From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:17:00 GMT

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:
>
>   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.


The line would be drawn somewhat arbitrarily. It would at least be drawn
at 50% or more, and somewhat less, depending on who rules.



>
>   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.


>
>   > 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) 

(what about where english is only 25%?)

>   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".


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.
There is an underlying assumption for many opponents of bilingualism, that
we should keep ENGLISH ONLY. This I absolutely object to, considering the
present makeup of the country.
This is not to say that English may become the only common language.
Or it might become Chinese. Who cares?

Frank.