Comments on: Bilingualism in Canada – The Great Language Debate

By: AL. C. JOHNSON

AL. C. JOHNSON — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:05:24 +0000

If we are going to learn a second language, let it be one that has universal acceptance! French does not meet this criterion. It has been in steady decline as a language of use since the end of WW11. While it is spoken in many places throughout the world, it is an “Official language” in very few – e.g. Quebec, France, part of Belgium, in one Canton in Switzerland, Haiti and quite a number of small African Countries that are identified as Officially French speaking, but the general population speak their native language and none would be considered a tourist destination. French has been foisted on Canadians for political reasons – to appease Quebec, but, after forty years of French immersion, government stats show less than a one percent increase in functionally bilingual Canadians. Even more problematic, is the fact that Quebec is “Officially French speaking”, not bilingual French /English and their recorded stated objective is a French speaking – not a bilingual speaking Canada! How can this translate into a “Bilingual” Canada? Canadians are being deceived big time. On this issue, there is no honesty. There is no accountability!
.

By: Shelley D

Shelley D — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:44:06 +0000

Interesting and necessary commentary! I am happy to see young Canadians thinking about their Governments’ (at all levels) policies and programs. The French/English debate in Canada has held the spotlight in this country for well over 2 decades. I believe that linguistic duality is important however I also believe many people do not understand that it can also be divided into an urban vs rural issue. Studies have shown that in the majority of Canadian cities – english is the first language used, often due to the presence of big business. Conversely, rural areas typically house minority language households. For example, in New Brunswick and Quebec, french as a first language is more often found in rural areas than in urban regions. Governments need to stop looking at language through a single lens and consider it from a broader perspective…. thoughs from an individual currently on French Language training.

By: Maeve Gallagher

Maeve Gallagher — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:25:46 +0000

The debate continues! You are right to a certain extent Travis, and I wouldn’t dream about “knocking down” their ruling. I agree with it, because ultimately I believe parents should have the decision to send their children to whichever school they please. For example, I am from Toronto (where you most certainly need English to survive, like Vancouver – don’t shoot me for comparing the two) but my parents made the decision to put me into French Immersion from kindergarten to the end of high school. I am thus certifiably bilingual where many people I know who were “required” to take french to grade 9 cannot speak a word of it or of any other language for that matter. I also took Mandarin in University, which was my own choice and of course was a higher level of teaching caliber than the small potential provincial funding would go towards. Realistically, you aren’t going to see much provincial funding go to any other languages in PUBLIC schooling, beyond the random Spanish or Mandarin night class.

I think though you are dismissing the importance of French a little too quickly. It isn’t only our “stoggy government” that sees multi-languages as a benefit. In fact many jobs with the UN, the World Bank, within the service industry and even many of those ugly faced corporations (if that is who you are most concerned with) find having both English and French a huge advantage over someone who doesn’t.

As you say too, much of our Canadian cultural mix does come and preserve their own cultures. So imagine then the benefit of a child who speaks a third language at home and learn both English and French at school? I’d say they are in the best position.

Let’s try not to perpetuate this mentality of “them vs. us” – afterall, we are one country and regionalism is often what causes some of our biggest problems.

By: Travis Martin

Travis Martin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:08:19 +0000

Well you can’t knock down a SCC ruling. Done is done. Education is administered provincially and since there are no offical federal educational polices that are constitutionally allowed in Canada you then face this age old question: why should some provinces bother to learn French? BC, for example – it would be more sensible to learn Mandarin, Viet, Hindi,or Japanese – I mean they are the ones, other than English speaking Canadians, who are investing all their money and creating jobs. Where is the big French demand in Vancouver other than the government? Really, do you think that in a Province with 4 million+ that we should all learn french just fo the 2% native speakers that live there (and by the way to survive there must know English)? Cost benefit analysis don’t work. Other than dealing with our stoggy government there is no reason for anyone not living in Quebec to learn French – should our edcuation system really be training students in preperation for government service – really? Good luck getting the averge voter behind that. Oh and my arguement, if English and French are reversed, is the same one used in Quebec. My should anyone bother to learn English if it only preparedthem for government work? I say that if our forefathers had a little more foresight we wouldn’t have been so careless as to waste such a tremendous amount of time a resources dealing with two national languages. People should be preserving their own culture. The Chinese come here and do it, the Koreans do, the Hindus, Sikhs, and Arabs do- and they are free to and they should.Diversity should come from the people, not the government! I like French as a culture and a language but I just don’t think that the French should have been given a governmental pass so that the tax payer can pick up the tab on for them. If they don’t like it the constitution grants you both the right to enter this country and the right to leave it – and with the birth rate in France being so low, save for undesirabe immigration, they may be looking for a wave of immigration in the near future just to save their own culture. Oh well, stupid constitution, I guess that I am going to have to live with it.