Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
One of the great unresolved debates of modern Canadian history centers around what precisely it means to be an “officially bilingual country.” To one group, “minimalists,” let’s say, official bilingualism is simply about providing practical services in practical contexts. If you are a government employee who deals with the public in a part of Canada where there is a substantial French-speaking population, then it only makes sense for you to be bilingual, in order to best service the community. On the other hand you have a different group, the “maximalists,” who say no, context should not matter. Everyone in Canada who interacts with public should be functionally bilingual, and fully prepared to speak either fluent French or English at any time, any place — even in communities where the French population teeters on the non-existent.
Michel Thibodeau is clearly a member of the latter camp. In 2009, while flying on an Air Canada flight between the two English-speaking cities of Toronto and Atlanta, he ordered a Spite in French only to receive — wait for it — a 7-Up instead. The mix-up was obvious entrapment. A computer technician for the House of Commons, Monsieur Thibodeau speaks wonderful English, but still enjoys tweaking those who aren’t as effortlessly bilingual as him. He sued Air Canada for the mental anguish he experienced as a result of being served by a unilnigual Anglo stewardess, and was awarded $12,000 in damages this week by the Federal Court of Canada, who agreed that the poor man’s rights had indeed been violated. His payout was far cry from the half a mil he had originally requested, but still an ample improvement over the measly 5,000 bucks he received in 2000, when he sued Air Canada over the exact same thing.
For reasons I don’t entirely understand, Air Canada is required to be an officially bilingual company by federal law, despite the fact that it has been independent of government management since 1989. This means that the corporation should not, legally speaking, ever get caught in one of the “gotcha” moments Thibodeau instigated, though this has clearly been hard to implement in practice. Air Canada flies Canadians from all over the country all over the world, including many English-to-English routes of the sort Thibodeau was abused on. Since there are so few Canadians who speak French outside of the province of Quebec, a company like Air Canada only really has two possible ways to adhere to federal law when staffing its non-Quebec branches: a) it can either engage in a huge affirmative-action hiring bias towards the country’s French Canadian minority, at the expense of everyone equally (or more) qualified, or b) simply ignore the policy and hope no one notices.
The fact that someone has, in fact, noticed (for the second time), and been celebrated by the courts for his efforts, means that the maximalist doctrine of bilingualism is likely to gain more traction across Canada in the aftermath. This is very good news for someone like Thibodeau, who already inhabits Canada’s most politically privileged class, dominating, as they do, all senior levels of political, bureaucratic, and legal authority in this country. Bad news for everyone unfortunate enough to be born and raised in a community where French skills were simply not relevant or useful, however. National companies and federal agencies fearful of having to make Air Canada-style payouts (and endure the ensuing bad press) will doubtlessly ratchet up their bilingualism standards in the wake of the Thibodeau case, taking a cool pass on may prospective employees whose French previously seemed “good enough.”
As the pundit in this Sun TV clip notes, there is a world of difference between being a bilingual country and a country with merely two official languages. When Canada’s Official Languages Act was passed and implemented in the 1960s, many leading members of Canada’s political elite stated firmly that their policy was not really about bilingualism at all, since they acknowledged Canada was not, and probably never would be, a country where French and English are spoken in equal tandem across the land. Today, however, much of that thinking seems to have been quietly discarded, as more and more professional Canadians are encouraged to become bilingual in order to improve their career paths, and employers are encouraged to discriminate against those who don’t.
Canada, long one of the most self-confident and influential English-speaking countries on earth, is being very publicly humiliated and bullied into transforming itself into something it has never historically wanted nor needed to be. But if that means fewer mixed-up soda orders for crusading shakedown artists, I’m sure it will all be worth it.
July 16th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Looks like SOMEBODY got an endorsement deal!
This guy must be in first class, he's got a TON of room. Also, having HIM hold a lawsuit was a good, strong choice.
July 16th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I suspect Thibodeau wanted the money to go someplace nicer and more exotic than Atlanta. So why not find a unilingual flight attendant, file a lawsuit, and cry some crocodile tears? The 12K the courts awarded him and his wife will pay for a trip to Hawaii or the Caribbean, and then they can hassle American Airlines or whoever.
July 16th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
This guy lives in Ottawa, and he complains CONSTANTLY about the lack of bilingualism in everything. Even bus stops on the bus have to be called out in French because this dork had the nerve to complain. For the record, the magical box on the bus that calls out the stops has little to no difference between the English and French versions of the stops (other than announcing them in a Python-esque French accent).
July 16th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
It would be interesting to study how Louisiana was cajoled into giving up their Francophonian traditions, in comparison to Quebec. Alas, that white paper will have to wait for someone less lazy than me.
July 16th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Dear lord! Next time these guys want to leave your country, just let them!
July 16th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Not much of a comment on the comic, but I like the angry beaver in the essay!
July 16th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
As a New Brunswicker who is bilingual, and as someone who uses French on a daily basis (I work in Tourism) I think this guy is a dumbass. He is abusing the bilingualism I believe in, and which, to me at least, is an important part of provincial/national identity. People like him spoil it. On the other hand, how would Anglophones like it if they couldn't speak English to the flight attendant from Quebec City to Paris? Western Canadians especially have double standard; they suppose that all francophones should be bilingual, and imagine that it is somehow magically easy for them to learn English.
July 16th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Jon and CJM, this guy lives in Ontario with half a million other Francophones.
July 16th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Jon- The french were either pushed into bad areas or moved. Many of the first french settlers moved to the Northwest and Oklahoma. It's really weird, some towns in Washington will wait for the non locals to leave and begin speaking a french that is supposedly dead.
July 16th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
JJ, no one in Canada believes that "Everyone in Canada who interacts with the public" should be bilingual. Some might believe that all federal agencies should have a bilingual staff member around. Your assertion, however, makes it appear that "maximalists" want every gas station attendant in the Fraser valley to speak French and every Depanneur cashier in the Laurentides to speak English. It's one thing to spread that misconception to Canadians who know you're exaggerating (I hope), but an international audience might not know the difference.
July 16th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
As a Western Canadian bilingual English-French speaker in British Columbia (I went to immersion), I wholeheartedly agree. Guys like this whiny jackass make the whole system look bad by trying to get their ways on technicalities and raising Cain whenever they don't. Jerk.
There is a mountain of evidence that supports the notion that learning and speaking more than one language is excellent for a child's development and helps maintain rigorous mental health as an adult. On that merit alone, aside from the cultural heritage of our nation and the courtesy and community with the rest of the French speaking world, we should ALL be trying to learn how to speak French on the general principle that it's a good thing to do for our minds and cultural perspective and perspective (or heck, ANY other language, but French is nationally and internationally convenient).
I support the spread of bilingualism in Canada as I believe that it is not only an excellent educational and mental tool (I don't get to speak French that often, but it has been invaluable when I have, and it has been a major factor in shaping who I am and how I see things), but also in the sense that it is a national courtesy to the rest of those in our nation that speak it. I am also in support of expanding native languages and seeing more integration of First Nation's culture into our national identity and culture. But man, when I see guys like this being the obnoxious prats they are and tarnishing a valuable cultural commodity as this through their short-sighted and egotistical petty wants, I want to reach through the computer screen and belt them for being such spoilt children. Bilingualism deserves better than this asshole.
Also, JJ, I know you're rather put-out that you don't speak French and seem to have sour grapes about it, but I'm pretty sure that you're stretching it when you describe some sort of conspiracy to single out English speakers from business and government. Considering the nature of national enterprises like sprawling companies across the country and federal government, don't you think it's important for the people that rise to the top to have valuable national skills, like language?
Let's see if I can make a parable of the situation to get my point across:
What if there is a person who doesn't know how to use a computer, and he doesn't want to learn how. At his current job level, he does't need to know how to use one, since he rarely, if ever, needs to use one, so it's not a big deal. He then complains about not being able to climb the ladder in his company that tacitly (or maybe explicitly, go nuts) requires employees and executives to know how to use a computer in order to advance to positions that will probably require that he use one more often. Shouldn't that guy just suck it up and learn how to use one if he wants to arrive at where he wants to go? And shouldn't that guy learn how use computers on the basic principle that it would be a good thing to know anyways? Wouldn't learning how to use a computer improve other aspects of his life, like opening up possibilities in other companies, opening his mind to new experiences, and help him be a better person?
Ignorance, under pretty much any circumstance, is not a virtue. That goes for both the will-imposing bilingual jackholes like this guy, and the people who think they don't need to learn about the greater world outside their little sphere.
HFCS
July 16th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I wouldn't complain about an employee getting Sprite and 7-up mixed up even if both of us were speaking English. And a quick Wikipedia check (sorry) reveals that the two drinks are owned by different companies, so an airline would be unlikely to stock both.
The guy did have other complaints, though, right? He didn't seriously sue just over this?
July 16th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
There was one Dilbert comic strip years ago that said it best: "wouldn't it be more reasonable to punish the freak who complained?"
July 16th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
I wondered about this. If the attendent had spoken French and had still got the 7-up (the kind of mix-up which happens all the time), he would presumably have had no right to sue?
I wonder what happened to the poor attendent.
July 16th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
This kind of activity is going to result in some backlash against "Language Laws"
I'm not against the government offering bilingual government services, but french is effectively useless out west. You'd be better off knowing a Chinese or East Indian dialect. With the advent of computers, iphones, ipads, etc there is simply no reason why the documentation can't be automatically translated.
Air Canada, isn't "the government" so this event justifies Air Canada lobbying to not have to offer French for destinations not terminating or originating in Quebec. There are french speaking communities outside of Quebec, but none have language laws to my knowledge.
WestJet, on English to English destinations just has pre-recorded french for all the announcements. I have no idea if anyone could even be served in french.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As I said before, I suspect this incident has nothing to do with bilingualism. The fact that Thibodeau and his wife originally asked for half a million in compensation proves that they pursued litigation for their own monetary gain. How is being served in English when you already speak the language when you wanted it in French considered anguish? Looking a limb in a preventable accident, that's anguish. Losing a loved one to a drunk driver, that's anguish. Mr. Thibodeau was only inconvenienced and that constantly happens to me whenever I fly and I learned to live with it. He could have complained to Air Canada or the government but all he wanted was to stuff his own wallet through crocodile tears.
As for bilingualism, I agree that it's an important skill to learn but does learning French really open your world compared to other languages? In terms of learning about the world one learn more by making Spanish or Portuguese because those are the languages of Latin America, which are a far broader experience with 400 and 236 million speakers respectively compared to 70-110 million French.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
This reminds me of a disabled american attorney who travels around the country with the specific purpose of filing lawsuits against every busines he can find that doesnt follow the americans with disabilities act to the letter.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
"how would Anglophones like it if they couldn't speak English to the flight attendant from Quebec City to Paris?"
As an Anglophone, I would completely expect not to get service in English during such a flight. I'd have one of those French/English common phrase lists in my pocket.
July 16th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I wouldn't say that the Courts had "celebrated" the issue at all: Their job is to apply the law, and the law says that Air Canada has to be bilingual. They're doing their jobs, don't blame them.
July 16th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
You know, I have tried to formulate many responses to your comment. But I think the best is simply, thank you. Thank you for a resonable attitude towards language options in a service industry.
July 16th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I have worked in the service industry for all my life I can will say that there are some who, at least in Ottawa, seem to think that EVERYONE should be fully bilingual if they are interacting with the public. I remember one job I had where there was a Francaphone who would come in to shop who spoke passable to perfect English but insisted on speaking French to everyone, even to the Austrialian worker who had no experiance with French at all.
July 16th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I agree. This is absurd because the law is absurd. It's not the judges' fault.
July 16th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
That was my thoughts exactly. I don't know if Canada's different in this regard, but down here, you're only going to get one or the other. If the place serves Coke products, you'll get Sprite. If they serve Pepsi, you'll get Sierra Mist. Actually, most places don't even serve 7-Up any more. Generally only see it places where they serve RC's line of drinks.
This sort of grievance-mongering is bad in all aspects of life, not just the bilingual… um… movement? Seriously, 12 grand for the emotional stress of getting the wrong kind of lemon-lime soda? I'd ask what the hell is wrong with Canadian judges, but we get that nonsense down here too, sadly.
July 16th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
The courts awarded the punitive damages way in excess of anything even resembling reasonableness. Now, if they had awarded him $1.20 so he could buy his own bottle of 7-Up, I'd have no problems. Even fining the airline for technical breech is fine, but the awarding of 12 grand for the emotional distress is why people are complaining. And rightly so.
July 16th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Bilingualism is a valuable and admirable skill, no doubt, but I believe it's also a largely overrated one, when it comes to English-speakers. It sounds very crude and chauvinistic to say, but English-speakers simply speak a language that's so useful on its own it kind of eliminates any pressing need for a second. English is the default second language for so much of the world, and the fact is unlikely to change. It's the overwhelming language of business, diplomacy, computers, and entertainment. It's spoken by millions on every continent and transcends race, religion, and culture. Those of us who speak it as our first language lucked out big time, which may not be fair, but it's the reality.
French-English bilingualism in Canada only exists as a government initiative to make peace between French and English Canadians. It has nothing to do with personal or professional betterment. While it makes sense for English-Canadians who do active business with Quebec to speak French, I don't believe it is a good investment of time or energy for Canadians elsewhere in the country to learn it. French is a language in decline, internationally, and I think there are far better topics and languages our leaders of tomorrow should be encouraged to spend their time studying.
If Quebec wants to remain a French province, that's fine, but Quebeckers must understand that English will be necessary as well if they want their province (or nation) to remain a competitive player in a globalized world.
But obviously you can't admit this sort of thing in modern Canada; that Quebeckers should get better at English but English-Canadians don't really need to bother with French, even though I think the evidence suggests that's the most logical conclusion. To a large degree, bilingualism maximalists are simply trying to hide Quebec's embarrassment of being straddled to an increasingly less useful language by spreading that language across the country so it seems more relevant.
July 16th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
The federal government spends a great deal of money every year subsidizing French-Canadians in the non-Quebec provinces, and greatly exaggerates their relevance through all sorts of initiatives. In the BC community where my sister used to live, for example, there is a very tiny community of French-Canadians descendant from 19th Century railroad workers. The federal government helps that community put on a huge "cultural festival" every year to emphasize British Columbia's supposed "French heritage," and there are unnecessary bilingual banks, schools, and signs in the community that I'm sure all receive federal funds as well.
Another good example: if you read the federal government's official "Symbols of Canada" brochure, you'll see prominent coverage given the French-Canadian flags of all the provinces. There's a flag for Franco-Albertans, a flag for Franco-Yukoners, etc. These flags no one has ever seen or heard of are given a full two page spread in the guide.
The only reason the federal government wastes money on stuff like this is to promote the mythology that Canada is a "bi-cultural" nation, with French speakers found in every corner. And once you start pushing that mythology, it's very easy to begin pushing the idea that everyone should be bilingual, too, what with all these French people everywhere.
July 17th, 2011 at 12:37 am
You're right, JJ, that DOES sound rather crude and chauvinistic. "Why should I put in the effort to communicate and have a dialogue with other people when THEY can already put in the effort to communicate and have a dialogue with ME?" is what your general point would be if you boiled it down a bit more. Probably not as delicate as you'd've liked to have put it, but that's basically it, and it's just a bad attitude to take, man. Just because you won the cultural lottery of being an English speaker in an English-speaking land doesn't mean that you shouldn't be trying to broaden your horizons a bit — as a guy who took up more than two extra languages after learning French (German and Japanese, to be precise), the experience of being able to see a larger, richer world through an enlarged cultural and linguistic context is enormously rewarding, and I wouldn't trade the time I spent learning those frustrating languages for anything else.
I'm aware of the history and politics surrounding bilingualism, and I know that the points I brought up as being positives for learning another language were never the intention of the government. But does that make the points I brought up any less important? Can't it be a case where the government was trying to save itself a lot of trouble and unwittingly touched upon something far greater in benefit than they intended? I don't like to give government too much credit, but as far as I'm concerned, asking more of its citizens in terms of social service and respect to the rest of their national community is far from being a negative, though I'm sure that point is lost on an Alienated Westerner conservative (Nationalists representin', yo).
And that point about French being "a language in decline" is just silly. You (and Patrick Benjamin Mains) are implying that its a waste of time to learn a language that isn't spoken by the largest possible amount of people on Earth ("What? Learn a language that only has roughly a 100 million speakers? Pfft, like I'm gonna do that when there's so many more SPANISH speakers than that! Or Mandarin! I want maximum language learning efficiency!" Oh please, come off it) and that if a language is in decline, despite its millions and millions of speakers across many, many countries, it's all a fruitless investment and your time is better spent doing other things. Heck, there are a lot of languages in decline, but far be it from me to tell someone that it's silly to learn another language if it isn't on the rise or holding steady. Any attempt to learn more about your world is a good thing, I say. Don't be the joker that tells someone "Learning Japanese is for suckers, 'cause it's only spoken in Japan and the population of speakers is about to get a lot smaller". That's just… how to say this eloquently… stupid. Or failing that, it's ignorant.
I'm pretty sure that Quebec realizes that English is the new standard means of communication around the world, and that most of the rest of Canada speaks it. I'm pretty sure Quebecers aren't that stupid or self-centred (and if they are, then wow, we've got bigger problems on the horizon). It's pretty darn rare that I ever hear of a Quebecer that doesn't speak at least SOME English (although I'll readily admit that the pool of Quebecers I have to choose from is limited in BC, but I know at least 50 Quebecers in the area, and I'm sure I've got at least some kind of image of the folks back home), and I'm pretty sure that Quebecers are aware that there's probably going to be a lot less French in other places in Canada with predominantly English populations. Let's have SOME respect for the so-called "opposing side", here. You don't need to snidely imply that Quebecers, as a people on a collective and individual scale, are off on some delusional cloud voyage because of their politics. Heck, I would DIE if a BCer like me was judged by my provincial politics. *shudder*
July 17th, 2011 at 12:38 am
And as for bilingual maximalists, I'm pretty sure they're less common than you seem to imply. Your tone in the comment and article implies that they're ready to pop out from under a rock at a moment's notice anywhere you go in Canada, when really, this is one of the only cases I've ever heard of a person being this much of a jerkoff about the quality of their language service (and for clarity, he's not a Franco-Quebecer; he's a bilingual-Ontarioan. I don't know WHERE the Quebec part of any of these arguments came from, since there are French speakers across the country (though I'll readily acknowledge that bilingualism's push into the mainstream was from the sizeable population of French-speakers in Quebec)).
If I may be so bold, I think you should remember that this was just ONE GUY, and this is the first article such notable notoriety that has come about from a legal quibble and (god, I HOPE) legal oversight by the courts to hit the news in some time. Replace "maximalist" to describe Michel Thibodeau with "total effing griping a-hole", and then I'll be agreeing with you a lot more. He'd probably just as soon sue for being served a Pepsi instead of Coke as a French speaker under some kind of accusation of racism (you guys remember that Quebecers were once called "Pepsis" pejoratively, right? 'Cause Pepsi used to be cheaper than Coke, and it was a dig at Quebecers for being poorer than everyone else?).
Let's try to keep our perspectives in check here. Bilingualism isn't nearly as retarded as this most of the time (though sometimes, like when this happens… man…), and we should be careful not to assume a greater political meaning from an isolated incident like this. Let's not let individual responsibility escape from our focus here, and let's not indict an entire aspect of our culture based on one bad apple. Find me a hundred lawsuits a year about this kind of thing, and then I'll be on your side with my torch and pitchfork at the ready.
HFCS
July 17th, 2011 at 1:10 am
According to the official court ruling (link below), the damages awarded were to "have a combined effect: for the loss, importance of the right at issue and deterrence." (p.44) So they're adding that $1.20 to the importance of their right to receive service in French and the deterrent effect of punishing Air Canada for rights violations and came up with the sum of $12
More quotes from the judge: "the applicants’ language rights are clearly very important to them and the violation of their rights caused them a moral prejudice, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of their vacation."
"the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories reviewed the case law on damages awarded to compensate
breaches of constitutional rights and moral damages arising from breaches of constitutional rights. The Court noted that the amounts ranged between $3,000 and $10,000 and that in some instances the amounts were essentially symbolic.
In this case, having regard to the three objectives, namely compensation for the harm sustained, general recognition of the importance of the rights at issue and deterrence, I deem it appropriate and just to order that $6,000 be paid to each of the applicants, namely $1,500 for each breach." — This bit from p.45 seems to be an admission that the fines were essentially symbolic, not intended to be a material hardship to Air Canada or material benefit to the applying couple but something the applicants could point to and say "See? We won." Notice that he awarded 1/2 as much per breach of rights as the lower range discovered by the the Northwest Territories court. He seems to be saying, symbolically, that these breaches of language rights were roughly half as important as the least important cases before seen.
The official ruling: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-451-10...
July 17th, 2011 at 1:28 am
While I'm sure there are plenty of other great arguments out there, all I can say is that this guy is a f*cking tool.
July 17th, 2011 at 2:10 am
It would be a generous outreach for someone surrounded by English-speakers for a thousand miles to learn a second language, but it should not be a moral requirement or civic requirement.
And it is less inconvenient to be a monolingual Anglophone British Columbian than a monolingual Francophone Quebecer. 97% of British Colombians speak English, while 94.5% of Quebecers speak French. British Colombians are 60 times as likely to meet someone in their province who speaks neither official language than someone who is a monolingual Francophone. All this according to numbers from the 2006 Canadian Census: http://tinyurl.com/3ws6y3x Also consider the wide base of English-speakers and rarity of French-speakers in the jurisdictions surrounding both provinces. English is more widely known and, thus, more useful than French even as far away as Greenland, Louisiana, Mexico, and most of the Caribbean..
I'm less confident than JJ that the entire world is Anglophone-accessible, but there's certainly no pressing material or moral need for an individual living in English Canada or the United States to learn French. Also, JJ's reasonably well-traveled and lived a year abroad. I imagine he has enough personal experience on the cultural complications of being monolingual to draw from without needing to generalize based on one genuinely passionate but misguided Francophone taking advantage of an obsolete artifact of the law.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:19 am
Is there a source that details the proceedings of the case? How would I know if the airline attendant simply misheard what he said or didn't know exactly what he said?
Fast food restaurants frequently mess up orders, but it's not because either party was speaking a different language. Sometimes regional dialect plays a role in what people say. A "coke" could mean any type of brown soda in some regions.
Either way, this case went entirely too far to reward someone thousands of dollars for an incorrect order when the best way to solve the issue was restate what you ordered and ask that it be corrected.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Why do that when you could sue?
July 17th, 2011 at 7:24 am
He sued based on a series of stupid things, the & up part was the the most sensational for the media.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:31 am
I get some of that at my job in NB too. But I doubt those same people would demand French in Red Deer.
July 17th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Officially at least, Toronto is not "English-speaking". It is one of the municipalities designated as having a significant Franco-Ontarian population by the French Language Services Act. Not that this changes how silly this case is.
July 17th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
I think you're setting up quite the strawman here. One (admittedly pretty big) jerk tries tries to play the system for his benefit and suddenly the airlines are overrun with lawsuits throwing francophones? Not to mention this dastardly "maximalist" plot that you mention and that I have never heard of. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone argue that everyone everywhere who interacts with the public in Canada needs to speak perfect French and English.
That being said, French is one of the official languages of Canada. If you're going to have a job within the government that requires you to interact with the public, then yes, speaking French is a requirement. So is speaking English. Now if you think Canada should only have English as its official language, that's another issue; but as long as French is one of Canada's official languages, the government needs to be able to provide services in French. Then again, Air Canada is not part of the government (not anymore at least), so I agree that requiring them to provide services in French on all flights is silly.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
As far as a quick Google survey takes us, this discussion is the only mention of legal linguistic "maximalism" around. So remember folks, you heard it here first!
July 17th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Even worse than bi-culturalism is multiculturalism! Notice the "cult" in there? Those conniving Natives and Irish and Gays and Gimlian Icelanders bankrupt this nation with their federally and provincially funded propaganda! And they have flags!! . Only good Anglo-Canadian pageantry has a place on our shores, like the Monar…..oh wait…….
July 17th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
This is a private company so there should be no language regulation. It's complete discrimination against individuals who don't know French. So much for equality you socialists.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Hear effing Hear!
HFCS
July 17th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Take it up with the PM, he has a majority, he appoints the courts and the Senate. Why doesn't he do anything about it? Bilingualism is a skill like any other, which can very well be a job requirement. That's like saying it is discrimination to require computer skills of your employees. Yes some people are lucky and live in an area that is conducive to a skill. Some of us have tech savvy families, some of us have musical families, some of us learn more French in school than others. Secondly, it doesn't just require you to speak French, it requires you to speak English too. Comme ça, tout le monde qui a choisi de ne pas apprendre l'autre langue est inéligible pour cet emploi! And who's the socialist? Ce n'est certainement pas moi, j'en vous assure.
July 17th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
"If you're going to have a job within the government that requires you to interact with the public, then yes, speaking French is a requirement."
Do you really not see how totally absurd that is? Why should every single employee have to speak French in areas where it just isn't used in any significant amount? What's wrong with the government scaling its services based on actual need? Should Regina have a harbourmaster just in case there's a big flood and people want to go boating?
July 18th, 2011 at 1:34 am
Minimalism and maximalism are generic relative terms that can be applied to most anything, like superset and subset. The fact that others haven't applied them to this issue doesn't make them meaningless.
July 18th, 2011 at 1:40 am
Bilingualism can be a job requirement if an employer chooses to make it one. Air Canada has no legal choice in the matter — they're required by an obsolete artifact of the law to offer French service for no relevant reason. No other air carrier faces that requirement.
As for taking it up with the PM, yes, everyone should do just that. Write your MP, sign a petition, make a stink. Don't leave archaic laws to fester. Pluck them out in the name of common sense. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ca-air/
July 18th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Câlisse de tabernac!
July 18th, 2011 at 2:53 am
Agreed.
July 18th, 2011 at 5:02 am
If there is any discrimination, it is the unfair singling out of Air Canada.
July 18th, 2011 at 5:06 am
I just thought it was interesting, that's all.
July 18th, 2011 at 6:03 am
“This guy lives in Ottawa, and he complains CONSTANTLY about the lack of bilingualism in everything. Even bus stops on the bus have to be called out in French because this dork had the nerve to complain.”
God forbid that public transportation in the nation’s capital be understandable by all citizens of that nation…
July 18th, 2011 at 6:16 am
“With the advent of computers, iphones, ipads, etc there is simply no reason why the documentation can’t be automatically translated.”
Uh, machine translation really isn’t that good.
“In terms of learning about the world one learn more by making Spanish or Portuguese because those are the languages of Latin America, which are a far broader experience with 400 and 236 million speakers respectively compared to 70-110 million French.”
There’s a whole bunch more French speakers in Africa, it’s not just France and Quebec and a little country in South America.
I see the general attitude is that the 23+% of the country who are Francophone should just shut up and accept being second class citizens of the country. Gosh, can’t imagine why they sort of feel like seceding.
July 18th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Because we're not just talking about a boat renting business here. We're talking about the government, which is supposed to represent and offer services to the population of a country based on the distinct cultural identity of said country. And French is one of the official languages of Canada, so if the government can't offer services to the population in one of its own official language, I would say that's where the absurdity really lies.
July 18th, 2011 at 11:53 am
I'm french canadian and I think this guy is dumbass.
Forcing french on a Toronto-Atlanta flight makes as much sense a forcing english service in Quebec city.
I can understand the need to have mandatory biligualism for high ranking federal governement official (you don't want to be unable to communicate with 25% of the people you represent), but otherwise, language law should be at the provincial level.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
They're still not understandable by all citizens of Canada. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians speak neither English nor French.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Well, from bilingualism boosters I see a similarly arrogant attitude that Canada's vast, English-speaking unilingual majority should just shut up and leave all senior positions of government, commerce, and law to a tiny elite of their bilingual betters.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Or they could learn the second language, too. After all, nobody seems to think it's arrogant to expect francophones to learn English if they want to hold senior positions in the federal government. Unilingualism is not something you're born with, you know.
July 18th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Because 1) I'm American and 2) I'm not a jerk.
July 18th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
New law: you must have an degree in information technology to run for Congress. Or is that ridiculous?
July 18th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
No offense, but that's a pretty dumb comparison. First of all, I'm not aware of any laws requiring canadians MPs to be bilingual, nor am I hearing anyone asking for such laws. It's just going to be harder to convince people to vote for you if you can't speak to them, that's all.
On the other hand, if your job is going to require you to speak to the people of a nation that has French as one of its official language, then speaking French is a requirement. Just as having a degree in information technology (or anything else that proves you have the required skills) is a requirement if you're going to work in a related domain. Otherwise, you're just unqualified.
July 18th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Yes, except the nation was not founded by those people.
Canada, as an institution, is as French as it is English. French speakers died at Vimy, they died in Italy. They have bravely preserved their heritage and their culture in the face of incredible pressure. You can quote all the percentages and silly lawsuits in the world, it doesn't matter.
Canada without official bilingualism would have been dead in 1980. And rightfully so. All nations have to come to terms with their founding paradoxes, we are closer as ever, silly lawsuits aside, from dealing with ours.
July 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
I live in Ottawa. This is my issue with both French and English being called. Often it is the exact same thing being said but with two difference accents. The arguement is that it is beneficial for people who don't live in the area and therefor may not pick up on the fact their stop was called, as they were listening for what they thought would hear, which would be in their own accent, be it French or English. BUT streets with a French derived name are not said with what a English speaker would read the word as, instead it is said as it would be as though it were read in French. eg I live on Genest which is pronounced as it would be in French. A native English speaker though would probably first read it with a hard G and pronounce the T at the end yet the English calling for the street is pronounced the French way. Now one may say that this is the name of the street so it only makes sense that it is pronounced the French way however, if that is the case then there should be no French pronounciation of English named streets for the same reason.
July 18th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Two things. Firstly I would have no issue with a prime minister who spoke only French. Perhaps I am in the minority but I think that as long as you are the most qualified it should not matter if you speak one or both official languages. Secondly "Unilingualism is not something you're born with" is kind of a silly statement. Not because it is in no way what J.J. said but because it is much harder to learn a new language as an adult then a child(1). Therefor if someone who is born in a region where they were raised to only have command of either French or English saying that they have to know both fluently means that not only do they have to be qualified but they have to devote themselves to learning another language before they could even be considered a serious candidate for a party that still has win an election for them to ascend to the level of power that they learned the language for.
(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/0506...
July 18th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Okay. I have no issue with anyone having the opinion that everyone should be bilingual. I will disagree to the ends of the earth but I have no issue with someone having the stance, IF they at least have a logical train of though getting them there. As such I take huge issue with the statement "Yes, except the nation was not founded by those people." The nation of Canada was founded by the British Empire. An English institution. If what you meant was those who founded the colonies that would become Canada, well then do you think that Canada should have all governement services should be provided in every language the Aborigionals of Canada spoke?
July 18th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I think you have a very good point here: learning a second language as an adult is much harder than it is as a child. Because of this, I do sympathize with people who grow up without being taught a second language, and then find it to be a barrier to access to high governmental office. But it still IS possible to pick up a second language as an adult, even if it is difficult, so it's not like people who speak only English or French are being racially segregated or anything like that.
This probably sounds harsher than I intend it to be. I realize that in a sense, I am part of the lucky ones, who were taught two languages while young, and that I might tend to take that for granted. But as far as the issue of elected officials goes, like I said, the only qualification is really to get people to vote for you, and that's it. The Prime Minister doesn't have to be bilingual, but if he were to speak only French I can imagine that it would be very difficult to persuade English speaker to vote for him; and vice-versa for French speaker if he spoke only English. For what it's worth, I would be very unhappy if a unilingual Prime Minister was elected, but I don't think it should be illegal for such a thing to happen.
July 18th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Would you agree with this? Federal employees should be fully bilingual. Provincial employees should only have to know the official language of the province i.e. French for quebec, French and English for N.B. and only English for all the others? Ottawa being an exception as it is, if I am not mistaken both French and English even though it is in an English province.
July 18th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
That sounds about right, although "federal employees should be fully bilingual" is actually a little too stringent for my taste. What I think is important is that francophones can obtain federal services in French; I don't think it is necessary for ALL federal employees to be bilingual for that.
July 18th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Disagree but accept, yay! err edit, only disagree with the "unhappy if" aspect, the rest I agree with.
July 18th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
If your job has you speaking on behalf of the Canadian government in British Columbia, you're 60 times as likely to run into people who speak neither English nor French as to monolingual French people. Yet there is a law on the books saying Canadian government services must be available in both languages anywhere they are available at all, so every BC office of any arm of the Federal Government is artificially incentivized to hire French-speakers whose unique usefulness comes up perhaps about one out of 40 times. For BC locations, and probably locations across English Canada, that's not a practical requirement. Okay, that's not the same group as "politicians," but it's equally ridiculous either way.
And, yes, it's pretty absurd to require English-speakers in Quebec government offices, too.
Technology has become our a means of communication secondary only to the spoken word. I actually mentioned Congress (not parliament) because US Congressmen are notoriously bad at technology. Requiring any particular official to be able to communicate in specific, useful ways is a nice convenience, but it's pretty bizarre to require it in offices serving 97% English speaking districts.
July 18th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Feh. The problem here is claiming that not being served in French is a "violation of their civil rights" or a "moral prejudice"; especially the later, which is little more than a fuzzy blend of buzz words.
The broader problem is the jurisprudence this represents. Sure, this largely amounts to just a "moral victory" as opposed to a punitive one, but it paves the road for more insanity like this. I'm not trying to rocket down a slippery slope here, but the very nature of stare decisis means that one should always keep an eye on the future effects of current rulings. Had this sort of nonsense been slapped down before, this might have never happened.
Above all else, these shenanigans only dilute public concern for real civil rights breeches. It's like the communities down here passing laws about people with baggy pants. Really? Don't you have better things to do?
July 18th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
"Next stop, Carling and Croydon. Prochaine arret, Cahhrleeng et Chroyduhn."
July 18th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
I'm one of your "southern neighbours", and I understand from a friend who lives in Ottawa that French is taught in the 3rd grade in Canada. I think that makes much more sense than trying to teach a foreign language in grades 8-12 here in the States.
However, in my school, Latin was available in 7th grade but the other languages (Spanish, French & German) weren't offered until 8th grade. I did take Latin in 7th grade, but I joke that I failed miserably because it was all Greek to me! Latin did help me learn Spanish much easier, and it also helps me read most of the Romance languages as well.
July 18th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Easy – they made it illegal to speak or teach French in Lousiana. Not what I'd call cajoling, though ;)
July 18th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
You sound like you're from France when you type it like this (ie. wimpy) . "Câlisse de tabarnac" is how you go about it, and put some gusto in it ;)
July 18th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Personally I am quite good with languages IF they are taught in a way that works for me. IE this is how you conjugate this mood/tense, this is the vocabulary list you need to memorize, et al. I was terrible at French because until grade 9 they taught mostly by immersion which is not good for me at all. So I will always argue that, at least for the OSDSB, the school board I was in, French is taught in a way that is only good for certain students.
July 18th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
I'm pulling this completely out of my arse, but I imagine that justification for Air Canada being required to be bilingual (specifically, the Act that privatised the company included a section saying that it would continue to be subject to the Official Languages Act) was something like, "Francophones are currently entitled to receive service from Air Canada in French. If Air Canada is privatised, they may lose this entitlement. We would rather they not, and so we will require the newly-privatised Air Canada to continue to comply with the OLA."
July 18th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
> I have no issue with anyone having the opinion that everyone should be bilingual.
I do. It's bullshit (pardon my French… heh heh heh), and not enough people say it. It may be to your advantage to be bilingual (and French may not be your best choice for a second language, honestly), but not everyone should have to be.
> The nation of Canada was founded by the British Empire
That is of course the reason why no city in Canada has a French name… Everyone in those places just woke up after the fact speaking English and changed their city's name to reflect the new paper those in power signed for them ;)
> well then do you think that Canada should have all governement services should be provided in every language the Aborigionals of Canada spoke?
Do notice your use of the past tense here, and draw your conclusions. For all the bellyaching here and everywhere, the aboriginals really got the worst deal by an order of magnitude or two, and not only from the English.
July 18th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
> [...] french is effectively useless out west. You'd be better off knowing a Chinese or East Indian dialect.
Been to Vancouver twice – I agree. I should say that I was surprised at the number of people who spoke French to me, though.
> WestJet, on English to English destinations just has pre-recorded french for all the announcements. I have no idea if
> anyone could even be served in french.
In my limited experience, the vast majority of their employees were English but I could always get service in French. I never did because it was less of a bother for everyone concerned to just speak English and be done.
July 18th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Male French-canadian here, working in a big government agency in Ottawa.
> Bad news for everyone unfortunate enough to be born and raised in a community where French skills were simply not relevant or useful, however.
Yes, of course. Do you know how bad they have it in my little neck of the federal government? They get months (twice, I've seen up to a year) of full-time French classes and/or immersion training in order to be able to APPLY on bilingual management positions (during which the competition process grinds to a halt until they pass the test, give up or run out of time). Total of French speakers awarded the same courtesy? None. Why? Because, in my experience, French speakers who do not speak English do not work for the federal government in Ottawa. Honestly! I can't think of a single one in 11 years.
Understand me: these guys (the French immersion ones) are mostly good people taking advantage of what's available (and promoted) to them. I can't fault them for giving it a go – they're trying to get to upper management and and will use any tool available to get there. I don't think it works very well as far the language goes, but I can't really tell. Daily conversations and meetings inevitably switch to English as soon as a single English-speaking person joins, so I rarely get to see them try their French. I don't resent that either (meetings in English): it's just more polite of us to make it easy on them and more efficient to have everyone speak one language in one place. It just irks me to see waves of anglos bashing frenchies over this sour-ass trollface Thibodeau when they still end up with the big end of the stick and always will, if only because of the numbers. Can't they see he's a troll?
It reminds me of middle-aged white men (of both the languages I speak, I should add) poo-pooing women when they say they still have it harder, just because some women abuse rape or divorce laws. It doesn't make women less right. All laws are abused one way or the other: murder, rape, alcohol and drugs, discrimination, divorce, free speech, domestic violence, borders – you name it. If we can agree that some law mostly gets the job done, maybe we can agree to call it's abuse the background noise of society or the price of civilisation, try to keep it at a minimum and get on with our lives?
July 19th, 2011 at 4:42 am
When did I say everyone should be bilingual? The government and its institutions should be bilingual, not everyone.
Yes, the British Empire colonized Canada and took over the Quebec colonies. They also allowed Civil Law, language rights, and a French elite to hold power.
Aboriginal Canadians are, sadly, outside that institutional framework. They should have, at the time, been included when our institutions were formed.
July 19th, 2011 at 10:01 am
But the point, again, is that French is one of the official languages of Canada. So that someone who was born and raised in French, in a French community, can go to British Columbia, which is part of his own country, and receive services in his mother tongue from his federal government. And likewise, someone born in British Columbia can travel to Quebec and receive services from the federal government in his own mother tongue too. Because both of them are still in their country, where their language is recognized as an important part of Canadian history and culture. (Mind you, I'm not saying provincial or municipal services should available in both official languages, only federal).
If this kind of arrangement is simply too inconvenient, then why pretend Canada is a country at all? British Canada and French Canada should simply just go their own separate ways and be done with it. I, for one, think that this would be a damn shame, and to the detriment of everyone.
July 19th, 2011 at 10:24 am
In Canada if the place is a Coke place you get Sprite, if it's a Pepsi place you get 7-Up. I've never seen places serve Sierra Mist instead of 7-Up.
July 19th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Sprite and 7up are brand names right? You can't translate those as far as I know. What are you gonna do, say them with a French accent?
July 19th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
I bet JJ hasn't traveled much, or seen other people's computers in other languages?!
Guess what French also transcends race, religion, and culture. A short trip around Africa and the Middle East will likely prove how useful French is.
The decline of English is just around the corner! It has already been displaced by German in much of central and eastern Europe as the most popular second language. And as China and India rise why would they NOT want to push their own native languages around.
Cheers,
Cosmin
July 19th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with you HFCS! JJ in his comment above is essentially advocating a supremacist view that English is superior and soooo much better than anything else, and how inferior it is to English and useless, and in decline etc…
Perhaps it would have been advisable to the French in centuries past to kill & plunder more so than they (unfortunately did), in order to achieve the things that the English accomplished violently to get their culture and language where it is today.
To keep spewing this BS JJ shows great insensitivity to the cruel methods of the past that got English in such a dominant position. Ironically the Russian language enjoyed tremendous status and power 20-30 years ago during the height of the cold war, and it's speakers were practicing the same arrogance, ignorance, and supremacistic views that today's English language speakers practice. Look where the Russian language is now at!
English will sooner or later find its dominance challenged by Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic. Things never stay the same, even if the people at the top wish or dream otherwise. Sure English will probably not loose to another language world wide, but it will loose here and there to other languages.
Why would for example Koreans, Thais, Vietnamese, Burmese, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians, etc… waste their time with English in a few decades from now, when Chinese will be more useful to them by that time.
In many parts of Europe, people already see a bigger advantage from learning German instead of English. With Germany at the geographical center of the EU, and being Europe's most powerful economy, it prompts more and more Europeans to learn German rather than English (Britain is quite insular from the rest of the continent and North America is quite far away in terms of day-to-day trade and business).
Cheers,
Cosmin
July 19th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Air Canada under the law has a "special" status as a corporation. They have certain obligations and benefits that other companies do not.
Responsibilities:
- Bilingual Service
- Provide flights Canada wide between all provincial capitals & regions (even if the routes are very unprofitable)
.. and many more…
Benefits:
- National "carrier" designation
- Government keeps foreign airline companies at bay as much as possible. For example foreign companies are not allowed to fly domestic flights between 2 Canadian cities.
.. and many more…
There's probably a document/contract out there online that lists all these special respnsibilities and benefits that apply to Air Canada and not to other companies. Remember Air Canada is the country's official national airline.
So yes it is a private company, but NOT a company like any other. They give something and get something else in return.
Cheers,
Cosmin
July 19th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
The United States has no official language, yet you can get any government service in French. The difference is you have to wait for translation to be arranged — they just don't keep French-speakers on staff at every location at every moment. Is that so unreasonable an example for BC?
July 19th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
They're both actual words, too. A sprite is nature spirit something like a pixie or a fairy, and 7 and up are obvious. They could be translated, though I don't know if they ever are.
July 19th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
You know if those unilingual English-speakers would spend only a third of the time that they normally spend on complaining about bilingualism, they would have learned French a long time ago, and probably another language on top of that.
Just saying… who are the real whiners now!!!???
July 19th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Vraiment bien dit! Felicitations!
July 19th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Sorry I was not intending to imply that you had said that, although clearly I did. I was simply trying to state that I am fine with extreme positions. I can however, see and understand your point I think I simply place less importance on the formation of the institution.
July 19th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
I was not saying I agree with that opinion but rather that I have no issue with someone having that opinion.
The nation was founded by the British Empire. This is a fact. The colonies that nation origional were were not all founded by the British.
I agree that the Aborigionals got a raw deal from all sides. The point of that statement was to provoke the question of how far we extend language rites based on the founding of a culture that eventually became part of Canada. It was simply to posit a question, not an answer.
July 19th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Out of curiosity do you know if they offer the equivalent for uni-lingual French speakers? If not that is terrible. As well I, unfortunately, could imagine there being discrimination against uni-lingual French speakers who applied but I would also be curious, not asking you to supply any figures just saying, as to the number of uni-lingual French speakers who apply for your type of jobs.
July 19th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Actually they don't even say "next stop" and "prochaine arret" it is just the street names.
July 19th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Interesting! The Air Canada Public Participation Act, the actual law that altered Air Canada from a government institution to a private but official national airline, is here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-10.1/ The official languages obligation is section 10 paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 3. I haven't read all of it, but I'm betting all of the responsibilities and benefits are in there somewhere.
Does that government restriction on foreign airline companies benefit Air Canada any more than it does any other domestic airline? I'm still not sure there's an upside to Air Canada's unique arrangement, at least not for Air Canada.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Has anybody ever considered jamming this on Quebec in reverse? i.e. Having some English-speakers go in and raise a stink when they're not served in English somewhere appropriate?
July 20th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
My guess is that he did something funny with the translation that made it hard to understand…but more likely than not is that he asked for one and the steward(ess) tried to mollify him with the similar-tasting different-brand beverage (i.e. Sometimes I order a Coke and I get served a Pepsi…which is close enough in many cases, but can cause a stink if someone picks up on it). He then latched onto the language thing.
July 20th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
I read these stories and thank God I am an American.
July 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
July 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
burberry outlet
July 21st, 2011 at 12:07 am
louis vuitton outlet
July 21st, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Wow. Way to completely miss all semblance of a point, bro. JJ did not say that English was "morally better", or anything like you're trying to claim he did. He said it was more useful as a language of trade and business, and the simple fact is, it is. Right now, it is. If Chinese takes over, then it will make more sense for people to learn Chinese as a second language.
What JJ is clearly saying, and it's true, for crying out loud, is that you have people being punished for not learning a language that is irrelevant to their daily lives. That's not right.
My advice, for you and HCFS: 1) Locate your rear. 2) Remove stick.
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 am
burberry outletSlightly new bag! Styles, colorful, wild variety of styles of clothes, what style there, price, quality assurance, service, timely delivery, Come stroll to lead you walk in the forefront of fashion, the perfect interpretation of the low-key the modern fashion. Do not miss this opportunity to Oh! burberry scarfBag of quality assurance, factory outlets, I hope you will have peace of mind shopping, happy feeling.
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:20 am
Purple LADY DIORlouis vuitton outlet handbags, mature charm. When everyone loves Huaqun summer, with bright big bag, very eye-catching. Small size of the cheap louis vuitton bag is quite favored this year, so even if you are the most fiery IT BAG, also out of the appropriate size of the style.
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:22 am
gucci outlet can not adapt to changing trends, become common knowledge on the bad. The advantage of packet with a convenient, simple, but inconvenient for a lot of places, for example, can put a cell phone, gucci shoes even wallets can not accommodate, you want to scan cargo shopping, only credit card spending.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Oh dear, someone didn't check their facts. "official bilingualism is simply about providing practical services in practical contexts." Would that, perhaps, include federal services? While Air Canada is no longer a crown corporation, it retains linguistic obligations to the same degree as any federal institution. Namely, it must provide billingual services when serving areas with a significant francophone population. In this case, "significant" means "5% or more". Air Canada isn't being sued just because it's a public service. If Mr. Thibodeau had ridden West Jet, he would have had no case, as West Jet was never a federal institution and thus has no leftover linguistic obligations.
I can tell you from experience that Air Canada often satisfies their linguistic obligations, but not always. Mr. Thibodeau here is very much acting like one of your "minimalists" who wants the letter of the law followed.
Now, we could debate for a long time over whether or not a privatized company should have retained linguistic requirements as a federal institution (I don't see the rationale myself), or whether 5% is enough to warrant providing services (what would be better? 10%? 25%?)
In the end though, you don't show a very good understanding of the issues. It's important to know and present the facts, even if one doesen't agree with how things are, rather than misrepresent this event as being about public services in french in general.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:27 am
The requirement by law, for federal services (only), is that the services need to be available where 5% of the population speaks french. That does not include BC. For instance, if you take a look at Post Canada offices required to offer billingual services, there's a single one west of Ontario : Cadillac, Saskatchewan. Mostly, billingual offices are located where there is a significant amount of francophones – pockets in new brunswick and nova scotia, or in anglified regions of Québec.
Federal employees have the right to work in either language if they work in a designated "billingual" area. There are a very few of these – some anglified areas of québec, northern and eastern ontario, the ottawa region as well as New Brunswick.
Everywhere else, a federal employee must work in the prevailing language (english in most of Canada, french in most of Québec).
Is that not fair, at least in principle?
July 26th, 2011 at 9:35 am
If you read about the actual case, there was three flights where there was failure to have services in french even though the numbers required it by law. He wrote 9 complaints to the comissar of official languages before taking Air Canada to court. The sprite/7up thing is what the media latched onto, of course, because news sell more when they provoke. What is more provoking than a lawsuit over a trivialty?
July 26th, 2011 at 9:51 am
There was a number of other things too, the media just emphasizes the sprite/7up thing. Sells more.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:57 am
That's still way more stringent than the law actually calls for.
In reality, *federal* employees are expected to be billingual in New-brunswick, some english areas of Québec, and northern ontario. They are expected to work in english in the rest of canada, and in french in Québec.
Services need to be offered in both languages in more than just these places, but that does not require *all* the employees to be billingual – just to have enough that getting the guy who speaks french to the front desk isn't a royal pain for everyone involved.
Provincial employees need to speak whatever their province decides. That's english almost everywhere, french in Québec, and both in N-B.
July 29th, 2011 at 1:52 am
Well, im from Montreal (Quebec), native french-canadian but I am disagree with this guy, because passagers are anglophones on this line. So, if you are in Quebec, you need to speak english and french, if you wish get a good job. This is important for french an english native speakers.
But in fact, you can explain your disagree with my position but a bilingual worker have an advantage on other monolingual worker, and this is true every place across this country. Its NOT discrimination, its the competition on the market.
August 10th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Congratulations for finding the official ruling, condolences for missing the point. These two didn't suffer any material angst at all. It was a contrivance to seek material compensation. Intent and context are critical considerations. Physically contacting someone and moving them around: in an alley it's assault, in a disco it's called dancing.
The judge should dismiss the case as petty and unworthy of the court's attention.
November 19th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Except that it is actually the law for Air Canada to give billingual services when at least 5% of the people living in the origin or destination speak french – which was the case here. He won for a reason, you know.
March 12th, 2012 at 9:10 am
………the judge WAS a fag because he followed the law to the letter making it to ridged and making it less likely to evolve with a changing society…………if it were an Australian judge Thibodeau would have been told, in a polite way, to fuck off like the wanker he is because WE use a precedent system which is more flexible then the Canadians use