From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:05:14 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr16.010458.4079@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
>sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>>In article <mumble> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
>>   No, actually I don't have to show that at all; you've missed the point.
>>   The government has no business mandating what languages may or must be
>>   printed on packaging.  Let consumers decide.
>
>>But it has business mandating to have metric system on our packagings?
>>Where do we draw the line?
>
>Hmmm, the metric bit is a tricky one.  If it can be shown that having
>metric on packaging is necessary for some sort of public health/safety
>reason, then it should be mandated; otherwise, no, I think the gov't
>has no business mandating metric on packagings.

What is the point of packaging legislation at all?  To ensure that the
consumer has a good idea what he's buying.  (Most businesses don't like
to tell the exact truth about their products - they like people to
think they're getting more than they really are.  I hope this doesn't
come as a complete surprise to you. :-) )

So we have laws mandating what can be put on packaging.  No false or
misleading claims, for example (note the tightening up of restrictions
on the words "Light" or "Lite" in the U.S.).  Lists of ingredients, and
nutrional values.  (Some "diet" items have as many calories as their
standard competitors - so check what it says on the side of the box,
not just the front.)  To allow buyers to meaningfully compare competing
products.  (Now, let's see - this costs 7.99 for 1 pound, and has 50
calories per 1 ounce serving.  That one costs 1.59 per 100 grams, and
has 250 calories per 200 ml serving, so...)

It was decided, at Confederation (and many times since), that Canada
would have 2 official languages, and that Canadians should be able to
live here in either of these languages.  This means a Quebecois should
not need to learn English for his day to day life.  Thus, we have
government services in both languages; we have bilingual packaging
requirements, so the francophone consumer can get the same product
information as his anglophone neighbour.  (How useful would you find
all that information on the cereal box, if the producer printed the
text in Arabic, with Roman numerals?  Sort of defeats the purpose of
putting all that data there, doesn't it?  Well, to a unilingual French
housewife, busy doing her week's shopping in a crowded grocery store,
English-only labels would have precisely this effect - and this was the
situation for many francophones prior to the packaging restrictions.)

Unless you totally reject the claims of francophones to feel welcome in
our own country, I don't see why you should object to mandated
bilingual labelling.

Now, why should French get special treatment, and not Chinese or
Swahili?  Two reasons - demographic (6 million francophones is a
significant block of people) and historical (recognition of French was
a condition to Confederation - francophones would not have willingly
joined Canada otherwise.  Immigrants since then have known they were
moving to a country where the dominant languages were English and
French, and chosen to move here anyway).  Nevertheless, I do agree that
other groups should also be accomodated as much as practical.  (I just
love to get these products from Europe, with product information in
5 or 6 or 7 languages!)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266