At 11:58 AM 03/16/2003, Cameron MacLean wrote:
If we didn't have an official bilingualism policy, I
wouldn't have a near-bilingual 6-year old. People
from outside this country (and from Quebec, or is
that the same thing?) are amazed when I tell them
that my six year old can take 100% of his classes in
French. Wish I'd been able to do it when I was in
elementary school.
Kudos to the government for enhancing our language
options. Knowing more than one language can only be
a benefit in this global world.
..Cameron
---------- Original Message -------------------------
---------
From: Scott MacLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:34:25 -0500
>Poisonous fruits of bilingualism
>
>Barry Cooper
>National Post
>
>CALGARY - On Wednesday in Ottawa the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs,
>St�phane Dion, stood next to a beaming Prime
Minister and announced that
>some serious spending would make the country more
bilingual. A 35% increase
>in his dedicated bilingualism budget generated some
impressive numbers. To
>the $570-million currently being spent each year,
was added another
>$750-million in new and reallocated money. Over the
life of the program,
>that amounts to about $3.6-billion, roughly the
same as new spending for
>the military.
>
>The money goes to minority-language schools,
including kindergartens; to
>upgrading second-language classes; and to provide
bilingual services in
>hospitals and courts. Because every decision of the
federal government will
>require a language-impact statement, there is an
additional regulatory
>burden as well.
>
>According to Dion it's worth it. Certainly there is
no question of pushing
>French down the throats of English-speakers. "On
the contrary, it's
>Canadians who are pushing us in the back. They want
more opportunities to
>learn their country's two official languages." He
told CBC how his heart
>soared listening to cute little Chinese-Canadian
kids in Richmond, B.C.,
>chattering away in French.
>
>The Prime Minister saw greater significance in the
new spending. "The fact
>that we have two official languages," he
said, "that we have people coming
>from all over the world and have found a way to
live in peace in different
>languages, colours, and religion, and build a
country that is an example to
>the world, it is part of the Canadian personality
that we have to continue
>to build." Before being carried too far aloft on
the wings of prime
>ministerial rhetoric concerning our ability to live
peacefully in different
>colours, we should recall at least a few pertinent
facts.
>
>In comedy and politics, timing is everything. It
was no coincidence that
>the announcement came the same day Quebec Premier
Bernard Landry, coasting
>on a comfortable lead in the polls and with no
intention of making
>separatism an issue, called a provincial election.
Dion has long believed
>that every province should be officially bilingual,
following the splendid
>example set by New Brunswick. If they were, he has
said, "a lot of
>French-speaking Quebecers would encourage their own
government to be even
>more open to the language minority of Quebec than
is the case today." So
>the new bilingualism "action plan" is to encourage
Quebec.
>
>Consider the consequences of the last big push by
the federal government in
>the direction of bilingualism, which was also
supposed to encourage Quebec.
>In 1963, when Jean Chr�tien was still new to the
House of Commons and
>official bilingualism was but a wild glitter in the
eye of Pierre Trudeau,
>government "help" to language minorities was
somehow seen as a way to fight
>terrorists in the FLQ as well as the more benign
separatists and ordinary
>nationalists. A couple of years later the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism
>and Biculturalism announced that the existing
language policy was "the
>greatest crisis in Canadian history." Even more
shocking, Canadians had no
>idea how bad the crisis was. By the end of the
decade, Trudeau had passed
>the Official Languages Act; the
constitutionalization of language rights
>arrived in 1982, bundled into the new Constitution.
>
>Some astute analysts of the implications of the
recommendations of the
>Bi-Bi Commission started calling it the Bye-Bye
Commission. By drawing so
>much attention to Quebec and the language issue,
the federal government had
>legitimized a limitless sense of grievance. Ottawa
unawares had enhanced
>separatism. No matter how generous and
understanding English-speaking
>Canada might be, these analysts said, it never
could be enough. So:
>Bye-bye, Quebec. They were nearly right.
>
>Remember what happened: In 1974, Bill 22 made
French the sole official
>language in Quebec. It was followed by Bill 101; by
acrimonious litigation;
>by the first use of Section 33,
the "notwithstanding clause" of the
>Constitution; and by growing anglophone impatience.
Terrorists firebombed a
>coffee shop in Montreal in the name of linguistic
purity. Following the
>Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Jacques Villeneuve
ran afoul of the law by
>naming his nightclub after his own
nickname, "Newtown." The United Nations
>Human Rights Commission then got involved,
objecting to the language police
>measuring the size of English and French letters on
commercial signs. They
>thought Quebec had violated freedom of expression,
which the UN was sworn
>to uphold. Such were the first poisonous fruits of
government action on the
>bilingualism front.
>
>At a time when productive, bilingual Quebecers are
leaving that province in
>response to genuine markets for their talents
elsewhere, when Canadians are
>centilingual, not bilingual, this "action plan"
looks like the worst sort
>of retro-liberalism and special pleading by the
federal government for more
>government interference. The last thing the country
needs is to revive the
>government-generated mischief that Canadians were
glad to be rid of a
>decade ago.
>
>
>Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at
the University of Calgary.
>
>
_______________________
Scott MacLean
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 9184011
http://www.nerosoft.com
