Quebec Language Police Harassing Popular Italian Restaurant

[Machjo]

Canada as a Bilingual Country

At the outset, let me be entirely clear that I support our Canadian identity as a bilingual country. I support the provision of federal public services in both English and French, as our official languages, in all parts of the country. I support the Official Languages Act, and the equal status that English and French hold in our judicial system, and the way that we give incentives to unilingual federal public service workers to learn the second official language.

I support bilingualism as a bit of an institutional conservative, I suppose. I recognise the unique role that French Canada played in the development of the modern Canada. I also acknowledge that there was an implicit agreement in the coming-about of Confederation, wherein it was understood that the French language would be protected by way of our systems of government.

For this reason, I suppose measures in Québec that are designed to promote the use of French. These measures would be established, presumably, to promote and preserve the use of the French language in the province, and in respect and promotion of the province's distinctive culture. This being said, there is a major difference between measures to promote one official language over the other, while still respecting both languages, and the current reality — which is measures that discriminate against, and unreasonably restrict and prohibit, the use of English as an official language.

Restrictions on the Use of English

It is my view that measures in Québec to restrict the use of English ought to be considered unconstitutional or, in the alternative, certainly contrary to the spirit of the constitution (not to mention the federal framework established for official languages, which provinces ought to use as a model). The idea that any province would contemplate laws to restrict one of Canada's two official languages that might require the notwithstanding clause in order to be enforced, should be of grave concern to people throughout the country.

If the province is going to offer incentives to promote the use of French (whether these are economic incentives, etc.), then that is okay with me. The right to use English in the transaction of business, however, should not be attacked or restricted. Business should have the freedom and the discretion to operate in both languages, and to choose whether or not to thereby receive any incentives or whatever other benefits might be offered by Québec to operate in French exclusively or predominantly.

You actually support the ideas presented in the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism? I'd actually read it, and it's filled with quasi-logic about Canadians of French and British descent belonging to the "two founding races", and then explain the category of "other ethnic groups", and then go on to explain that the indigenous peoples don't even belong to the "other ethnic groups". This is the whole racist logic on which official bilingualism is based. Remember after all that the Official Languages Act was enacted in the 1960s during the 60's scoop, essentially the hight of the residential school system just when it was starting to wind down.

All of this quasi-logic you'll find in Book one. And that's just getting started. Then Book 2 has some nice comment about integrating the indigenous peoples.

So if you support official bilingualism, do you support it based on the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism or something else?
Just curious.

 

[FiveParadox]

So if you support official bilingualism, do you support it based on the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism or something else?

Just curious.

Also a pleasure.

"This view makes you racist. Can you confirm that you're racist? Just curious."

:roll:

My views on bilingualism are for the reasons that I stated in my post, and I mentioned nothing on biculturalism, or do I see that biculturalism is the basis of discussion in this thread, so I will leave that discussion for another time. In terms of bilingualism, I support the two official languages as set out in the Official Languages Act as it was a condition, I feel, of Confederation.

As for your sideways and subtle assertion that my support for the official languages is simultaneously a slight against Canada's Aboriginal peoples, you can go ahead and screw off with that passive aggressive stuff. I support continued steps to ensure that Aboriginal languages are not lost, and this includes, by way of example, some Canadian senators' use of Inuktitut in The Honourable the Senate in order to promote the language at times when it has reached a dangerously critical level.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry 5P if I came across too strongly.

It's just a little insulting in my mind that we should be spending according to a study by Vaillancourt in 2012 about 2.4 billion dollars a year on language services while indigenous Canadians (who also have to pay ptaxes like the rest of us) get a pittance if that to preserve their languages.

But again, sorry if I came across too strongly.

 

[El Barto]

Sorry 5P if I came across too strongly.

It's just a little insulting in my mind that we should be spending according to a study by Vaillancourt in 2012 about 2.4 billion dollars a year on language services while indigenous Canadians (who also have to pay ptaxes like the rest of us) get a pittance if that to preserve their languages.

But again, sorry if I came across too strongly.

2.4 billion? Can you point me where you got that info??

 

[Machjo]

2.4 billion? Can you point me where you got that info??

Federal and provincial bilingualism requirements cost Canadian taxpayers $2.4 billion annually; provinces spend $900 million to provide dual-language services | Fraser Institute

To be fair, that's 2.4 billion between 2 languages. But still, divided by two that's an average subsidy to our two dominant languages of 1.2 billion yearly.

 

[El Barto]

Federal and provincial bilingualism requirements cost Canadian taxpayers $2.4 billion annually; provinces spend $900 million to provide dual-language services | Fraser Institute

To be fair, that's 2.4 billion between 2 languages. But still, divided by two that's an average subsidy to our two dominant languages of 1.2 billion yearly.

That is insane

thanks

 

[Machjo]

That is insane

thanks

Yup. And how much are we giving to indigenous language development per language?

Sure we have budget limitations, but if we can't afford to subsidize their languages, then why subsidize ours?

 

[El Barto]

Yup. And how much are we giving to indigenous language development per language?

Sure we have budget limitations, but if we can't afford to subsidize their languages, then why subsidize ours?

There is a huge over haul on how our moneys should be spent and unfortunately we can't seem to trust our government with it!

 

[Machjo]

There is a huge over haul on how our moneys should be spent and unfortunately we can't seem to trust our government with it!

But the government has good intentions. Isn't that enough? Now you're asking for competence to go along with that? That's a hefty order.

I'm a French-Canadian myself on my mother's side, and English-Canadian on my father's, but how can I straight-facedly complain about the money we spend on indigenous languages and cultures when they pay taxes like I do and we're subsidizing my languages to the tuen of 1.2 billion dollars each on average yearly? I think the Algonquin language gets something like 6,000 a year!

There is a huge over haul on how our moneys should be spent and unfortunately we can't seem to trust our government with it!

Another issue is that because much of this is entrenched i our wonderful constitution, it's not easy to undo it without opening the constitution.

 

[El Barto]

But the government has good intentions. Isn't that enough? Now you're asking for competence to go along with that? That's a hefty order.

I'm a French-Canadian myself on my mother's side, and English-Canadian on my father's, but how can I straight-facedly complain about the money we spend on indigenous languages and cultures when they pay taxes like I do and we're subsidizing my languages to the tuen of 1.2 billion dollars each on average yearly? I think the Algonquin language gets something like 6,000 a year!



Another issue is that because much of this is entrenched i our wonderful constitution, it's not easy to undo it without opening the constitution.

When it comes to Government intentions I am a cynic ... How can anyone in charge get it right when they live comfortable lives and probably very little worry?

But the government has good intentions. Isn't that enough? Now you're asking for competence to go along with that? That's a hefty order.

I'm a French-Canadian myself on my mother's side, and English-Canadian on my father's, but how can I straight-facedly complain about the money we spend on indigenous languages and cultures when they pay taxes like I do and we're subsidizing my languages to the tuen of 1.2 billion dollars each on average yearly? I think the Algonquin language gets something like 6,000 a year!



Another issue is that because much of this is entrenched i our wonderful constitution, it's not easy to undo it without opening the constitution.

And yet there was a thing called Responsible Government somewhere in history

 

[Machjo]

And yet there was a thing called Responsible Government somewhere in history

And when was that? certainly not in Canadian history. Our first Prime Minister, on the advice of our first Minister of Public Works, introduced the residential school system which finally shut its doors in 1996 and for which we'd finally apologized in 2008. This is not to mention Treaty violations, and even treaties entered into with the intention of breaking them afterwards, merely as a means of temporary appeasement.Talk about entering Confederation with a bang! Good Job John A. Macdonald and Hector Langevin for attempted cultural genocide, eh!

And then just as the residential schools were slowly starting to draw to a close, well, we had to do something to replace them, so up come the Official Languages Act and Bill 101. Good Job Trudeau and Duplessis.

And the fun never stops. How can you not feel for indigenous Canadians putting up with all this crap.

 

[gerryh]

And when was that? certainly not in Canadian history. Our first Prime Minister, on the advice of our first Minister of Public Works, introduced the residential school system which finally shut its doors in 1996 and for which we'd finally apologized in 2008. This is not to mention Treaty violations, and even treaties entered into with the intention of breaking them afterwards, merely as a means of temporary appeasement.Talk about entering Confederation with a bang! Good Job John A. Macdonald and Hector Langevin for attempted cultural genocide, eh!

And then just as the residential schools were slowly starting to draw to a close, well, we had to do something to replace them, so up come the Official Languages Act and Bill 101. Good Job Trudeau and Duplessis.

And the fun never stops. How can you not feel for indigenous Canadians putting up with all this crap.

Duplessis?...... and how does Trudeau's official languages act compare with the residential schools or be considered a replacement for the res schools?

 

[Machjo]

Duplessis?...... and how does Trudeau's official languages act compare with the residential schools or be considered a replacement for the res schools?

Duplessis passed Bill 63, the predecessor of today's Bill 101.

As for the Official Languages Act, no, it's not nearly as bad as the residential school system, but think of it this way. Let's suppose someone punches the hell out of some other guy, and then while he's still standing, another person comes over and gives him the final gentle push to make him finally fall.

In some ways, that's the Official Languages Act, simply solidifying the 'cultural gains' made by the residential school system. Of course the Indian Act is an even greater contributor to that too.

 

[gerryh]

Duplessis passed Bill 63, the predecessor of today's Bill 101.

Duplessis was long dead when bill 63 was passed.:roll:

As for the Official Languages Act, no, it's not nearly as bad as the residential school system, but think of it this way. Let's suppose someone punches the hell out of some other guy, and then while he's still standing, another person comes over and gives him the final gentle push to make him finally fall.

In some ways, that's the Official Languages Act, simply solidifying the 'cultural gains' made by the residential school system. Of course the Indian Act is an even greater contributor to that too.

Really, you're going to have to explain this as I can not for the life of me connect the 2.

 

[Machjo]

Duplessis was long dead when bill 63 was passed.:roll:

Sorry, wrong law. But he did pass a law favouring the French text (Speaking out: Quebec's debate over language laws - Canada - CBC News), and his party passed the law later.

Really, you're going to have to explain this as I can not for the life of me connect the 2.

It's indirect, but the effect is there. If the government and various industries, especially aeronautical and telecommunications, etc. discriminate in favour of French and English, then an indigenous Canadian who does not know both languages is at a clear disadvantage over the one who does for many jobs governed by these laws, even if he's just as qualified.

In some respects, Bill 101 is not as bad since in principle, the Algonquin for example who's competing for a Provincial government job in Quebec against an anglophone is on an equal footing with him except possibly in special cases where English is a definite asset. I'm not excusing the excesses of Bill 101 of course but just saying in relative terms one language is less intrusive than two.

In this way, there is significant pressure to divert their energies to learning our languages.

Add to that that the cost of official bilingualism also contributes to less funding available for education on reserve and funding for indigenous languages.

 

[gerryh]

It's indirect, but the effect is there. If the government and various industries, especially aeronautical and telecommunications, etc. discriminate in favour of French and English, then an indigenous Canadian who does not know both languages is at a clear disadvantage over the one who does for many jobs governed by these laws, even if he's just as qualified.

Same thing for any uni-lingual person, whether they be Native, Anglophone, Francophone, or otherwise.

In some respects, Bill 101 is not as bad since in principle, the Algonquin for example who's competing for a Provincial government job in Quebec against an anglophone is on an equal footing with him except possibly in special cases where English is a definite asset. I'm not excusing the excesses of Bill 101 of course but just saying in relative terms one language is less intrusive than two.

In this way, there is significant pressure to divert their energies to learning our languages.

Bilingualism is NOT required for all federal jobs.

Add to that that the cost of official bilingualism also contributes to less funding available for education on reserve and funding for indigenous languages.

Prove it.

 

[JamesBondo]

the canadian educational system doesn't effectively teach second languages. I took french from grade 8 thru 12, it taught me how to conjugate verbs, but I'm still an A student that doesn't know **** about speaking or reading french.

to say that I had the opportunity to become eligable for federal employment is laughable.

 

[Machjo]

Same thing for any uni-lingual person, whether they be Native, Anglophone, Francophone, or otherwise.

Well there ya go, that's even worse.

Bilingualism is NOT required for all federal jobs.

For many it is.

Prove it.

Federal and provincial bilingualism requirements cost Canadian taxpayers $2.4 billion annually; provinces spend $900 million to provide dual-language services | Fraser Institute

This is not proof per se, since even if we got rid of official bilingualism there's no guarantee that we'd increase funding for indigenous education, but as an opportunity cost, we can agree that the cost of one thing is the opportunity cost of everything else we could have spent the money on instead, and that includes indigenous education.

However, the job requirements part is a more direct impact.

 

[gerryh]

This is not proof per se, since even if we got rid of official bilingualism there's no guarantee that we'd increase funding for indigenous education, .

per se......:roll:

Well there ya go, that's even worse.

worse? It's a freaking job requirement. It isn't discrimination of any kind.:roll:

 

[CanIrish]

So let me see if I get this right… all over Canada people are forced to learn French as a second language to keep a minority of French Canadians happy, but in Quebec there is a ‘language’ police to ensure no other language but French in used?

Language police??? Seriously??

No doubt paid for by the Canadian tax payer.