rights in Quebec does seem to be a bit.... questionable.

Edited July 10, 2015 by segnosaur

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

Votes.

Any other reason?

The NDP does seem to have a double standard... they have made demands to improve bilingual standards in the country (e.g. demanding all supreme court justices be bilingual) but wants to strengthen Quebec's bill 101.

From: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/graeme-hamilton-ndp-look-like-bloc-heads-in-quebec

...the NDP is promising to extend the French-first principles of Bill 101 to such federally regulated industries as banking, transport and telecommunications.

True, they haven't said that federal government services in Quebec would be unilingual-French, but the idea of supporting the oppression of english language rights in Quebec does seem to be a bit.... questionable.

How does freeing a Federal office from the obligation to provide services in more than one language equate with supporting the oppression of language rights? According to that principle, we'd have to require the government to serve in all languages lest we "oppress" one. No wonder the government is in debt. Abrogating a privilege that was exclusive to a certain group so as to make the diffetent groups more equal does not constitute "oppression" in my book.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

How does freeing a Federal office from the obligation to provide services in more than one language equate with supporting the oppression of language rights? According to that principle, we'd have to require the government to serve in all languages lest we "oppress" one.

That's not what Bill 101 says...not to mention it's contrary to official bilingualism.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

That's not what Bill 101 says...not to mention it's contrary to official bilingualism.

True, but BIill 101 is separate from the legislation the Federal government would legislate to allow Federal institutions in Quebec to function monolingually. The Federal legislation would be just that and nothing more, not to be confused with Bill 101, not to mention that the Federal government could even decide to extend it nationwide whereby federal institutions in Ontario could serve monolingually too. In most of Ontario, that would likely mean English.

Moonlight Graham · July 11, 2015

I think English is terrible impractical and too expensive. How many english-speaking citizens in this country haven't had french classes in school? I can't find the stats but it must be a very low %. Let's get rid of bilingualism, since we already teach French to English-speaking students.

I took french classes for 12 years in grade school and myself nor anyone else who took them with me became fluent in french because of it. Epic waste of time and resources.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

True, but BIill 101 is separate from the legislation the Federal government would legislate to allow Federal institutions in Quebec to function monolingually.

The NDP is in favour of extending same or very similar legislation.

Moonlight Graham · July 11, 2015

Ten times more people speak Mandarin than French. Liaojie?

Not in Canada.

TimG · July 11, 2015

How does freeing a Federal office from the obligation to provide services in more than one language equate with supporting the oppression of language rights?

Federal offices are not required to conduct business in French. i.e. in Quebec an employee in a larger firm can complain to the government if any language other than French is used in the workplace. Federally regulated industries are free of this pettiness and can use English, French or other languages that suit the employees. Muclair wants to take this freedom away. Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

Remiel · July 11, 2015

I took french classes for 12 years in grade school and myself nor anyone else who took them with me became fluent in french because of it. Epic waste of time and resources.

To be fair you could probably say that for a lot of things we learned in grade school. Maybe even most of them.

In any case, the current record holder for most official languages is Zimbabwe with 16. Real winner of a country they picked there.

TimG · July 11, 2015

I took french classes for 12 years in grade school and myself nor anyone else who took them with me became fluent in french because of it. Epic waste of time and resources.

There are benefits to learning second languages much like their are benefits to learning to play an instrument. So I would say it was not a waste of time unless you think all school is a waste of time.

Ash74 · July 11, 2015

Politicians can worry about learning other languages and private businesses can worry about learning other languages. Here at home English is unnecessary and wasteful. The French were here first, so we should just do everything in French. The English can figure it out and adapt or they can piss off.

They lost......It is what the french do.

We pat their heads and say "Now now we will get you a bigger bottle" and send them off to their room for a calm down.

Business is in English, Our largest trading partner and neighbor speaks English. Canada was part of the British Empire that speaks.....that's right English.

Common sense would dictate that if by some miracle a little rational thought happened we would just dump this bilingual waste of time and let nature take its course.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

Federal offices are not required to conduct business in French. i.e. in Quebec an employee in a larger firm can complain to the government if any language other than French is used in the workplace. Federally regulated industries are free of this pettiness and can use English, French or other languages that suit the employees. Muclair wan

nts to take this freedom away.

The Federal government could choose to grant Quebec's wish only in part by allowing monolingualism but without imposing it.

TimG · July 11, 2015

The Federal government could choose to grant Quebec's wish only in part by allowing monolingualism but without imposing it.

That is not how politics works. Either the federal governments stands on the principal of official bilingualism or it lets the language police censure workers who speak to each other in languages other than French. There is no middle ground.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

That is not how politics works. Either the federal governments stands on the principal of official bilingualism or it lets the language police censure workers who speak to each other in languages other than French. There is no middle ground.

Why could there be no middle ground? Bill 101 is provincial law.

TimG · July 11, 2015

Why could there be no middle ground? Bill 101 is provincial law.

And Quebec politicians would settle for nothing but full compliance with Bill 101. Anything less and the federal government would get no credit for flexibility.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

And Quebec politicians would settle for nothing but full compliance with Bill 101. Anything less and the federal government would get no credit for flexibility.

Then the Feds offer their policy or nothing. Quebec would look bad to turn it down.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

Then the Feds offer their policy or nothing. Quebec would look bad to turn it down.

And Ottawa comes out looking bad no matter what.

Moonlight Graham · July 11, 2015

There are benefits to learning second languages much like their are benefits to learning to play an instrument. So I would say it was not a waste of time unless you think all school is a waste of time.

Yes there's benefits, but if after that many hours of training students aren't fluent in the language or even halfway there I consider it a failure.

Evening Star · July 11, 2015

French immersion programmes do a decent job of providing a basic fundamental competence in the language ime, at least in Ottawa. (True fluency only comes from actually using a language on a regular basis.) Core French programmes, where you just take one French class every year, do not really do this and do not try to: they give an introduction.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Evening Star