Talk:Official bilingualism in Canada

message: The artical Canadian English, is not mentioned in this artical or Language in Canada. Can it be useful?   17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canadian English]] 

message: Nice cleanups today -- thanks.  I wonder, though, if we should still put "Bill 101" in parentheses after "Charter of the French Language", since the latter name is not well known, at least not outside of Quebec. -- Dpm64 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I agree. But I'll make it "so-called Bill 101", because bills cease to be bills after they're passed, and bill numbers are reused in later legislatures. Indefatigable 02:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect -- thanks for making the change. Dpm64 14:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter of the French Language 

message: There is much to cover on the history of bilingualism in Canada. I was wondering if the original author wanted this article to deal with the federal policy of bilingualism in Canada since 1968 or with the much broader topic of the coexistence of a French-speaking and an English-speaking community inside Canada. The current title suggests the later.-- Mathieugp 06:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need statistics on bilingualism. The best picture of the current situation is to be found in the Atlas of Canada:
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/officiallanguages
=== English-French bilingualism ===
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/englishfrenchbilingualism
=== Knowledge of French ===
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/knowledgeoffrench
=== Knowledge of English ===
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/knowledgeofenglish
=== French mother tongue ===
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/mothertonguefrench
=== English mother tongue ===
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/mothertongueenglish
-- Mathieugp 19:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much to cover 

message: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/lang/officiallanguages/mothertongueenglish
-- Mathieugp 19:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English mother tongue 

message: When I look into this article, I'm at loss to know where to start to fix it. The first sentence is "Bilingualism in Canada refers to laws and policies of the federal government – and some other levels of government – mandating that certain services and communications be available to the public in both English and French." 
Then shouldn't the title be "Institutional bilingualism policy in Canada"?
If really this article is meant to cover this subject, then I suggest we change the title. If the subject we are trying to cover is "Bilingualism in Canada", then the whole history section needs to be expanded a great deal and we need to start discussion how we are going to cover all aspects. For example, we need to cover what the linguistic situation is in each province, the various studies that were conducted by public bodies, the goals of the policies of Ottawa and Quebec, how they try to do it and the effets they have had in practice. 
Then there are inaccuracies such as "These communities frequently use their own languages locally and amongst themselves, although they normally adopt the majority language of their province as a second or third language." That's not true right now in Quebec. Allophones adopt French and English 50/50 and before Quebec gave itself a language policy, it was much lower for French. 
What should we do? -- Mathieugp 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I suggest deletion of this article with possible transfer of some of its more salient contents. Here are my reasons:
# In this article, the notion of "Canadian Bilingualism" is in fact called "state/gov't/institutional bilingualism" or in French "bilinguisme étatique" in linguistic, government and scientific circles. The technical terms are semantically transparent and, therefore, should be used. Also, the notion of institutional/state/gov't bilingualism should not be confused with individual bilingualism and the ranges of balance between two different language proficiencies of an individual. The article drifts to individual bilingualism, which is an entirely different subject from the summary paragraph. I, personally, do not believe that these two very different forms of bilingualism should be compared in an article for they would be better linked to Language in Canada. So, "Canadian Bilingualism" should be deleted.
# The catch-phrase "Canada is a bilingual country" has spawned numerous myths, including the myth that anywhere and anytime both of the two official languages can and will be spoken by any Canadian. The presence of a myth should not justify the existence of an article based on the myth unless that article portends that the subject is indeed a myth. Citing this lore, I am for deleting the article.
# (To fathom my next statement, please try to view the CBC documentary "French Kiss") P.E.T's wetdream of every Canadian being Eng./Fr. bilingual was not only pretentious but also dated even at the time of its birth for one well-known reality: a huge percentage of Canadians, regardless of what generation, First-Nation or immigrant status, speak languages other than the official languages. Tens of thousands of people, respectively, are Innu-French bilingual, Chinese-English bilingual, or Spanish-French-English trilingual, or Armenian-Arabic-French-English multilingual. When you add them up, this makes _millions_ of today's Canadians. "Bilingual" is, thus, misleading when referring to Canadians. This is a third reason to do away with this article.
# Although I haven't checked the article entitled simply "Bilingualism", I'm wondering if there might be a paragraph on Canada as a case-study particularly to show the contrast between institutional bilingualism and individual bilingualism, not to mention language minority rights. If there is no such paragraph, maybe some of the information here would be of use in writing one. This is my fourth reason for deleting this article.
# In my book, this article seems to have a purpose other than just presenting facts. Although not explicitly political, I feel that it is trying to establish an identity or a supposed distinct feature of Canada instead of simpling summarizing a case study for either state or individual bilingualism. Bilingualism is not Canadian and Canada is not bilingualism. Holding on to either of these views leads people to imply an underlying identity issue. Also, there is no mention that Francophones as a whole are a minority within Canada, not to mention within North America. Is this a convenient oversight or just a lack of objectivity? Although not overtly violating the NPOV per se, this article does not resemble an encyclopedia article nor any other objective description of the Canadian case-study. Again, I suggest it be deleted.
# Neither Canadian nor Quebecer, I have no identity issues at stake in this debate. However, as a researcher in sociolinguists who specializes in French/English territory and contact issues, this article has plopped itself into armchair linguistics. I therefore urge it be deleted.
Is there anyone else who'd like to work on what can be gleaned?
CJ Withers 06:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would favour a renaming of the article, from Bilingualism in Canada to possibly Language policy of Canada. Otherwize, I really don't know where this article is going, and my second choice would be deletion, for reasons most similar to CJ Withers's. -- Mathieugp 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Echoing Mathieugp's ideas, my inclination is to salvage what we can and use it for Language Policy in Canada. I prefer "in Canada" because of provincial legislation be it fairly recent (Bill 101) or one hundred years ago (like in 1910 in the Prairies). -- CJ Withers 23:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge, Delete or Major Overhaul

message: This would be a more accurate description of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article: Official Bilingualism in Canada 

message: I don't know what happened to that conversation, but I think there are just too many directionless paragraphs floating around. Any relevant content should be merged into the Language in Canada page and should take the following outline:
*Linguistic policies
**Federal (and history)
**Provincial/territorial (and history)
*Linguistic demographics
**Canadian diversity
**Provincial/territorial diversity
I see one source of confusion for readers and contributors as provinces already broach linguistic issues on their own articles and we need to make sure to not be doubling up on the information.
--Tallard 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting the previously aborted discussion about deleting this article 

message: All students who started Ontario elementary school on Year 1975 and later (Estimated) must learn both English and French languages. All students who started Ontario secondary school on Year 1984 and later must be bilingual before they can enter secondary school and must take one Core French course in Grade 9 as graduation requirement for Ontario Secondary School Diploma. All students who started Ontario elementary school before Year 1975 or started Ontario secondary school before Year 1984 were exempt from bilingualism requirement for education system.
I am lucky to be exempted from bilingual requirement in education system because I started secondary school before Year 1984 and graduated with very old Secondary School Graduation Diploma on June 13, 1985. However, female clerk at Provincial Schools Authority made FATAL error and accidentally DESTROYED my student file and I lost Secondary School Graduation Diploma on April 4, 1996. I have attempted to recover my Secondary School Graduation Diploma but Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynne told me that I must be bilingual to enter Secondary School and I must work toward newer Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSS) that requires me to repeat entire 4 years secondary school study again PLUS new Ontario literacy test and 40 hour community involvement activities. As result, I was unable to enter Secondary School due to lack of bilingualism and received Certificate of Accomplishment rather than Secondary School Graduation Diploma, though I ALREADY completed Secondary School and graduated on June 13, 1985!!!!! However, fortunately, thanks to University of Ottawa and telepathist (in lieu of dissertation for autism disorders), I GOT Grand PhD degree in Computer Science by PhD Prior Learning and Recognition Assessment Examination. Therefore, I do not need SSGD or OSSD anymore and do not have to be bilingual! I graduated on the spot automatically! Since I have Grand PhD degree, I am automatically received "implicit" Secondary School Honour Graduation Diploma (Better than Secondary School Graduation Diploma), Bachelor's degree AND Master's degree!
My nephews are unlucky to have to be bilingual because they are attending elementary school right now!
Danielcg (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all very interesting, but this is a talk page for discussing specific, sourced edits to the article. It is not the venue for a genereal discussion on the topic, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Gabbe (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One very basic thing is still unclear to me. Is the "core French" compulsory subject in all provinces in all schools in Canada or is it just on offer for pupils? Swedish language is the second official language in Finland and it is compulsory subject in all schools in the whole Finland. The Swedish speaking people in Finland are claiming that also in Canada second official language, French, is a compulsory subject for all Canadians. Is the FSL compulsory subject or voluntary/optional subject in schools in Canada?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadetune (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Core French" courses are available in all provinces in all schools in Canada. However, "Core French" courses are compulsory in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick only. These courses are optional for all other provinces. In Ontario, french education is not compulsory until estimated Year 1979 which Grade 4 must start to learn french language. High school students were required to take Grade 9 "Core French" course in high school started in Year 1984. Danielcg (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilingualism requirement in Ontario Education 

message: I reverted an edit of 82.124.227.214, which had replaced the number 7.5% of Canadians outside of Canada can speak English with 10.8%, becase the former had a citation from statistics Canada and the later was not cited.  If there is a reference for the 10.8%, or alternatley, if the statistic of 7.5% is incorrect, please make the correction with a proper citation.  Adallaadalla (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Bilingualism in Canada - Stats 

message: This section has become very long (mostly, to be honest, because of edits that I myself have made). While I think that this is all useful information, much of it would be of limited interest to most people who are trying to get an overview of Canadian bilingualism policy, as opposed to an in-depth understanding of current and historical public opinion on official bilingualism.
For this reason, I’d like to create a new page, titled “Public opinion regarding language policy in Canada” containing this information. I’d link the new page back to “Official bilingualism in Canada”, and I’d leave enough information in this spot to allow the reader a general overview---along with a link to the new “main article.”
So what I’m wondering is this: Does anybody have concerns about me doing what I’ve suggested above? If so, just make a note here. If I haven't heard from anybody for a month or so, I'll go ahead and make the change.
Flint and Fire (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed fork for "Support and opposition"

message: I notice Note 55 is pointing to a reference that does not currently exist, an FAQ on the Canadian Parents for French website. The newer FAQ page on the site has no content. How does one deal with this?
--Connie L Crosby (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date notes

message: So They Want Us to Learn French: Promoting and Opposing Bilingualism in English-Speaking Canada by Matthew Hayday, 2015, University of British Columbia Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  for the "support and opposition section", this new book may be of interest 

message: All material on Wikipedia should be encyclopædic and follow the manual of style. Uamaol (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2016 

message: There's an interesting discussion of official language at the provincial level going on at the Talk:Saskatchewan page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Official Language

message: This chart implies that Canadian citizens have no right to use French in courts. "Right to use English and French in the courts" is "No: English only" for three provinces with the flimsy reasoning of "De facto" explaining why.
This seems to directly contradict the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that if you are unable to understand the proceedings, you have the right to an interpreter. Which means: nobody is going to compel you to speak English in a court if you are unable to. So, yes, you have the "right to use English and French in the courts" in every province, and this chart is just completely made up.
Of course, the court proceedings may not be in French in these provinces. But, that's significantly different from having the right to use English or French in a court. WilliamTravis (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the column heading to "Right to use English or French in the courts".  That's because there is no general Charter right to guarantee the right to use English or French in all courts in the country, as is explained in the article.  There is a constitutional right to use either language in the federal courts, and the courts of Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick.  There are statutory rights to use both languages in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the three territories, as well as a limited right to do so in Alberta.  There is no constitutional or statutory right to use either language in civil proceedings in Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia.  I would add that since you are asserting a Charter right to use either language in the courts across Canada, it would be helpful for you to explain which section of the Charter you are referring to, as that would aid the discussion.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Language rights in the legal system ("English-only courts"?)

message: I've just deleted an irrelevant section, about the experience of early German settlers in Canada, for two reasons.  First, the experience of a particular group of settlers is not relevant to the topic of this page, which is the governments' policies with respect to official bilingualism.  Second, the section in question just consisted of a lengthy quotation from a book, which is contrary to Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT.  On reviewing this article, it seems to me that there is an awful lot of material that is not relevant to the topic of official bilingualism, and is more about the experience of particular immigrant groups, language education, and so on.  I think I will spend some time going through the article over the next little while to see if it can be pared down somewhat.  --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted irrelevant section 

message: In the US influence section, there is a quote from the 1967 Royal Commission. In that quote it says that the US has English as official language, which is incorrect; the country doesn’t have an official language. Since it’s a quote, it should remain as is, but a comment about it could be welcome, what do you think? Sir John Falstaff (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US official language 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion