[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Forced educational choice would not work if the language so chosen were not actually useful in everyday life and business. Th e educational requirements of Bill 101 merely hasten a process that would have occurred anyway.

Err, no. We have a precedent for it: the situation before Bill 101, when immigrants overwhelmingly chose English language education.

As already pointed out by GF, we are talking about a social change of which the educational component of Bill 101 is a mere part; and we are talking of different points in time - when that social change occurred, and today.

The question is why immigrants today learn French. The fact is that they are immigrating into a province far different from that prior to Bill 101 and everything that came with it.

And we have numbers now, too -- which confirm that even with mandatory French schools, immigrants adopt English as their home language in numbers that are disproportionate to the proportion of English speakers in Quebec. Immigrants overwhelmingly settle in the Montreal region, where francophones are increasingly bilingual, and where monolingual anglophones continue to reside. The "business incentive" to learn French is an incentive to learn French as a mediocre second-language, while everything about North America screams that English is the language of mobility. To assert with such confidence that it is what "would have happened anyway" betrays an ignorance of the linguistic situation, and dynamics, in Quebec.

It's not my conclusion, but that of the article I cited. They allegedly expressly examined the immigrant situation in Montreal, and came to the opposite conclusion from yours.

Marcela Saldana Salas's home offers a peek into the language picture in Montreal. When Ms. Saldana, her husband, David Bishop Noriega, and two young children gather around the dinner table in the city's Villeray district, conversations flow between French and the couple's native Spanish.

School discussions with their older daughter? They're in French. Talk about the grandparents back in Mexico? Spanish. Beyond the dinner table, French is favoured for TV shows and dominates when it comes to daily interactions and work outside the home.

"French is what I use to function in Quebec society, because language opens the door to a culture," Ms. Saldana said. "Spanish is my family, my origins."

The linguistic two-step typifies the emerging language paradigm of Montreal. Native French speakers – those whose mother tongue is French – are a shrinking group in both Montreal and Quebec as a whole. On the island of Montreal, native French speakers represent less than half the population, and their proportion dipped to just under 79 per cent of the province as a whole.

[Emphasis]

But, I too, like the market when it validates my position of strength.

What "position of strength"?

[Oexmelin]

I am interested in our view that putting our kids in french immersion unintentionally contributed to assimilation.  Please expand on that point.

It's the current unfortunate side effect, only recently documented. As native English speakers outnumber francophones in French-language schools, Francophone kids switch to English with their little anglophone comrades whenever they are not in class - which also includes switching cultural references. It reinforces the status of French as a "school"/dead language rather than a viable language for everyday life.

Please note, this is valid for places where French immersion takes places in French-language schools, not English-language schools offering a French immersion program.

[Oexmelin]

It's not my conclusion, but that of the article I cited. They allegedly expressly examined the immigrant situation in Montreal, and came to the opposite conclusion from yours.

The Globe&Mail article? It rather supports my argument.

"The percentage of allophones who speak French at home in Quebec is rising steadily, reaching 40 per cent in 2011, compared to 34.7 per cent 10 years earlier. Newcomers adopting English, meanwhile, are in decline."

What that means is the percentage of allophones speaking French at home is 40%. In a province where 82% of people speak French. The declining trend for English (which, you should note, remains unspecified in the article) is relative to its previous abnormal strength - which used to hover at about 35%, for a minority language. It's also not linked to a sudden enlightenment, but rather the specific immigration programs of Quebec, targeting francophone immigrants in the first place. 

I understand why you insist on depriving Bill 101 of its efficacy. It's just that it is, sociologically, a rather dubious assertion that these trends are utterly disconnected from any form of political change; that the circumstances which shape French in Quebec now have nothing to do whatsoever with compulsory education in a language -- a phenomena otherwise well attested in any other setting, including language normalization.

[Barrister]

I am interested in our view that putting our kids in french immersion unintentionally contributed to assimilation.  Please expand on that point.

It's the current unfortunate side effect, only recently documented. As native English speakers outnumber francophones in French-language schools, Francophone kids switch to English with their little anglophone comrades whenever they are not in class - which also includes switching cultural references. It reinforces the status of French as a "school"/dead language rather than a viable language for everyday life.

Please note, this is valid for places where French immersion takes places in French-language schools, not English-language schools offering a French immersion program.

Out here French immersion and French language programs are separate programs in separate schools.

[Oexmelin]

Out here French immersion and French language programs are separate programs in separate schools.

They usually are. However, because funding is contingent on the number of students, many French language schools in Ontario are welcoming children of anglophone parents - notably the Viamonde and MonAvenir schoolboards.  I'd be curious as to the situation in other provinces.

[crazy canuck]

Same, french language schools are seen as a good alternative for anglos who want their kids to learn french but who cannot get into french immersion because of a lack of seats.

[Malthus]

It's not my conclusion, but that of the article I cited. They allegedly expressly examined the immigrant situation in Montreal, and came to the opposite conclusion from yours.

The Globe&Mail article? It rather supports my argument.

"The percentage of allophones who speak French at home in Quebec is rising steadily, reaching 40 per cent in 2011, compared to 34.7 per cent 10 years earlier. Newcomers adopting English, meanwhile, are in decline."

What that means is the percentage of allophones speaking French at home is 40%. In a province where 82% of people speak French. The declining trend for English (which, you should note, remains unspecified in the article) is relative to its previous abnormal strength - which used to hover at about 35%, for a minority language. It's also not linked to a sudden enlightenment, but rather the specific immigration programs of Quebec, targeting francophone immigrants in the first place. 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what the article says, then. I read it as contradicting your position, in that the "emerging language paradigm of Montreal" (their words) refereed to a situation in which immigrants used French and their native language at home - and that this trend was on the increase.; and that the reason for this was: "French is what I use to function in Quebec society, because language opens the door to a culture". 

I understand why you insist on depriving Bill 101 of its efficacy.

I don't have any particular motive here, other than to comment on what I think is actually happening.

I never made any secret of my dislike for the coercive impact of Bill 101 on individual rights (not that I wish to reopen that debate). That has nothing to do with whether it is effective or not. Coercion is quite often effective.

It's just that it is, sociologically, a rather dubious assertion that these trends are utterly disconnected from any form of political change; that the circumstances which shape French in Quebec now have nothing to do whatsoever with compulsory education in a language -- a phenomena otherwise well attested in any other setting, including language normalization.

It is not my assertion that "these trends are utterly disconnected from any form of political change". Quite the opposite.

As I've stated repeatedly, political change (including Bill 101) was absolutely essential in creating a situation where French became the normative language of culture and business in the province. 

[crazy canuck]

The Conservatives replace an ineffectual Liberal cap and trade policy with a carbon tax and are elected.

Alt history? Not quite.  It almost happened but then the climate deniers took over the party and Trudeau took the idea.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-its-deeper-than-andrew-scheer-the-root-of-the-conservative-partys-3/

[Malthus]

The Conservatives replace an ineffectual Liberal cap and trade policy with a carbon tax and are elected.

Alt history? Not quite.  It almost happened but then the climate deniers took over the party and Trudeau took the idea.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-its-deeper-than-andrew-scheer-the-root-of-the-conservative-partys-3/

It just seems that so much went wrong for everyone when Brown stepped down and was replaced by Ford.

A conservative party, even a provincial one in a major province, that took environmentalism seriously would have been a god-send. It would have removed the partisan playbook from the whole idea. Why should environmentalism not be a conservative thing?

[PRC]

Why should environmentalism not be a conservative thing?

Because fundamentalist Christian zealots have taken over the conservative movement, in the US and in Canada. 

Look at former GOP Congresswoman from Minnesota recent comments: http://www.citypages.com/news/michele-bachmann-climate-change-is-a-hoax-according-to-god/563308612

"I had one [UN] ambassador who was practically crying when I was in there, because I asked all of them, 'How can I pray for you?'" Bachmann told Markell. "Her response was, 'I want you to pray for climate change, and pray for my country, because we're going to be under water.'"

Bachmann told the ambassador she had good news.

"I want to refer people to the book of Genesis," she said. "I would encourage pastors to start preaching on this issue of climate change and God's view of climate change."

You may be wondering where in Genesis the words "climate change" appear. Bachmann was referring to the covenant between God and Noah after the great flood.

"God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign of His covenant, and He said very clearly to the entire world, 'Never again will there be judgment, never again will the world be flooded.' ...You can take that to the bank. That's God's word.

"And what is it these frauds tells us with climate change? That the world's going to be flooded. Isn't it interesting? ...God says we will never be flooded."

[Malthus]

Why should environmentalism not be a conservative thing?

Because fundamentalist Christian zealots have taken over the conservative movement, in the US and in Canada. 

Look at former GOP Congresswoman from Minnesota recent comments: http://www.citypages.com/news/michele-bachmann-climate-change-is-a-hoax-according-to-god/563308612

"I had one [UN] ambassador who was practically crying when I was in there, because I asked all of them, 'How can I pray for you?'" Bachmann told Markell. "Her response was, 'I want you to pray for climate change, and pray for my country, because we're going to be under water.'"

Bachmann told the ambassador she had good news.

"I want to refer people to the book of Genesis," she said. "I would encourage pastors to start preaching on this issue of climate change and God's view of climate change."

You may be wondering where in Genesis the words "climate change" appear. Bachmann was referring to the covenant between God and Noah after the great flood.

"God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign of His covenant, and He said very clearly to the entire world, 'Never again will there be judgment, never again will the world be flooded.' ...You can take that to the bank. That's God's word.

"And what is it these frauds tells us with climate change? That the world's going to be flooded. Isn't it interesting? ...God says we will never be flooded."

I don't buy that this is the case in Canada.

Indeed, if it were not for a total fluke (the conservative leader was allegedly caught in some past sexual misconduct and resigned - to be replaced by Ford, a Trump-lite character), the Ontario conservatives would have been full on climate change planners right now. He would most certainly have been elected, the Libs were unelectable that year.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I agree with Malthus.  It is just a fluke that Ontario did not have a sane Conservative Premier who then led the way for the Federal party to have a sane climate change policy during this election.  If that had happened we would probably now have a majority Conservative government.

edit: also it is important to remember, Trudeau did not pick up the idea of the carbon tax until after the Ontario Conservatives dropped it.  In BC that is the policy, adopted by the right, that split the left.  No reason to believe that would not have happened nationally.

[Malthus]

It's a damned shame. Climate change should not be a partisan issue at all. Every person and party should stand on the same side on this.

[Valmy]

It's a damned shame. Climate change should not be a partisan issue at all. Every person and party should stand on the same side on this.

The fact that it is pretty much guarantees the United States is never going to have a Federally led coherent strategy. The best we can do is just slowly evolve in the direction of reducing emissions...until the disaster is so evident that the negative propaganda starts to fail. You know, after it is too late.

Then Conservative propaganda will re-write history showing how it was everybody else's fault, and they frankly have plenty of evidence to use to build that narrative.

Democrats were the real climate deniers!!111

[crazy canuck]

It's a damned shame. Climate change should not be a partisan issue at all. Every person and party should stand on the same side on this.

The fact that it is pretty much guarantees the United States is never going to have a Federally led coherent strategy. The best we can do is just slowly evolve in the direction of reducing emissions...until the disaster is so evident that the negative propaganda starts to fail. You know, after it is too late.

Then Conservative propaganda will re-write history showing how it was everybody else's fault, and they frankly have plenty of evidence to use to build that narrative.

Democrats were the real climate deniers!!111

In a multi party system there is a lot of incentive for the right to adopt policies of the left that are popular or good public policy.  The Federal liberals have been dining out on that for decades.  The Conservatives had learned the lesson as well - except for the most recent phenomenal blunder.