Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[jbg]

Feel free to indicate whose rights have been violated by the federal Official Languages Act.

On their surface the OLA is non-objectionable, as far as requiring provision of services in both languages where demand warrants. The problem, as a practical matter,is that Federal employment is tilted heavily towards bilingual people which, in practice, means French speakers, since more of them, by necessity, are bilingual.

[CANADIEN]

Except that the "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms" states that "(t)he Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (link) which in turn can be any exaction by a voting majority in Parliament, whether whipped or otherwise.

Nope. Faced with a court constitutional challnge, governments can not just say "the limit we have put on a right is justified", they have to demonstrate that it is justified.

[CANADIEN]

Thanks.

I know you posted this before but you are certainly better at searching for your own posts, since you'd be able to remember a key word, than I am.

I still find the idea of "the place of English in Quebec's provincial legislation and services (being) equal to that of French in Ontario`s provincial legislation and services" to be somewhat fatuous (...)

Numbers may vary, but the principle remains the same. Incidently, the provisions of Ontario's French Language Services Act are sufficient, IMO, to meet the needs and rights of Franco-Ontarians. The Quebec Government would be well advised to follow the same principles.

It is the various education and sign laws that are more serious.

Any resident of Canada should have the right to send his/her children to an English or French schools founded publicly, as long as there are enough kids to actually fill a classroom.

Edited November 30, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

On their surface the OLA is non-objectionable, as far as requiring provision of services in both languages where demand warrants. The problem, as a practical matter,is that Federal employment is tilted heavily towards bilingual people which, in practice, means French speakers, since more of them, by necessity, are bilingual.

Most jobs in the federal government are actually NOT designated bilingual. Besides, it's up to those wanting the jobs to have the skills set required by the emplyer, not for the employer to stop doing its job (in this case, providing services in English and French according to the law) to accommodate employees.

[jbg]

Numbers may vary, but the principle remains the same. Incidently, the provisions of Ontario's French Language Services Act are sufficient, IMO, to meet the needs and rights of Franco-Ontarians. The Quebec Government would be well advised to follow the same principles.

Any resident of Canada should have the right to send his/her children to an English or French schools founded publicly, as long as there are enough kids to actually fill a classroom.

Thank you.

That's a good start. I am not a Canadian, and thus do wonder what the "Readers Digest" version of Ontario's French Language Services Act are.

Edited December 6, 2010 by jbg

[Leafless]

Feel free to indicate whose rights have been violated by the federal Official Languages Act.

Firstly, prior to the implementation of the federal OLA all Canadians had the same rights pertaining to language. There were no laws relating to language in Canadian society. Some Canadians had to learn the majority English language in order to become functional in Canadian society. What else would one expect in a free democratic society. Outside of some federal entities there was nothing within the BNA Act that stipulated that English and French languages, or any other languages are to be used throughout Canadian society.

English speaking Canadians never demanded that the English language in Canada be officialized. The English language was and still is the language of choice that serves the large majority of Canadian citizens despite the federal 'official status' which does little to propagate the English language throughout Quebec.

What the federal liberal government OLA accomplished, was that it created an elite minority group (French Canadians) transforming them into a majority group.

Now at that time, the federal liberal logic was French majority + English majority = equality. This is outright discrimination and is laughable if it was not so serious. There are many other groups in Canadian society that would certainly enjoy the same linguistic advantage as francophones.

The high cost associated with the maintenance and protection of any language makes 'language' a national issue that should be decided by Canadians (referendum) and not by governments. Up to now some estimates range around the 1-trillion dollar figure to support federal and associated cost of the OLA and associated official bilingualism in Canada.

It is English speaking Canadians that had their rights violated (freedom of expression) with the implementation of the Official Languages Act/Official bilingualism, reducing them to second class Canadians in order to gain employment in the federal public service, provincial government, municpal government and spilling over into private industry.

[CANADIEN]

Firstly, prior to the implementation of the federal OLA all Canadians had the same rights pertaining to language (...)

as long as it was English, right?

There were no laws relating to language in Canadian society.

Except laws and regulations banning French or First Nation languages from schools, to name one example. You applauded them, remember?

Some Canadians had to learn the majority English language in order to become functional in Canadian society. What else would one expect in a free democratic society.

That Canadians be able to decide what Canadian language they are educated in, and communicate with their government in. Something neither the PQ or you wany.

Outside of some federal entities there was nothing within the BNA Act that stipulated that English and French languages, or any other languages are to be used throughout Canadian society.

Education laws and regulations, remember?

English speaking Canadians never demanded that the English language in Canada be officialized.

Actually, some have. You yourself have demanded that English be made "the sole official language.

The English language was and still is the language of choice that serves the large majority of Canadian citizens despite the federal 'official status'

The difference being simply that other Canadians can now choose another Canadian language. Nothing more, and nothing less.

What the federal liberal government OLA accomplished, was that it created an elite minority group (French Canadians) transforming them into a majority group.

French-speaking Canadians are not an elite group but Canadians, simply, no more, and no less. BTW, there are still more English-speaking Canadians than French-speaking Canadians in this country, but then maths (like logic) has never been a strong suit of yours.

It is English speaking Canadians that had their rights violated (freedom of expression) with the type the implementation of the Official Languages Act/Official bilingualism, reducing them to second class Canadians in order to gain employment in the federal public service, provincial government, municpal government and spilling over into private industry.

Correction... The only english-speakers in this country whose rights are being violated are those in Quebec, thorugh the same kind of òne-language only accepoted`policies you have saoid you want for Ontario.

Not surprinzingly, you have not demonstrated that anyone's right is violated by federal language legislation. For a simply reason - none are violated.

[g_bambino]

What the federal liberal government OLA accomplished, was that it created an elite minority group (French Canadians) transforming them into a majority group...

It is English speaking Canadians that had their rights violated (freedom of expression) with the implementation of the Official Languages Act/Official bilingualism, reducing them to second class Canadians in order to gain employment in the federal public service, provincial government, municpal government and spilling over into private industry.

The Official Languages Act did no such thing. It stipulated that all federal department headquarters were to offer services in both official languages and the percentage of either language used in branch offices was to reflect how language was used by the local population. This doesn't infringe on the rights of any English-speaking Canadian; if they desire a job in the service area of a federal department and the position requires knowledge of both official languages, they can learn French the same way the French-speaking Canadains employed there learned English.

Look at it this way: English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians are both second class citizens under the Official Languages Act; to get employment in some federal offices, they all must give up their right to express themselves only in their mother tongue.

[Leafless]

as long as it was English, right?

There are many languages spoken in Canada but the English language is the primary language of buisness and communication in Canada.

Except laws and regulations banning French or First Nation languages from schools, to name one example. You applauded them, remember?

Language is the reponsibility of provinces in Canada and should be and which I may add, without federal interference.

The propagation of the English language in Canada is simply nation building. It seems you are against unity and approve of troublesome segregated, fractionated linguistic cultural societies.

That Canadians be able to decide what Canadian language they are educated in, and communicate with their government in. Something neither the PQ or you wany.

Other than the English and French languages, all other languages are officially ignored. I don,t approve of this. It is either a single official majority language or have all languages officially represented, rather than be discriminated against. Don't you agree with this?

Actually, some have. You yourself have demanded that English be made "the sole official language.

Absolutely. Why should English speaking provinces be denied the linguistic right of not making themselves officially English and not be forced by federal linguistic interference to cater to minority French concerns? Quebec is provincially officially French and ignores the realities of the majority English language in Canada/Quebec and get away with it.

The difference being simply that other Canadians can now choose another Canadian language. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Certainly, and that difference is simply made possible by racist language laws.

BTW, there are still more English-speaking Canadians than French-speaking Canadians in this country, but then maths (like logic) has never been a strong suit of yours.

Numbers mean nothing when you have racist language laws working in the favour of francophones.

Correction... The only english-speakers in this country whose rights are being violated are those in Quebec,

Says who....you? Dreaming in colour again CANADIEN.

thorugh the same kind of òne-language only accepoted`policies you have saoid you want for Ontario.

And why do you find this so strange? Quebec started it and benefited from it and get away with it. Why shouldn't all other provinces have the same benfits?

Not surprinzingly, you have not demonstrated that anyone's right is violated by federal language legislation. For a simply reason - none are violated.

I have demostrated many times throughout this thread the existence of Quebec provincial and federal language discrimination.

You just refuse to comprehend and are miffed because the French language does not have the same all around importance as the English language in Canada.

[Leafless]

The Official Languages Act did no such thing. It stipulated that all federal department headquarters were to offer services in both official languages and the percentage of either language used in branch offices was to reflect how language was used by the local population.

It is much more than that: Pay special attention to (.

The purpose of the Official Languages Act:

(a) -ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions;

(-support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society;

©-set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada.

(snip)-Responsibility for delivering services in both official languages falls to the federal institutions and NOT to Canadians requesting services.

(snip)-The federal institutions covered by the OLA are responsible for its implementation. The commissioner of Official Languages is responsible for ensuring compliance with the OLA within these institutions, safeguarding Canadians’ linguistic rights, and promoting linguistic duality and the equality of English and French within Canadian society. The commissioner is empowered to hear complaints, conduct inquiries and intervene in the courts and he or she tables an annual report to Parliament on the activities carried out by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

(snip)-The minister of Canadian Heritage and the president of the Treasury Board also have specific responsibilities with regard to official languages. The former coordinates the commitment to “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society."

(snip)-The Department of Justice is responsible for advising the government on legal issues relating to the status and use of official languages, preparing the government’s position in litigation concerning official language rights and, at the federal level, administering justice in both official languages.

(snip)-Approximately 200 departments, Crown corporations and other institutions must table an annual status report to the Treasury Board Secretariat on the implementation of objectives relating to Parts IV, V and VI of the OLA. The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for monitoring and auditing the federal institutions for which it receives an annual status report.

Where does it end?

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0423-e.htm

This doesn't infringe on the rights of any English-speaking Canadian; if they desire a job in the service area of a federal department and the position requires knowledge of both official languages, they can learn French the same way the French-speaking Canadains employed there learned English.

Francophones were never forced to learn the English language via government language policies. Francophones learned English to gain access to the English job market especially in the province of Ontario. That is why there are so many bilingual francophones as in comparison to English speaking Canadians. And this is why the OLA is so corrupt.

And speaking of bilingual Canadians in a democratic society, since when do 17% bilingual Canadians, (percentage of bilingual Canadians in Canada) mostly Quebecers who control or are responsible for the formation and direction of a bilingual federal government when the opinions or demands of the other 83% of unilingual Canadians, relating to bilingualism are ignored.

Canada is not much of a democracy and resembles a totalitarian state, as the people do not seem to politically count.

[g_bambino]

It is much more than that:

No, it doesn't. The rest of the act you quote simply explains the reasoning behind the act and lays out more detail on how it's to be put into practice. It has no jurisdiction beyond federal offices.

Canada is not much of a democracy and resembles a totalitarian state, as the people do not seem to politically count.

Bullshit.

[CANADIEN]

There are many languages spoken in Canada but the English language is the primary language of buisness and communication in Canada.

Correction. There qare many language spoken in Canada and the English language is the primary business language of business and communications of most canadians. Yet, another Canadian language, French, is the primary language and communications.

BTW, nice way of avoiding the FACT, which you approve of, of past violation of the linguistic rights of Canadians.

Language is the reponsibility of provinces in Canada and should be and which I may add, without federal interference.

Corrction (no 2) What Canadian language(s) are used for the services provided by provincial governments is the responsibility of each provincial Legislature, like in Ontario where the ELECTED Legislative Assembly rightfully decided that provincial services should be offered in English and French. Similarly, what Canadian language(s) are used for the services provided by the federal government is the responsibility of the Federal parliament. Time you brush up on the actual working of the Constitution.

The propagation of the English language in Canada is simply nation building. It seems you are against unity and approve of troublesome segregated, fractionated linguistic cultural societies.

Correction (no 3). The propagation of the English language in Canada is nation building to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of Canadians to choose another Canadian language. Only a bigoted ignorant mind would think that defending the rights of Canadian is divisive. But then, we are talking about you.

Other than the English and French languages, all other languages are officially ignored. I don,t approve of this. It is either a single official majority language or have all languages officially represented, rather than be discriminated against. Don't you agree with this?

I wonder what is the worse in this statemnt of yours: its hypocrisy, or the sheer stupidity of said hypocrisy.

Both English and french are Canadian languages that are sufficiently spoken throughout this country to warrant official status, which as had been demonstrated by others has its roots in our history. If you actually believe that this discriminates against speakers of other languages (which everybody on this site who as a clue knows is just hypocritical nonsense on your part), feel free to indicate which languages and why.

Absolutely. Why should English speaking provinces be denied the linguistic right of not making themselves officially English and not be forced by federal linguistic interference to cater to minority French concerns? Quebec is provincially officially French and ignores the realities of the majority English language in Canada/Quebec and get away with it.

Why should other provincial governments refuse to imitate discriminatory polcies enacted by the Quebec government? Duh. Because they are discriminatory, that's it. Feel free to admire those policies. I don't, never have, never will.

Certainly, and that difference is simply made possible by racist language laws.

Correction (no 4). The difference between then and now is that federal legislation recognizes Canadians as equal. Only the cluessless (meaning you) sees that as racism.

Numbers mean nothing when you have racist language laws working in the favour of francophones.

When you can find a federal or Ontario language law that is actually racist, let me know. That should occur the day after the next Stanley Cup win by the Maple Leafs.

And why do you find this so strange? Quebec started it and benefited from it and get away with it. Why shouldn't all other provinces have the same benfits?

Correction (no. 5). Quebec simply used different methods in trying what other provincial governments had tried in the past (remember, those school laws you admire so much while denying provincial governments outside Quebec ever did something like that). As to why no provincial government should go down that route again, see above.

I have demostrated many times throughout this thread the existence of Quebec provincial and federal language discrimination.

Correction (no. 6). You have CLAIMED that there is language discrimination by the federal government, but have yet to provide any proof of it before your ramblings and those of otherbigoted ignoramus. As for your demonstration of language discrimination by the Quebec Government, it is mostly a tool to express your jealousy that similar m*nure does not exist in Ontario.

You just refuse to comprehend and are miffed because the French language does not have the same all around importance as the English language in Canada.

Correction (no 7) and big laugh I am not miffed by the fact that more Canadians speak English than French. Is anyone is miffed, it is YOU because this is 2011, French-speaking Canadians are not second class citizens in this country and you don't have laws that would virtually ban French.

Mind you though, there is one thing I have given hope of ever being able to comprehend. The depth of your cluelessness.

[CANADIEN]

The Official Languages Act did no such thing. It stipulated that all federal department headquarters were to offer services in both official languages and the percentage of either language used in branch offices was to reflect how language was used by the local population.

It is much more than that: Pay special attention to (.^

Actually, I would suggest that YOU pay special attention to the actual TEXT of the Act itself, instead of taking a commentary on the Act and distort it. Here it is for your viewing pleasure. The Act

Francophones were never forced to learn the English language via government language policies.

You never heard about those times when French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec were FORCED to attend English-only schools? Of course you haven't, which is why you keep saying it was a good thing that it was done.

And speaking of bilingual Canadians in a democratic society, since when do 17% bilingual Canadians, (percentage of bilingual Canadians in Canada) mostly Quebecers who control or are responsible for the formation and direction of a bilingual federal government when the opinions or demands of the other 83% of unilingual Canadians, relating to bilingualism are ignored.

Speaking of imposing the English language (which is your dream, admit it), may I suggest you start by writing sentences that actually respect the structure of the language, unlike the last one?

Canada is not much of a democracy and resembles a totalitarian state, as the people do not seem to politically count.

Feel free to say that to Burmese, Chinese, Iranians languishing in prisons and being tortured for daring to express an opinion different from that of their Government. I am sure that local governments will be happy to pay you to do a speaking tour of their jails to spread your message - after all, they still recognize the value of comic relief.

[CANADIEN]

No, it doesn't. The rest of the act you quote simply explains the reasoning behind the act and lays out more detail on how it's to be put into practice. It has no jurisdiction beyond federal offices.

Correction. What he quotes is not the Act. I doubt he has even bothered to actually read it.

Bullshit.

Please stop insulting bulls.

Edited January 22, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

What he quotes is not the Act. I doubt he has even bothered to actually read it.

Not completely, no; but the first few paragraphs (beyond which I didn't read) are a misquote of the act's preamble. The misquote was likely on purpose.

[CANADIEN]

Not completely, no; but the first few paragraphs (beyond which I didn't read) are a misquote of the act's preamble. The misquote was likely on purpose.

The part he quotes is itself a quote word for word of the Official Languages Act (1985). He takes everything from an article ABOUT the Act though, instead of going to the Act itself. Again, i don't he even bothered to read the Act itself.

[jbg]

French-speaking Canadians are not an elite group but Canadians, simply, no more, and no less. BTW, there are still more English-speaking Canadians than French-speaking Canadians in this country, but then maths (like logic) has never been a strong suit of yours.

If you want a government job you need to be bilingual in many cases. The fact is that a Francohpone is far more likely to be bilingual since educated French-speakers have at least some business outside the very small fishbowl of French-only Quebec; eithe rin the English speaking parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada or in the U.S. Thus they will get very frequent transactional practice in the English they do learn as a second language.

On the other hand, someone who grows up in Saskatoon or Vancouver, even if they undergo French immersion, have little use for the language outside the classrooom. They may well flunk any "bi-lingual" tests.

[Bonam]

If you want a government job you need to be bilingual in many cases. The fact is that a Francohpone is far more likely to be bilingual since educated French-speakers have at least some business outside the very small fishbowl of French-only Quebec; eithe rin the English speaking parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada or in the U.S. Thus they will get very frequent transactional practice in the English they do learn as a second language.

On the other hand, someone who grows up in Saskatoon or Vancouver, even if they undergo French immersion, have little use for the language outside the classrooom. They may well flunk any "bi-lingual" tests.

Yep, very true. My French got pretty decent during the year I lived in Montreal but, that having been 4 years ago and me having barely spoken any French at all since then, I am now not nearly as fluent as I was. Can still read and understand and can still write with decent grammar and vocabulary, but can't do any of it fast enough to have a non-superficial natural conversation, just takes too long to remember things and construct sentences properly to do it in real-time. No one's fault but my own I suppose, I could have always taken the effort to specifically seek out situations where I could practice my French, but that was never a priority.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

double post

Edited January 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you want a government job you need to be bilingual in many cases. The fact is that a Francohpone is far more likely to be bilingual since educated French-speakers have at least some business outside the very small fishbowl of French-only Quebec; eithe rin the English speaking parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada or in the U.S. Thus they will get very frequent transactional practice in the English they do learn as a second language.

On the other hand, someone who grows up in Saskatoon or Vancouver, even if they undergo French immersion, have little use for the language outside the classrooom. They may well flunk any "bi-lingual" tests.

Many government jobs will train you in French if you don't speak it.

[Shwa]

If you want a government job you need to be bilingual in many cases. The fact is that a Francohpone is far more likely to be bilingual since educated French-speakers have at least some business outside the very small fishbowl of French-only Quebec; eithe rin the English speaking parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada or in the U.S. Thus they will get very frequent transactional practice in the English they do learn as a second language.

Many jobs yes, especially in Quebec, New Brunswick and the National Capital Region - about 25-30% of federal government jobs are bilingual. However, there are many unilingual jobs and most of those are English. As pointed out, if you qualify for a job, second language training will be made available, but those are generally supervisory positions.

On the other hand, someone who grows up in Saskatoon or Vancouver, even if they undergo French immersion, have little use for the language outside the classrooom. They may well flunk any "bi-lingual" tests.

Second language testing determines the proficiency level (A - low, B - good, C - superior, and sometimes P - technical) of the candidate and rates that according to the job profile. The ratings are determined against reading, writing and speaking.

So a job profile might be something like B, B, C - a good understanding and ability with reading and writing in the second language with a superior ability to speak it.

Any child with a significant French immersion education - whether from Saskatoon or Vancouver - would easily achieve the 'B' levels and more likely the 'C' levels.

Where I see a big problem area is with the centralization of the federal public service meaning that if an entity within any department has a national scope, all the management positions will require bilingualism as noted in this CBC article from 2009.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Shwa

[CANADIEN]

If you want a government job you need to be bilingual in many cases. The fact is that a Francohpone is far more likely to be bilingual since educated French-speakers have at least some business outside the very small fishbowl of French-only Quebec; eithe rin the English speaking parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada or in the U.S. Thus they will get very frequent transactional practice in the English they do learn as a second language.

On the other hand, someone who grows up in Saskatoon or Vancouver, even if they undergo French immersion, have little use for the language outside the classrooom. They may well flunk any "bi-lingual" tests.

Trying the old `French-speakers are more likely to be able to speak english than Ènglish-speakers are able to speak french, so official binlingualims unfairly favour the first over the second`? But that mesure, Anglophones in Quebec are unfairly favored at the expense of Quebec French-speakers, since they are way more likely to be fluent in the other language even without leaving the province. Needless to say, I find the argument unconvincing.

Edited January 22, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Bullshit.

It is difficult to take you seriously using language like that.

It is also evident you support fascism, or better still Nazism.

[CANADIEN]

It is difficult to take you seriously using language like that.

It is also evident you support fascism, or better still Nazism.

Thanks for proving (again) that you have no clue what fascism is and what nazism was.

fortunately for you, about everyone with a clue has stopped taking you seriously a long long long time ago.

[g_bambino]

It is difficult to take you seriously using language like that.

Spare us the faux outrage.

It is also evident you support fascism, or better still Nazism.

Explain your case, please.