-Commercial speech is not protected speech and is highly regulated in every democratic country.
What a cop out. They regulate things like false advertising, not the words and the language you're allowed to put on your signs. False equivalency.
-The right to work in French is the basis of why workplace language laws exist.
That's like saying "the right for white people to work is the basis of why segregation laws exist". It's absolutely unnecessary and a sorry excuse for trampling on people's rights.
-Yeah actually, read your history. French schools were banned by those provinces at different times.
To be fair, I was thinking of more recent times, but fine, let's go back 100 years. Manitoba had restrictions on teaching French, but that's only an earlier part of the last hundred years. Regulation 17 in Ontario was repealed in 1927, so one of the last 100 years was affected. New Brunswick, on the contrary, even promoted french very strongly with a goal of becoming a bilingual province. So no, you can't say that the last 100 years were generally worse for Francophones in Canada than the present is for anglophones in Quebec. And even if it were the case, what's your point? "They suffered, so you have to suffer too"? What a pitiful argument. But it shows the hypocrisy fairly well: when it happens to Francophones in Canada: "bad, unacceptable repression", when it happens to anglophones in Quebec: "necessary measures to protect the French language". Give me a break.