From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:58:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <SBO.92Apr13170958@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.161700.4894@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>   In article <SBO.92Apr4114716@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>   >In article <1992Apr3.000638.16902@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
>   >
>
>   >Frank (or Robin), what is your definition of "Where numbers warrant"? I did
>   >ask you that I while back and you did not answer.
>
>   The line would be drawn somewhat arbitrarily. It would at least be drawn
>   at 50% or more, and somewhat less, depending on who rules.
>
>How would you apply the 50%? At the country, province, town etc. level?

 OK, let's go back to basics.
Because Canada has such large numbers of french and english speakers, it makes
sense therefore to have two official languages federally. It also makes sense
to have some facilities available across the country where there are large
communities of francos/anglos (or anyone else for that matter.)
Because of this, provinces have facilities available, as do some municipalities,
in two or more languages.
SO first of all, it would be federal government services (right across the
country.) The other jurisdictions would kick in where large numbers of
the "other" language was present. In ONtario, I forget the number, but it
is something like 15% (??) francophone to get provincial services.
I agree that if french and english were not important federally, 15% might
not be logical at other government levels.

>
>   >   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".
>
>   Yes, it would.
>   But in some areas of the country, 
>   German exists in higher numbers than french.
>
>So the Fed should translate the laws for 1% (or whatever) of Canadian that
>are German?   


No. But in areas of the country where German is very strong, it would make
sense to have municiple services in that language. (We have this in areas
of high Inuit populations and etc.) This is nothing new.

>
>   >Should the fed translate the laws in Chinese?


Not the feds, at least not at this point in history. Possibly the
Vancouver city officials should consider it. In Toronto, there are
neighbourhoods with CHinese language street signs. In Ottawa's little Italy,
there are Italian signs on streets.

>   >So, as I said before. It all comes down to how you define "where numbers
>   >warrant".
>
>   This is why I argued that it should be bilingual or NO OFFICIAL language
>   as policy. That means that ENGLISH would not be available where numbers
>   do not warrant.
>
>Like in Rosemere :-). (assuming the 50% you gave above)
                                                

Actually, it is interesting that you bring this up.
In ONtario, the 30% population of anglos in Rosemere would qualify it
for bilingual provincial and municipal services. 

However  IF A MAJORITY DECIDED TO HAVE 15 LANGUAGES TRANSLATED FOR
THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES THEN 15 LANGUAGES SHOULD BE TRANSLATED, BECAUSE
THAT IS DEMOCRACY for Rosemere..

I think the people of Rosemere have shown us their heart, and thus the 
chauvinists are burning with rage and frustration. 
This was the best thing that
could happen to Quebec since Papineau. 

I'm sending a letter to the mayor, and I suggest that others do so too.



Frank.