From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 4 Apr 92 16:47:16 GMT
	<1992Mar31.154049.10605@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Apr1.045904.10616@splunge.uucp>
	<1992Apr01.182012.14396@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
	<1992Apr3.000638.16902@splunge.uucp>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Apr3.000638.16902@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:

   robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
    (in response to my article <1992Apr1.045904.10616@splunge.uucp>)

   >I would argue that this represents a very reasonable approach.
   >I want to know why someone would object to this present situation.
   >I agree that other languages should also be available where numbers
   >warrant.

Frank (or Robin), what is your definition of "Where numbers warrant"? I did
ask you that I while back and you did not answer.

   Sure, I think that in the domain of official government services,
   providing service in minority languages where numbers warrant is
   a reasonable approach.  But why only French?

Well, it depends... Would you want to translate the laws in german? How
many german speaking Canadians? At the federal level, the laws are
translated in French for 25% of the population. What would be the % for
german speaking Canadians? I guess this all comes down to the meaning of
"where numbers warrant".

Translations of tax reports, at least at the federal level, are written
only once in French for the entire country (as we know it today :-)).

   I think the more onerous parts of the official bilingualism laws are in
   areas like commercial packaging ("French on labels in Alberta? Why??"...)

Note that the design and drawings of the packages represent a negligeable
cost. You then have to show me that it cost more to print a bilingual box
than an English only box.

So, please, elaborate your point.

   > Having french and english as the two official languages makes sense
   >ONLY because of the demographics of this country, and only because
   >one should be able to get by with the official languages when dealing with
   >federal services everywhere in one's own country. 

   Well, I argue that looking at national demographics (25% [or whatever it
   is] of the population speaking French) and then applying the same
   policy nationwide is the wrong approach.  It results in silly things,
   and denies official support for languages other than English & French
   in places where it might be warranted.  Given that Canadians appear to
   want a multilingual nation, I think the policy must no longer be a sort
   of national blanket-coverage, "one size fits all" policy, but rather a
   policy tailored to local conditions.  A straight English-French bilingual
   pattern happens to fit in eastern Canada (which, by sheer coincidence,
   is where federal policy is made), but not nearly so well in the West.

Should the fed translate the laws in Chinese?

So, as I said before. It all comes down to how you define "where numbers
warrant".

Bis Bald.
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950