Kapitän Rotbart

Tell ya what Mark. Why not stop wasting time on changing the ways and hows of voting , and concentrating on getting students and young people to get off their ass and vote. One in four votes. What was Canadian Idol on the same time? When you and the young people show an interest in voting , the rest of the powers that be will show an interest in hearing what you have to say. I'll have to agree. However, living in Ottawa during the last election, most kids I knew intended on voting (sadly many believed the lies of His Satanic Majesty Paul Martin who made some silly promises about tuition). I don't care if my democracy is fair, I only care that it is just (that all votes be counted). A fair system is a communist system.

Biculturalism was originally proposed but multiculturalism was implemented along with discriminatory social engineering, actually paid for by English speaking Canadians themselves. It was Quebec who benefited the most while other cultures were ignored: "The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established in 1963 in response to increasing tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada. The work of the B&B Commission was guided by four key assumptions that were, for the most part, displaced from Canadian politics before being fully developed, leaving a legacy of uncertainty. For the Commission, “equal partnership” was the descriptor of what Francophone-Anglophone relations should be; “biculturalism” was key to recognizing that Francophone Quebecers constitute a society with a full set of institutions; a commitment to social, political and administrative innovations would lead toward societal partnership; and the development of conditions for participation in creating a common framework for societal action was as important as individual rights." http://www.isuma.net/v02n02/oliver/oliver_e.shtml I wish Quebec would do what you say and SEPARATE. Yeah, Biculturalism may have been proposed, but I still don't see the need for declaring anything about national culture. I am against government intervention in terms of culture (I'm mostly against the Canadian government funding Canadian artists and against the Can-Con law, because if Canadians are not naturally inclined to listening to Canadian music, we shouldn't bother having it at all considering what it's costing to the taxpayers). By the way, your reference mentions many Canadians from accross the nation did not think "biculturalism" represented Canada, not only the Westerners. I wish Ontario would seperate from Canada. You can keep wishing, but it's not gonna happen any time soon considering the current political infrastructure - it has become virtually impossible for Québec to seperate. We ALL know it's multiculturalism today but bicuturalism or multiculturalism worked the same way for Quebec by providing them with undemocratic, discriminatory, advanced cultural support while ignoring other cultures of Canada. A country declaring itself multicultural does not mean anything to me other than government propaganda. This could not have any real effect on the demand for bilingualism. If it could have any effect at all, it would be to promote tolerance, which you seem to lack. Canada never particularly ignored its minorities, regardless of background or language. However, there was no interest in adding more languages to the list of official languages. Please post the B.C. language law you are referring to. There is an issue in Richmond B.C. concerning an abundance of Chinese signs and this could be compared to the illegal immigrant issue in the U.S. where a minority wants to establish Spanish as a working language, which is driving their federal government to make English the 'official language' of the U.S. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/12/09/...igns041209.html IMO, it is only a matter of time before Canada will be forced to make English, the one and only, 'official language' of Canada. The American gov't will not make English the one and only official language. They voted on it, the yeh outnumbered the neh, yet it didn't pass. Didn't pass under Bush (one of the more conservative politicians around), not likely to pass under anyone. I'd quote the language law I am referring to if I could find it. The link you posted to the CBC article is dated December 2004. I believe that "last resort" mentioned towards the end of the article to pass such a language law in BC was passed since then. I read it in the Ottawa Citizen some time ago, I'd quote the date had I remembered it. My point is that these laws are not discriminating... they're only in place in order to settle an agreement on a common regional language for certain purposes.

Trudeau was responding to Quebec's cultural demands or in fact could have been working on behalf of Quebec to establish a large degree of linguistic prominence. This is a fact when you consider originally it was biculturalism not multiculturalism. Québec didn't care about language issues outside of its own province. Québec wanted to seperate, and Trudeau wanted to convince Québec otherwise (with bribes and so forth and so on). No country would ever declare itself bicultural, no one would take a "bicultural" country seriously. Canada never had "biculturalsim" because there were always many cultures, even within the two spoken languages, so biculturalism never would have been accurate. Multiculturalism was not made policy to accommodate immigrants but rather to accommodate Quebec's linguistic prominence. The only reason biculturalism was not made policy was because of Western demands that bicuturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of Western Canada, so multiculturalism was adopted but with the same intent relating to biculturalism, concerning Quebec.. Of course Canada wants immigrants to assimilate, but to suggest Canada is successful at this requires proof. I think Canada is the same boat as France relating to successful immigrant integration and all one has to do is look at the cultural mess in cities like Toronto. Biculturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of any single province! It seems two you that Eastern Canada was of two cultures, whereas both Lower and Upper Canada had many European nationalities and people from other continents living in Eastern Canada, so even without the West, biculturalism would be very inaccurate. In fact, Toronto is not really a "cultural mess". Toronto has always been Canada's most dangerous city, yet there are no "minority revolts" in the T dot as there were in France. Toronto is now the world's most multicultural city in the world, with over 300 spoken languages (New York City has over 140 spoken languages), and caucasians are actually a minority in the T dot. Multicultural or not, Toronto would be dangerous either way. It's pretty cool that Torontonian ATM UIs (Automated Teller Machine User Interfaces) are in English, French and Chinese, that Torontonian broadcasts television and radio in Italian, that I could get virtually any ethnic food in the 416 and have people from different backgrounds scheming marketing, foreign investment, international development and government infrastructure. Toronto is definitively one of Canada's treasures. I wouldn't say Canada is for assimilation, but rather integration. One does not have to lose their own culture in order to adopt a new one, because culture is knowledge, and is learned. Assimilation sadly happens amongst Canadians born to foreign parents, but it's not the government's job to prevent this. Trudeau played hand in hand with Quebec linguistic ideologies. In Quebec linguistic culture diversity rules, just check out the 'French Language Charter'. Québec was French-speaking before Trudeau became PM, so this is irrelevant. The Québec government decided to agree on the French language, having no relation to Trudeau. The Québec Law 101 is just as discriminating as British Colombia's provincial language law: signs have to be first and in largest print in the dominant regional domestic language, and other languages may follow in equally sized or in smaller print. Almost all older Ontarian judges outside the NRC don't speak a word of French, and even within the NRC I think some are still monolingual anglophones. That is why if an Ontarian gets a speeding ticket, they just have to request a court hearing outside business hours, then it will never happen, so the ticket will eventually be forgotten and no ticket will be charged or heard in court. If all Ontarian judges are bilingual, Ontarians will not get away with this as easily. Everyone becoming qualified as a judge in Ontario are bilingual before they become a judge because it's required. The province can hire qualified judges, bilingual or not. Applicants having completed their qualifications in another province may not be bilingual. Bilingualism is not even an issue, because Ontario hires 100% of its applicants, most of them are already bilingual. Ignoring these details and responding to your comment, the priority for screening is that the employee can do the job, but bilingualism is also prefered/required. Just because they require bilingualism does not mean they will lower their other standards. They still get qualified bilingual applicants, so shortening the candidate sample due to an extra requirement for the job does not lower the performance of the Canadian government(s).

Why would bilingual candidates make less competent judges than non-bilingual candidates? Because when you make the basic screening criteria for the position one that is unrelated to legal acumen you wind up with inferior candidates. This is absolutely basic logic. I find it bizarre how confused it gets you. Isn't it pretty much anyone who has gone through the formal education anywhere in Canada pretty much guaranteed a job as a judge? Ontario hires all their applicants, but to go from lawyer to employable judge in Ontario bilingualism is required, otherwise the completion of formal education is not granted. You don't wind up with inferior candidates either way, but in this case Ontario is hiring all qualified judges, but for them to become qualified in Ontario requires both languages. That means they get 100% of their candidates, good or bad, but qualified. Just because these positions have no contact with the public does not mean that bilingualism is not needed for the job. Anyone having federal employees under them are "supposively" bilingual because according to the language act, Ottawan federal employees can work in their prefered domestic language, including reporting to their boss (who is essentially bilingual). This is true. This is how bilingual positions were multiplied and expanded throughout the federal public service. Most of the public believes that Official Bilingualism is merely there to serve the public in the language of their choice. Ignorant people like guyser think no further than that. Outside of Ottawa they haven't followed how Official bilingualism was widened and broadened for purposes completely unrelated to serving the public in their own language. The expansion of Official Bilingualism was intended to get more Quebecers into senior positions in the public service, and has succeeded admirably. Within another ten or fifteen years almost all senior positions will be held by Quebecers. Until, that is, the rest of English Canada notices, and then the backlash will be something to see. I'm quite looking forward to it. I'm hoping the backlash will be so great that the Quebecois will be so insulted they will leave and we will be rid of them. Man, you're full of spite. I still have trouble grasping what you say. Argus, please answer the following: 1. When you say Quebecers/Quebecois, do you mean Anglophone Québécois, Francophone Québécois, Seperatist Québécois or all Québécois? 2. Which Québécois are filling federal positions and why do they want to do so? 3. Are you including the people from Québec who have been living in Ontario for at least a couple years (for tax purposes) as Québécois? I really don't know which Québécois you are referring to. Seperatists want nothing to do with the federal government, so they would have no interest in working for the feds. The Anglophone Québécois are usually federalist and would seem like any Canadian from any other province, so even if federal positions are staffed with Anglophone Québécois, I don't see what's the beef. As for Francophone Québécois, there are few of them who are bilingual, but for the ones who are, I would imagine that few of them would be seperatist and if they're qualified, why not let them have the federal positions? Those from Québec who've been living on the Ontarian side of the border for at least a year or two are now Ontarian residents (for the most part) and pay Ontarian taxes, therefore they're just as Ontarian as you and me. By the way, this backlash of yours will only happen if unemployment rises incredibly because of bilingual policies. As long as Canada has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, nothing's gonna happen. Québec chose to have only French as an official language at a provincial level, and there is no reason why this should not have been permitted. Especially after they chased out all the maudit anglais, eh? Now if you could only get rid of the Jews and ethnics they'd finally have the ethnically pure state so many of you dream of. Ethnically pure? Man, you're a sick-o. If we're to talk about race, la race québécoise is predominantly Scandinavian-Viking (from the settlers of Normandie, France), Irish, some French and some Native. Many Québécois like other Canadians are mixed with Portuguese/Brazilian and other Hispanic Nationalities, Black, Arab, Asian and so forth and so on. Québec made French official. No one kicked the "maudit anglais" out of Québec... many Anglophones found it more convenient to move to another part of their own country than to learn a second language. This is a personal choice they have made, but it's not like they couldn't stay. Most of the Anglophone Québécois I know, whether they speak French or not prefer to live in Québec because of the culture and the socialism (Anglophone Québécois are typically Liberal).

Shucks, the poll does not have my pick. If I could vote for a fringe group, I would. We haven't had a fringe group in Ottawa South for a long while, surprisingly (longer than I've been a legal voter), so I vote according to the roll of a dice. Whichever number comes up, I count down from the top and choose that one. I feel that no major party reflects what I want. The conservative comes closest to this... note I said conservative, singular. I like Steve Harper, but I find that a lot of his company are not holding onto the conservative values on which the party was founded. Dion looks a lot like Mr. Bush... I'd love to get a picture of them side by side. It might be worth voting Dion in just for that. Until the fringe and/or rhino parties run in Ottawa South, I might as well roll my dice. I do like the conservative more than any other major party, but the Canadian economy was ironically doing better under His Satanic Majesty Paul Martin.

The whole reason for confederation was the aim and not the perpetuation of cultural diversity but the establishment of a united nation. Quebec still has not learned this 130 years later. Their still stuck in first gear on cultural diversity. Yeah, but wasn't it the federal gov't who declared Canada officially multicultural? That would fall under Trudeau's mischievous schemes, right? However, looking on the bright side, cultural diversity helps Canada avoid the problems found in countries like France, where the government wants to assimilate everyone within their borders, yet failing at integrating their immigrant population. Anyway, choosing another language does not mean opting for cultural diversity. They just agreed on the majority language of the region. I wouldn't blame Québec for this one... just Trudeau.

Why would bilingual candidates make less competent judges than non-bilingual candidates? Just because these positions have no contact with the public does not mean that bilingualism is not needed for the job. Anyone having federal employees under them are "supposively" bilingual because according to the language act, Ottawan federal employees can work in their prefered domestic language, including reporting to their boss (who is essentially bilingual). Most fedral positions that truly don't make use of bilingualism (no contact with the public, no federal employees under them, do not read texts in both languages, etc.) could be outsourced. Québec chose to have only French as an official language at a provincial level, and there is no reason why this should not have been permitted. French is a majority and commercial language in Québec.

Shucks, the poll does not have my pick. If I could vote for a fringe group, I would. We haven't had a fringe group in Ottawa South for a long while, surprisingly (longer than I've been a legal voter), so I vote according to the roll of a dice. Whichever number comes up, I count down from the top and choose that one. I feel that no major party reflects what I want. The conservative comes closest to this... note I said conservative, singular. I like Steve Harper, but I find that a lot of his company are not holding onto the conservative values on which the party was founded. Dion looks a lot like Mr. Bush... I'd love to get a picture of them side by side. It might be worth voting Dion in just for that. Until the fringe and/or rhino parties run in Ottawa South, I might as well roll my dice. I do like the conservative more than any other major party, but the Canadian economy was ironically doing better under His Satanic Majesty Paul Martin.

I'm not too worried about inflation, for the time I'm abroad. I know that is impossible... I want an 80+% certain prediction that the Canadian dollar will either go up or down significantly or stay about the same in the next four months.

Control over me? Ha-Ha-HA. I freely responded to show how silly you are. The only thing you have been instrumental in accomplishing, is hiding the real facts this topic was designed to expose with many pages of insignificant B.S. It's obvious you don't even know what oppress means. Control, oppress, you have to be from Quebec. I'll let you think that. It's obvious that you cannot recognize a joke. Seriously man, loosen up. You're not getting any younger.

Respect has nothing to do with the federal union of British North America. BTW- Respect is earned NOT FORCED. According to the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms, states: "Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of GOD and the rule of law." Now, to correct your mistaken assumption that there were two founding parties, when there are in fact FIVE founding parties who are responsible for the creation of the federal union of Canada. These five FOUNDING parties are: 1.- Province of Canada 2.-New Brunswick 3.-Nova Scotia 4.-Prince Edward Island 5.-NewFoundland There is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING relating to any kind of bilingualism or 'federal official bilingualism'. Newfoundland joined us in 1949. There were two founding people in Canada, and the country is big enough for both of them. You have the Province of Canada to thank for reinstating French as an official language in Canada.

I agree. I do not know all bilingual tests in the government, but from my experience, they're too easy. My case was contract work, so the gov't wanted a bunch of people willing to get the work done quickly, having bilingualism as a moderate priority. Honnestly though, what are your suggestions for improving gov't bilingual tests (other than scratching them altogether)? Would you prefer a standard bilingual test nation-wide? My suggestion is that both languages be tested, regardless of the candidate's claimed first language, and that both languages being tested at equal difficulty. This is not my experience. Most non-Quebec Francophones I have met speak English very well, though occasionally they have difficulty with vocabulary, or in writing. The Quebec Francophones have varying skills, but most are pretty good, though their accent is far stronger than franco Ontarions or for that matter, Francophones from New Brunswick or anywhere else. Mind you, almost all the Francophones I know are government employees. A direct comparison can be made to a parrot, they can speak English words, but do not understand, what is being said. Most of the Francophones you know are government employees, probably because you have no particular interest in the Francophone community, so this is no surprise. However, you know a particular sample of Francophones (government employees, being a minority amongst the 7 or 8 million Francophones in Canada), making it hard to make generalizations about the entire Canadian Francophone population. Also, just as there are Francophones with poor English language skills, there are Anglophones with poor French language skills, so you should not judge their intellect based on their language capacities in their second language. Standards ARE lower for the tests out west. That is why some people try to take their second language tests out there instead of in the NCR. The standards are lower because, quite obviously, there is not a great number of bilingual people out there, so they pretty much have to take what they can get. Or possibly no standards at all! I'm not too informed about the federal government's hiring process out West, but the provincial public sector is not harmonized at all in terms of language. To become a judge in Ontariario, one is required bilingualism. However, one could easily become a judge up in the territories without being bilingual, then returning to Ontariario and work as a judge. Not many people do this (because of the inconvenience of having to move to another province/territory), but there are ways around provincial language policies. I'd assume there are ways around language testing within the federal government aswell. Don't most people, even from the Western provinces who work for the federal government likely end up working in the NRC? I'd suppose anyone wanting to work for the government would be much better off being fluent in both languages, even though it is possible to get in on weaker language skills outside the NRC. In many cases an easier test would not be favorable if they later have to wear an "English/Français" ID tag and cannot serve the Francophones in French.

Actually, since the EU adopted the €, many more places around the world, who would otherwise be accepting multiple currencies now replaced by one, are accepting the Canadian Dollar. I'm not complaining that many places around the world are accepting it, but I would like to see its value go up.

Between two and three k CAD, I'm in Germany and no one accepts credit cards here except for high end shops, the train service (only at major stations) and a few other places. Grocery shops don't even accept credit cards! I'd be using it if I could. Yeah, I'm converting currency as I go, but it would be convenient to know if I could rely on a prediction, with at least 80% accuracy.

Funny, I was about to say the same. This forum is good for between writing letters. I wouldn't use a forum to tell the world why I'm right... a spiffy video on a stand-alone website would be much more effective. I also think it's funny how you somehow know that I'm a Liberal Nazi-Québécois who spends enormous effort at arguing against your righteous opinions. Have we met? Seriously though, just because I favor a bilingual federal government does not make me any of that. Hey buddy, if I'm causing you to waste time, that means you're giving me control over you. Oh no, I might oppress you! You had that one coming.

I'm not planning on making money on an exchange rate. I don't see any huge changes coming, so that's not the intention. I'm living abroad and I still have a wad of $CAD. I'm just wondering when I should exchange it all for €... now or later. I plan on using this money to pay living expenses for a while (rent and food). By better I mean an increase in the value of the Canadian currency. It's nothing about investments (I wouldn't post on a forum for financial advice), but it makes the difference of a couple weeks' living expenses.

Me putting words in your mouth? Ha-ha-ha. Good one. All the broadband you have using up with trivial opion without an authorative source, greatly defeats the pupose of this site and degrades it to nothing more than a common gossip column. How can I be putting words in your mouth when you have acknowledged it was Argus's initial post? Regardless an error was made but nevertheless my reply remains the same. Your screen name matches your personality and is indicative of Quebec's Nazi type language charter. I haven't seen you using better sources than mine. Right, because my screen name is German for "Captain Redbeard", going by your reasoning, everyone using the German language is a Nazi (even today), and everyone who is in favor of a bilingual government supports a fascist Québec government (even if they've never lived in Québec). Your reasoning equals no reasoning, plus you're just envious that I have a redbeard

Government bilingual test are crap. There are few perfectly bilingual Francophone's, and you know 95% of the time that person is Francophone. I know many Francophone's and although I don't make it an issue and relating to many of them, their comprehension of the English language is terrible and many do not comprehend what you are telling them in simple English. A direct comparison can be made to a parrot, they can speak English words, but do not understand, what is being said. BTW- Your condescending statement. "Standards are lower outside the NCR, of course, especially out west, but the power is in Ottawa", describes exactly the corrupt, discriminatory aspects of 'official bilingualism' in our federal government. Leafless, wow, you really did it this time... you claim to be quoting me, yet Argus said that. Get your quote formating right or don't quote. Don't put words in my mouth. If few francophones are bilingual, then a bilingual government does not favor the francophones. Why does it matter if someone is francophone? It seems like you're good at identifying them. Good job, you can identify someone of another language after having been exposed to them for so long. Also, just because someone cannot speak your language fluently does not mean they are any less intelligent than you... they most likely speak their first language at least as well as you speak yours. Man, do you travel at all? Have you been around people having trouble speaking English in other countries? I think you need to learn some tolerance. Oh, like the Nazis, the language fascists killed 6 million anglophones and 7 to 12 million non-anglophone immigrants, just because they're evil. I'd think twice before referring to Québec's provincial government as fascists... Your family made a choice to move from Québec to another province, which is a personal choice. You don't have to point the finger just to justify their personal choice. I don't like Québec's provincial government because of their socialist infrastructure, but there has been no political oppresion like in fascist or communist countries. Québécois are still free to leave Québec, so it's nothing compared to Nazi-Germany. You assume that the sample of Canadians having the highest proportion of bilingual people would be the anglophone québécois. Alas it is innacurate. You seem to think it's a trade-off (skilled workers for bilingual ones) whereas I see it as an addition (skilled workers who are bilingual). I care that government employees be skilled and bilingual. Many people were given the opportunity, but nowadays less and less. It's quite expensive, but the gov't has been doing it for a while. Regardless, it is still feasible for adults, unless approaching retirement, to work towards their second language and see the benefits pay off before they retire. It's usually worth the effort. Also, even if not for themselves but for their children, parents can encourage their children to work hard towards their second language in order to have a much easier time achieving a good job after college. Is my screen name Québec? I am not Québec, so I cannot seperate from Canada. In fact, I've never lived in Québec. Like you, I am Ontarian and Ontario is the only Canadian province in which I've lived. I was saying that Canada can become a republic if it chooses to, regardless of the Queen's intentions. As I said, almost all jobs not actually using language skills could be outsourced. I don't see why doctors and scientists should be required both languages, but I also don't see why they should represent the federal government. It's not my place to forgive. I'm not the one offended by the complaints (but you do go down in the respect-o-meter for comparing Québec's provincial government with the Nazi party... there are no similarities between the two and out of all the terrible events that happened in this world's societies, why always refer to the Nazis? This shows a lack of creativity and reasoning). Ontarians and Albertans pay into equalization, otherwise all Canadians are paying the same rates on income tax for the most part. There are tonnes of Ontarians working in the provincial government, and plenty of those Québécois who work for the feds move to Ottawa in order to pay less taxes, and are now Ontarian residents, paying into equalization. Are they still Québécois? By birth maybe, but they're Ontarian residents now, so they're Ontarian too. Anyone knowing both languages has the same shot at federal gov't labor, so Albertans can get these jobs too. Are you suggesting that these Francophones are not bilingual? I don't want francophones to be getting these jobs if they can't speak English. Are you suggesting that Francophones and bilingual Anglophones are less competent than other Canadians?

Howdy y'all! I've been wondering whether the Canadian dollar will be getting better soon, because I've got a wad of cash, and I am wondering when is the best time to trade from $CAD to €. I've checked two sources with opposite forcasts: http://www.marketvector.com/exchange-rate/cdollar.htm says it's likely to go up, so I should wait; http://neatideas.com/cdollar.htm says the opposite, so I should trade now. What do y'all say? Any reason for believing one or the other?

Actually, if we are to discuss linguistics, it's probably easier to pick up a working ability in the English language than the French language, but for fluency, I'd say French would come quicker. You can say it all you want. You're wrong. English is easier in every conceivable way. Few Francophones know it properly. I see, on a daily basis, Francophones writing to each other in English - simply because it's far easier. I have heard complaints from Francophones at work, annoyance, when they have to write in French. Because it's much more complicated and time-consuming. I know a new manager who just took over a group - almost all French, who got a complaint that the memos she sent out were in English only. She's most irritated now that she has to write them in French too. I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. I don't know what your locale is, but I'm going to assume you don't live in Québec, because you make silly assumptions about Québec without stating feasible observations or even quoting facts or feasible observations about Québec. Outside Québec, you'll encounter francophones of all types. I'd say the franco-Ontarians have it tough in terms of sense of belonging, like many hispanic minorities in the USA. Canada tells them they should identify themselves by their first language, yet they have a lot of anglophone peers, who often evaluate one's intellect according to how well one can speak English (which is unfortunate, but a reality for so many people of a majority language of a given locale), and many do not want to be perceived as "minorities". I have observed an unfortunate reality amongst franco-Ontarians in terms of sense of belonging, which should be discussed (amongst sociologists and the provincial government... some sort of government propaganda should be broadcasted in order to ease the situation). I cannot say it is the case for all franco-Ontarians, but I've encountered so many franco-Ontarians who don't speak neither French, nor English properly. I've heard of plenty of people not speaking their first language properly, so this is not a sign that French is a more difficult language in itself (plus there is a reason why so many franco-Ontarians struggle in French). Speaking specifically about the linguistics of Canadian French, in spoken French many Canadians whose first language is French will not properly structure their questions. When they try to put it in writing, it doesn't work, because not only is this not grammatically correct, but it's never seen in writing outside instant messaging conversations and a few other exceptions. Canadians make plenty of other mistakes in French, some being between subject and object, others from being taught generation to generation archaisms that are no longer correct. Unless a francophone from a "French Canadian" home makes the effort of properly learning their first language, they pretty much speak a creole/patois of French, with different pronunciation and grammar. This didn't happen with the English language, mostly thanks to the American mass media. In English, Canadians speak like Americans and spell like the English (huge generalization, but reasonably accurate). Speaking a dialect, almost a different language at home, francophones learn at school all these grammar rules and find out that the French they speak at home is full of mistakes, yet the grammar in my opinion, like accounting and a few other subjects, is not properly explained at school. That is why people learning French as a second language often have better grammar and can write with fewer mistakes in French than many "French Canadians". French is not necessarily a tougher language, Canadians whose first language is French just have a tough time learning written French. Also, French grammar may be more demanding than English grammar, like knowing transitive and intransitive verbs for the purpose of selecting an auxiliary verb, gender differentiation (which uses a Latin logic, so it's still not too difficult to figure out whether a noun is masculin or feminin... just a few rules), then direct or indirect object, which only matters for spelling past participles in select cases, and knowing which past tense to use (two being simple, the other two being compound, yet the selection is easy because some of them are nearly archaic, even in Europe). Gender differentiation for semantic reasons is great because it makes for a more concise language. Knowing the rules in French grammar makes one pretty much ready to hit fluency (that along with vocabulary), yet in English once one has the grammar down (which is fairly easy), they still have to learn the nearly infinite amount of exceptions (to pronunciation, general rules, etc.). This is a practical advantage, however just because English is more accessible in this continent does not make it easier to learn. It is easier to learn. I have heard that from numerous sources, including linguists and French teachers. Here's a quote: "Learning How to Pronounce French is easier than learning English pronunciation" (http://www.gantguillory.com/phonetics/purpose.html) It depends who you talk to. I've heard the craziest complaints about the French language... a common one was that bilingual employees did not like dealing with texts in French because they were usually longer. The reason being is that they were translations, and translations will always either be longer or not contain the entire message from the original text due to the fact that no two languages will line up perfectly. I find spelling tricky in both languages sometimes, because neither language is spoken the way it is written (unlike Spanish and German). I've also heard from a bunch of linguists and teachers that English is easier, yet I've heard other linguists and teachers claiming French is easier. It depends who you ask. According to my observations, though, the Italian community in Montréal manages to speak French (and often afterwards manage to learn English, because learning a third language is easier than learning a second) quite well other than those immigrating at a fairly old age, yet those in Southern Ontario never get around to speaking fluent English (and many don't speak it at all) unless they immigrated at a very young age (or were born in Canada). I've encountered this case with many other ethnic communities, so it's not just because Italian is a Latin language and therefore a little more like French (including Asians whose language is much different from both English and French). Your linguistics can claim what they want, but I'll have to disagree based on my observations. My point was that just because the American mass media for the most part is in English does not make the English language easier for people living in communities segregated from anglophones to learn English. Despite their American rock music collection and possibly being able to sing in English, the people who do not need the English language for school or for their day to day activities will not learn it unless they choose to learn it on their own or take classes. That actually makes too much sense not to give it to you. I don't see a statcan reference to the bilingualism rate of Francophones outside Quebec. Anglophones inside Quebec, however, have a higher bilingualism rate than Canadian Francophones as a group. I don't see how you could assume that a larger proportion of anglo-québécois are bilingual than franco-Ontarians. You'll have to quote a source to back this, at least give a link to Stats Can refering to the rate of anglophones in Québec. I honnestly don't see how you could possibly just assume this to be true and expect me to believe you. The bilingual anglophone québécois may be on average more proficient in both languages than the bilingual franco-Ontarians, nevertheless I do not define bilingual as "perfect in grammar in two languages". This makes absolutely no sense. You pretend to be interested in efficiency, but efficiency goes out the window compared to your dedication to bilingualism as some kind of nation building exercise. Let me tell you what efficiency is and what it is not. I dealt with a customer service representative of a major corporation today in Toronto. The email from that person says "Bilingual customer service representative". This corporation has certain specific people set out to handle areas of the country where there would be Francophones calling in or handling calls from Francophones. That is efficiency. You call, press 1 for English, and 2 for French. The federal government simply requires ALL its customer service representatives to be bilingual, and pays a premium for that. It makes bilingualism THE screening criteria, rather than knowledge, ability, customer service orientation, or anything else. The result, of course, is that they are always short of staff, and their standards are far lower. True story. There was the large group of mostly Anglos handling most passport applications, and a smaller subgroup of Francophones who were not very busy, handling the French applications. The govt decided to make bilingualism a requirement for all. The result: All the Anglos lost their jobs, a bunch more Francophones were hired. The vast majority of the applications are still English, but now they're handled by Francophones. All government call centers should be privatized. I want an incredibly small, bilingual government. Ontario privatized their driver's licencing service. Service Canada (handling passports) could do the same. Oh right, because a million anglophone québécois want to rule the country. Québécois only want more power to their province, not caring to much about the federal government. As long as they can speak to Elections Canada, Service Canada, etc. employees in French in Québec, they're happy. I don't see why they would care that all federal jobs require bilingualism, if supposively mostly the anglophone québécois, who are typically federalists, would be the ones benefiting from this. From what I've seen, these are federalist bilingual Liberals who are promoting the bilingual policies, and the Liberals are much stronger in Ontario than in Québec. The government sends people on language training, to learn French, for a full year. It is not a slack effort. It is an all-out intensive 5 day a week schooling with heavy after school workload. It is draining and frustrating with an incredible amount of stress. Just how many people do you think can afford to take a full year off work to learn French? In addition, French testing is harsh and unforgiving. The failure rate of managers who go on language training and take the test is 70% Another datum. The cost for French training is not cheap. Last time I checked, several years back, it was about $700 per 90 hours (the equivalent of 12 days) at college. The rate at university was twice as high. The rate at private language schools, much higher still. So again, how many people do you think have the money? The government is slowing down on language training and increasing jobs already requiring bilingualism because indeed it is costing taxpayers a fortune. Many people can afford to take a year off with pay to learn French at the cost of the taxpayers, but this indeed is costing others. I think the best rates for French language training would be at Adult High Schools. Afterwards, most likely community colleges, which might be a better pick than universities in terms of actually learning the language, let alone taking tuition. Even if it's just night classes for a few years, most people have the time to learn a second language.

Actually, if we are to discuss linguistics, it's probably easier to pick up a working ability in the English language than the French language, but for fluency, I'd say French would come quicker. You can say it all you want. You're wrong. English is easier in every conceivable way. Few Francophones know it properly. I see, on a daily basis, Francophones writing to each other in English - simply because it's far easier. I have heard complaints from Francophones at work, annoyance, when they have to write in French. Because it's much more complicated and time-consuming. I know a new manager who just took over a group - almost all French, who got a complaint that the memos she sent out were in English only. She's most irritated now that she has to write them in French too. I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. I don't know what your locale is, but I'm going to assume you don't live in Québec, because you make silly assumptions about Québec without stating feasible observations or even quoting facts or feasible observations about Québec. Outside Québec, you'll encounter francophones of all types. I'd say the franco-Ontarians have it tough in terms of sense of belonging, like many hispanic minorities in the USA. Canada tells them they should identify themselves by their first language, yet they have a lot of anglophone peers, who often evaluate one's intellect according to how well one can speak English (which is unfortunate, but a reality for so many people of a majority language of a given locale), and many do not want to be perceived as "minorities". I have observed an unfortunate reality amongst franco-Ontarians in terms of sense of belonging, which should be discussed (amongst sociologists and the provincial government... some sort of government propaganda should be broadcasted in order to ease the situation). I cannot say it is the case for all franco-Ontarians, but I've encountered so many franco-Ontarians who don't speak neither French, nor English properly. I've heard of plenty of people not speaking their first language properly, so this is not a sign that French is a more difficult language in itself (plus there is a reason why so many franco-Ontarians struggle in French). Speaking specifically about the linguistics of Canadian French, in spoken French many Canadians whose first language is French will not properly structure their questions. When they try to put it in writing, it doesn't work, because not only is this not grammatically correct, but it's never seen in writing outside instant messaging conversations and a few other exceptions. Canadians make plenty of other mistakes in French, some being between subject and object, others from being taught generation to generation archaisms that are no longer correct. Unless a francophone from a "French Canadian" home makes the effort of properly learning their first language, they pretty much speak a creole/patois of French, with different pronunciation and grammar. This didn't happen with the English language, mostly thanks to the American mass media. In English, Canadians speak like Americans and spell like the English (huge generalization, but reasonably accurate). Speaking a dialect, almost a different language at home, francophones learn at school all these grammar rules and find out that the French they speak at home is full of mistakes, yet the grammar in my opinion, like accounting and a few other subjects, is not properly explained at school. That is why people learning French as a second language often have better grammar and can write with fewer mistakes in French than many "French Canadians". French is not necessarily a tougher language, Canadians whose first language is French just have a tough time learning written French. Also, French grammar may be more demanding than English grammar, like knowing transitive and intransitive verbs for the purpose of selecting an auxiliary verb, gender differentiation (which us

Health Canada has many doctors and scientists. What you are suggesting is that their skill as physicians and scientists should be secondary to their ability to speak French, even though they never speak to the public and even though knowing French is of no use to them in their daily work. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec is noted for. Health Canada can outsource this work. They do not need to be government employees. Health Canada could even outsource it to a country with lower labor costs, or even fewer laws, allowing them to research more things and not have to worry about Canadian laws. It would make much more sense that they outsource it. Publicly employed researchers should be limited to universities, if we are to have public education. Which is why the private sector rarely requires skilled employees to be bilingual. Oh, sure, the bank clerk in an area of high French population will be bilingual. But you don't see them requiring their vice presidents to be bilingual. I doubt any of the senior managers for the big banks are bilingual except those working in Quebec. By contrast, the government is now requiring all its executives and managers be bilingual, even though few have any contact with the public. I agree that the private sector rarely requires bilingualism. The government is not, however, requiring that execs and managers in the private sector be bilingual. That's why monolingual anglophones need not to complain about bilingualism because they can still get a good job without being fluent in both languages. If they want a job in the government, however, they should make sure that they are bilingual. Last I heard it was more like 9 million, but regardless. Actually, I overestimated. The entire population of Quebec is around 7 million. About 6 million are French. I think 7 mill is the entire french population of Canada. There is no chance whatsoever that after a separation, with a population of 24 million anglos and only 1 million francophones, the current official bilingualism requirement would remain in place. Ok, so hypothetically speaking, without Québec, Canada would lose French as an official language. Still nto gonna happen though. But if you want a Francophone, then you will require bilingualism, even though bilingualism is neither necessary or even helpful to the job. Since when? It wouldn't stop bilingual anglophones from getting the job. No, it does happen on occasion. However, statistically, Far more bilingual people are French than English. That is why overall, according to Treasury Board figures, 71% of bilingual jobs go to Francophones. That figures is rising, however, as language training is curtailed, the fluency requirements are made more severe, and "non-imperative" jobs postings shrink. Said by the one who claims anglophone québécois are the most bilingual sample of Canadians. Fancy that! That depends on how you define bilingualism. For the purposes of employment within the federal government bilingualism is defined as near perfect fluency in reading and writing as well as nearly flawless spoken French. Your English can be cut and paste, but that's okay. I define bilingualism anywhere between working ability and fluency. I'm not talking about being a literature major, but one still has to be able to carry out the tasks in the given language. I have a counter-example, though to your statement. In order to get the contractual job I had with Stats Can, I had to do the interview in English, with a really basic French language test. A bunch of anglophones who applied still managed to translate words like "river" in French. After hiring monolingual anglophones, they'd have them work in less French-speaking areas, and if they were to encounter francophones, they would code the case accordingly so Stats Can could give the case to a francophone (even though we were all identified with "English/Français" name tags). That to me is "cut & paste" French, but one could not pass the interview without fluent English. So what if the federal government is looking for an account rep of some type. They get two applicants, both 38 years old, both married with two boys, both received (curiously enough) the EXACT same marks from business school, both have the same haircut, both are perfectly heterosexual. One is bilingual and is an avid downhill skier. The other only speaks English, and is a good golfer. Neither of the last traits are a "requirement" of the job. Who should the government hire? Did I mention that the job is in Estevan, SK? If you answered the bilingual guy, you are either racist or stupid. Ok, both guys are equal in absolutely all aspects, except for sportsmanship and language skills. People have their reasons for living in a given location, just like Leafless would never leave Ontario, even if Québec invaded the rest of Canada. The bilingual guy has his reasons for living in Estevan, even though he'd probably have to go to Alberta to ski, and his sense of belonging and his first language are undetermined. Just because he has to drive four hours to practice his favorite sport compared to the monolingual golfer who may have to drive half an hour to hit the golf field does not make him go down in the respect-o-meter. It depends on the needs... unless I need my account rep in on weekends, which unlikely (unless it's a small company), I'll take the bilingual guy because he has one arbitrary skill of more than the golfer. Nice scenario, but I'm neither racist nor stupid. If you give me more differences between the candidates, then it would be easier to choose one over the other.

Factually, France gave away all rights to Canada , if this means anything to you. The English language prior to the 'official languages act', English was the 'de facto' language of Canada. The Liberals undemocratic political maneuvering established the 'official languages act'. Federal 'official bilingualism' is entirely in a separate area, as it is not written in the same act as 'official languages'. If you do not see the corrupt nature in all of this, then my case is closed on this subject. France giving up it's rights away to Canada means nothing to me. We're now sovereign enough that we are not required to conform to British law. In fact, if we want, we can become a republic without discussing this with the Queen. I'm not exactly for the Official Languages Act, because as you said, the feds are not respecting it, so they might as well rewrite it or scratch it. I see that the Official Languages Act is a sign of corruption, so it should be scratched altogether. Running a country is not like running a business. The PM's job is to demonstrate leadership and respect British democratic rights that form the basis of law in Canada. The problem is Canada's PM's are retaining all the power to make up policies, constitutional changes etc. without reverting to or including the citizen's of Canada. This is the democratic deficit I was making reference to. Maybe you don't understand that. We are not bound by British rules. We have our own Charter of Rights. Speaking of which, you should read the Québec Charter of Rights and try to find me something bad about it. The politicians make promises and hold objectives, and it's up to us whether we vote for them or someone else. I haven't heard of any country that has a referendum on every issue. I didn't use that type of language, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, yes, there is an ongoing problem relating to a perpetual stalled economy down that way, where the inhabitants of that part of the country are reluctant to make significant changes in their lives ( such as relocating) in order to improve their lives, rather than continually cater to federal parties for basic $$$ support. We were talking about vote buying, remember. One can sell their vote. It is highly illegal, but it can still be done. Another neat thing one can do is eat one's ballot, but that too is highly illegal and is a vote towards the EBS (Edible Ballot Society) which I don't endorse due to their political views. I'm not exactly sure I'm getting what you're saying about vote buying, but either way... I'm sure "vote buying" would occur towards the referendum you seem to crave, so in the end it wouldn't make a difference.

Say it aint so Joe..why ? I am not talking abut the guns. Never said you were, but I'm for freedom and against communism. I also think Canada is big enough for two official languages.

Good luck revolting! Without the right to bear arms, all you can do is complain to the Queen, who will not intervene unless she herself sees a serious problem in Canada, mainly if it becomes a threat to national security. No, you said it, and here is the proof: Ottawa did not pass any rule to have bilingual stop signs. It must be really draconian if the city decided to put up a few bilingual signs in certain Franco-Ontarian residential areas... wow, that cost you a buck and some right there! You might lose your job because of a stop sign! It's cool to have bilingual stop signs. I never said I couldn't recognize a red octagon sign if it were in a language I could not understand, but my point is that there is no harm in having a stop sign in a language other than your own in your own country. Ok, in this case, private sector requires bilingualism because they want money, reflecting a natural demand for bilingualism, then they pressure the government in establishing bilingual policies to reflect a natural demand, yet somehow this is an artificial demand just because the private sector wants to cater to a huge minority in a language that is somehow not commercial. This is not at all what you were saying earlier, which I believe was that Francophone=Québécois=Seperatist and some how wants to make all of Canada bilingual, yet wants to seperate. Either way you're not being consistant, nor making any sense. Officially multicultural does not mean anything, and French is indeed an international language. It may not be the biggest international language, but it's still up there. Also, this doesn't matter, because Canada's language scheme does not have to reflect the international language scheme. I wasn't talking about the cost of bilingualism... I was talking about the cost of our nonsense "officially multicultural" slogan. I'm sure bilingualism is a tad pricey, but it's worth it. Canada has a reasonable cost of living, reasonable taxes, pretty good public services, etc. You'd be paying more for things you don't use if you were to move to just about any other developed country other than the United States. Government efficiency is an oxymoron. Your son-in-law should not be having any troubles if he is bilingual. Socially, there are problems with both ends of the scope, so if there are tensions between anglophones and francophones, that needs to improve. Removing bilingual policies will not change that. Charters of rights make for some very boring reads. I'd appreciate some quotes. However, I did take the initiative and found it, and I'll quote every mention of the word "language": "(Chapter 1) 10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap." "(Chapter 3) 28. Every person arrested or detained has a right to be promptly informed, in a language he understands, of the grounds of his arrest or detention." "(Chapter 3 again) 36. Every accused person has a right to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter if he does not understand the language used at the hearing or if he is deaf." Yeah, that's some real Nazi-like draconian oppresion. You should read it and maybe you'll see that their Charter of Rights in itself is not bad. I don't know how well it's respected, but their rights seem just and courteous. I don't think assisting the deaf and those who need an interpreter in court because they do not speak the judge's language is a waste of Québec residents' tax money, nor a waste of the money they get from equalization. Who gave us a democratic country initially? I beg to differ! Canada did not have real sovereignty until the 80s, when we finally no longer had to go through the Queen for every little change in our country. Only since the 30s were we no longer obligated to assist the English in times of war. This is not democracy, we were an English colony for the longest time. We practically still are, because we never "claimed" independance. The private sector is reflecting the natural demand of the Canadian people. I am not imposing any methods, I'm just writing in this forum. I don't like communism. I don't see how you can accuse me of being a communist. I'm as capitalist as economics get. Socially I may swing between right and left, still mostly tending to the right, but as I said, I'm for privatization, so I am no where near communism. I'd be willing to abolish public medicare, stop subsidizing education beyond the sixth grade, and no longer subsidizing garbage pick up (only subsidize recycling). I'd also be willing to abolish wellfare and have job placements for the disabled, and only giving them a compensation check for the difference between their earnings and what they were making before they became disabled, or give them a compensation worth 30% or 40% of their earnings, not giving them a full disabled check. I'm also for the right to bear arms and against marijuana legalization. I'd also allow full privatization of public transportation. I don't see how I fit as a communist. That's an idea. Lapdancing also predates the English language... what's your point? Lapdancing would fall into the arts category, which wouldn't make sense to require for an office job. I'm sure a lot of employers hire secretaries capable of lapdancing, but that's good for another post. Deaf people are not a race, by the way. Skills accommodating to the disabled are really expensive, especially if combined with computer and other language skills, and whatever skills needed to do the actual work. The government contracts skilled persons in order to cater to the disabled, but requiring it for employment would quickly drive us into bankruptcy. Then start a party whose goal is to abolish bilingual policies. See how far you get with that. If you win, you then truly reflect the majority of Canadians' interests.