The excesses of the French Language Charter aside, Quebec's policy of one official language of internal government administration does present advantages over Federal official bilingualism:
1. more equal-opportunity employment. All other qualifications being equal, a French-Quebec-Sign-Language, a French-Algonquin, a French-Esperanto, a French-Chinese, and a French-English bilingual each have an equal chance of accessing employment in the Government of Quebec, whereas the Anglo-French bilingual has a distinct advantage over the others in the Government of Canada.
2. More equal access to services to deaf and dyslexic members of indigenous and other unofficial language communities. Even without requiring candidates to be bilingual, an officially unilingual Québec Government office will probably be more linguistically diverse with more representation of members of unofficial linguistic communities than an officially bilingual Federal Government office. Should official unilingualism be combined with obligatory personal bilingualism for all candidates [and especially if it gives priority, all other qualifications being equal, to the candidate who knows a sign language for example, or the second priority to the one who knows the local indigenous language, and maybe even the third priority to the one who knows Esperanto (which could help deaf and dyslexic members of unofficial linguistic communities who must learn a second written language to communicate with the Government due to its comparatively phonetic spelling and comparative ease of learning), and the last priority to the locally-dominant unofficial language], it would then be in an even better position to serve deaf, dyslexic, and other members of its indigenous and other unofficial language communities at little extra cost to the taxpayer.
3. More competent candidates. Even if the Québec Government imposed personal bilingualism on all candidates, since it could hire any candidate who is bilingual in French and any other among a list of languages, it could choose from a wider pool of candidates than the Government of Canada can which must often limit itself to specifically French-English bilinguals.
4. More even community representation. The Federal Government office will probably overrepresent members of Canada's two dominant ethnic communities which may force it to rely on more artificial reverse-discrimination policies (which will further limit the available pool of candidates) to counterbalance this tendency. Official unilingualism at least reduces the problem since more members of unofficial linguistic communities need learn only one rather than two languages besides their own to access employment.
5. Reduced translation and interpretation costs. That needs no comment.
6. Friendlier and more natural direct communication rather than communication through an interpreter.
When we have homeless people starving in our streets, is it right to sue Air Canada for its not having served a 7-Up in French on an international flight? Try suing Air Canada for not having been served in ASL or Inuktitut!
What impression does it give of Canadian unity when even our English and French-Canadian MP's could not have been bothered to learn a second language? Why should we care about unity when even they don't?
We understand that English and French are difficult to learn, but couldn't our MPs agree to learn a language as easy as Esperanto for example? If a unilingual Inuktitut-speaking MP enjoys no right to interpretation in his language, why should a unilingual English or French-speaking MP enjoy such a right? Did English and French Canadian MPs earn that right through our ancestors’ establishment of the Indian Residential-school system? How many people could the savings accrued from eliminating interpretation costs feed, house, or educate over time if we replaced the notion of linguistic rights by one of linguistic obligations?
While we fully acknowledge the advantages of personal multilingualism, we believe that official unilingualism on the basis of territoriality can best promote personal bilingualism whereas official bilingualism discourages it.