English-speaking Canadians west of Ottawa have no use for bilingualism in the private sector, in-house research by the Privy Council Office shows..Blacklock’s Reporter said pollsters told the cabinet there is very little French spoken west of Ottawa..“There was widespread support for use of the French language, for it being part of the Canadian identity and for French immersion schooling, but there was also acknowledgement that very little was spoken west of Ottawa,” said a report..“Learning the French language was seen as a beneficial part of schooling and useful for applications and for some specific jobs, but overall it was not seen as being deeply embedded in the national culture.”.Cabinet received the report March 23. Three months later on June 15, it introduced Bill C-32 An Act To Amend The Official Languages Act to compel use of French in the federally-regulated private sector including airports, banks, railways, TV stations, interprovincial trucking companies and marine shippers..The bill mandates French service in regions with a “strong francophone presence” but did not define the term. The current 1969 Languages Act applies only to federal departments and agencies, Crown corporations and Air Canada as a former taxpayer-owned airline subsequently privatized in 1988..While federal researchers found francophones supported language mandates in the private sector, anglophones did not..“One caveat was that perhaps it should be mandatory to provide service in French in Québec but optional in other provinces,” said the report..“Opinions differed somewhat in the anglophone groups. There was no strong opposition to the idea, but there was a consensus any decision on the availability of French should be driven more by demand than by fiat.”.Findings were based on focus group interviews in BC, Manitoba, Québec and New Brunswick..The questionnaires were part of a $1.62 million series of monthly surveys by The Strategic Counsel..Researchers also found an English-French divide on the cabinet’s order that all Supreme Court appointees be functionally bilingual..“The idea was strongly supported across all francophone groups,” said the report..“It was seen to be an action that would demonstrate national leadership on the subject of bilingualism. There was much more discussion of this idea in the anglophone groups where there was a consensus this was not a good idea..“It was thought that such a rule would not be necessary given the multilingual nature of the country, the advent of some excellent relevant legal technologies, translating services and the strong staff at the Supreme Court. It was thought such a mandate could unnecessarily narrow the pool of potential justices, and a strong priority should be placed instead on their legal skills and judgment.”.Bill C-32 lapsed in the last Parliament but the Liberals are expected to reintroduce the measure.
