USA vs Canada

[PolyNewbie]

Suppose someone violates your "constitutional rights" in Canada, who do you call ?

[Shakeyhands]

GHOSTBUSTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

[GostHacked]

GHOSTBUSTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the correct course of action. End of thread!!

My real answer is , I have no clue

[Yaro]

Lawyer, same as in the US. Theres very little difference in the process really.

[Leafless]

Yaro- " You wrote- " Lawyer, same as in the U.S there is very little diiference."

What did lawyers do for the English in Quebec or what did the U.N. do for the English in Quebec or what did the Liberals do for the English in Quebec.

What did lawyers or the Liberals do concerning the linguistic crippling of English workers applying for federal jobs in Ontario an English province?

Answer: NOTHING!

Maybe GHOSTBUSTERS is the answer.

[FTA Lawyer]

Suppose someone violates your "constitutional rights" in Canada, who do you call ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Justin Trudeau?

FTA

[mcqueen625]

Yaro- " You wrote- " Lawyer, same as in the U.S there is very little diiference."

What did lawyers do for the English in Quebec or what did the U.N. do for the English in Quebec or what did the Liberals do for the English in Quebec.

What did lawyers or the Liberals do concerning the linguistic crippling of English workers applying for federal jobs in Ontario an English province?

Answer: NOTHING!

Maybe GHOSTBUSTERS is the answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on! This is not likely to improve as long as our federal government caters to Quebec, and as long as we have a PM from that province.

I read somewhere, I think it was the Canadian Free Press, where Quebec is now demanding the right to have approval over all appointees to the Supreme Court, and Irwin Cotler is actually thinking about it. That should tell all Canadian's where this government stands with regard to the right's of Canadian's outside Quebec, we don't really matter at all.

[PocketRocket]

Call Dale Goldhawk

[Yaro]

What did lawyers do for the English in Quebec or what did the U.N. do for the English in Quebec or what did the Liberals do for the English in Quebec.

This is just sad, while I agree that the language laws in Quebec were ludicrous the fact of the matter is they don't contravene the charter. Your problem is with the federal government for not cracking down on Quebec on this matter, but wait doesn’t you want a decentralization of power? It’s all so confusing when you’re trying to keep track of a 10 year olds belief system.

What did lawyers or the Liberals do concerning the linguistic crippling of English workers applying for federal jobs in Ontario an English province?

There is nothing wrong with wanting BI LINGUIAL workers for government jobs, French only speaking Canadians have no advantage over English only speaking Canadians. Either way the requirement of semi bilingualism (since the vast majority of government employees have poor French skills at best in my experience) is hardly significantly onerous.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Yaro, Quebec's language laws do contravene the Charter. They also contravene the Constitution as written. They contraven International Law, too.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has ruled that Quebec has no power to enact such laws in any form since the English of Quebec are not a minority but a part of the English speaking majority in Canada.

Why do you think some Quebeckers are so determined on separation without consideration of French speakers in the rest of Canada. The obsession in Quebec for half a century has been in creating a national majority out of a regional minority.

Canada argued before the UN, not that the language laws were moral or legal, but that language was a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government could not intervene.

The UN's dismissal of that excuse (though actually valid) was scornful. The UN decided that the laws should be nullified but that it could not intervene until "all domestic remedies are exhausted."

I have long wondered what domestic remedies other than armed resistance are left.

[Argus]

There is nothing wrong with wanting BI LINGUIAL workers for government jobs, French only speaking Canadians have no advantage over English only speaking Canadians.

You speak out of sheer ignorance. Less than 4% of the population of this country is really bilingual. So you're shutting out 96% of the population from even being considered for these jobs. Not only is this unjust, but you're drastically limiting the talent pool you can draw on, and wildly skewing it towards one particular geographical entity.

Either way the requirement of semi bilingualism (since the vast majority of government employees have poor French skills at best in my experience) is hardly significantly onerous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More ignorance. First of all, before the testing became more onerous, the government's own reports showed that 71% of bilingual positions were staffed by Francophones. Is their French so beneath you? The number, of course, is higher now.

Second, the reality of growing up in any society is that the minority learns the majority's language to a far greater degree than the reverse. Young Francophons learn English because of all the English rock and pop and rap stars, because the Internet is English, because Hollywood is English, and all those American TV shows and magazines. They are emersed in the English culture and so they pick it up as they grow. Young Anglos do not have the same benefit, except in Quebec, where, naturally, they are the most bilingual group in the country. And technically, according to the French teachers I've had, French is much more complex for Anglos to learn than the reverse. Most Anglo managers, even having been given a year of French language education, fail the French tests, often several times straight. Most of the French managers pass first time.

[Yaro]

You speak out of sheer ignorance. Less than 4% of the population of this country is really bilingual. So you're shutting out 96% of the population from even being considered for these jobs. Not only is this unjust, but you're drastically limiting the talent pool you can draw on, and wildly skewing it towards one particular geographical entity.

It is irrelevant what % of the population is bilingual although it is most certainly FAR greater then 4% since a large % of university graduates required french fluency less then 10 years ago for entrance. My statement was that learning a second language was hardly an onerous requirement, at most fluency in french would require a year of night school.

More ignorance. First of all, before the testing became more onerous, the government's own reports showed that 71% of bilingual positions were staffed by Francophones. Is their French so beneath you? The number, of course, is higher now.

Again irrelevant, the fact that a higher % of francophone's are bi lingual is the cause not a bias towards francophone's.

Second, the reality of growing up in any society is that the minority learns the majority's language to a far greater degree than the reverse. Young Francophons learn English because of all the English rock and pop and rap stars, because the Internet is English, because Hollywood is English, and all those American TV shows and magazines.

None of which is even slightly relevant. Canada is a bilingual country, not a primary and secondary language, 2 primary languages.

Actually, Yaro, Quebec's language laws do contravene the Charter. They also contravene the Constitution as written. They contravene International Law, too.

Which section of the charter does it contravene? I thought it had already passed a charter challenge? and if it hasn't I can't imagine why it hasn't gotten that far? As for the international law, I don't really care. Wake me when we actually can all agree on a binding international law structure and a solid method of enforcement.

It should also be noted that I don't personally like the language laws in Quebec and don't consider them a related issue to bilingualism in the federal workforce.

Young Anglos do not have the same benefit, except in Quebec, where, naturally, they are the most bilingual group in the country. And technically, according to the French teachers I've had, French is much more complex for Anglos to learn than the reverse. Most Anglo managers, even having been given a year of French language education, fail the French tests, often several times straight. Most of the French managers pass first time.

Every young anglo in the country who goes to school has the opportunity to learn French. Again this is not uneven application of criteria which is the basis of discrimination. The only question is whether the requirement of bilingualism as it stands in and of itself is reasonable. I think it is.

[Guest eureka]

The "Laws," Yaro, contravene the Charter; they contravene the Un Declaration; they contravene the International Covenant on Social, Political, and Economic Rights. Those findings have been made. It also violates Quebec's own Charter.

The "Notwithstanding Clause" prevents any action within Canada. The Supreme Court also unfailingly fails to uphold the Charter and the existing law with respect to Quebec's Laws. Former Chief Justice, in attempting to justify the COurt's errant decisions, said that Quebec's laws are interpreted "as though the Distinct Sociaty Clause were in the Constitution. That is why Quebec wants the clause in Sec. 25 rather than the preamble to the Constitution.

I think you should care about Intaernational Law. What other guarantor of civilized behaviour is there?

I could show you a hundred ways in which Quebec's laws are a violation of the rights of Canadians, French as well as English speaking. However, it is too much work to waste on a few posted comments.

[Yaro]

The "Laws," Yaro, contravene the Charter; they contravene the Un Declaration; they contravene the International Covenant on Social, Political, and Economic Rights. Those findings have been made. It also violates Quebec's own Charter.

But what provisions does it contravene? Thats my question you say it does, but I don't see how? As for the international covenant's; the reason I saw I could care less is because nobody else cares. I am not in favor of Canada playing by rules that nobody else does, if everyone else starts then I would be in favor of it as well.

The "Notwithstanding Clause" prevents any action within Canada. The Supreme Court also unfailingly fails to uphold the Charter and the existing law with respect to Quebec's Laws. Former Chief Justice, in attempting to justify the COurt's errant decisions, said that Quebec's laws are interpreted "as though the Distinct Sociaty Clause were in the Constitution. That is why Quebec wants the clause in Sec. 25 rather than the preamble to the Constitution.

I will do some research before commenting, its an interesting part of Canadian social history that I am obviously not well informed about.

[Leafless]

Yaro

You wrote- " Canada is a bilingual country."

Again Yaro you faled to acknowledge countries cannot speak.

Canada is not a bilingual country but a country with two offical languages and this does not make Canada a bilingual country.

Also you wrote- " But what provisions does it contravene."

It contravenes the Charter like eureka mentioned but the problem is we have a Liberal government that refuses to recognize it violates other Canadians rights basically in my estimation, mainly -Equality Rights Sec. 15 (1), Mobility Rights Sec. 3 (a), even Sec. 12 in reference to cruel and unusal treatment.

I wonder how the feds would react if other provinces implemented the NWC in order to protect the English language and English Canadians from the forceful undemocratic application of unwanted bilingualism.

If Quebec can do it all other provinces should be entitled to the same dislay of aggressive behavior.

[gradkiss]

Suppose someone violates your "constitutional rights" in Canada, who do you call ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to suggest that you could call the ACLU here in one of the major cities or go online at the corresponding web address...and bring your concerns to them as i have done in the past and got some insight to what I personally could do.

I have a case before the courts(Federal) that started as my refusal to cross the borders of Canada and teh United States that has turned into three petitions and the urge of the ACLU for help as i have been continually esponged from society with policement from here in the form of tickets and the battering of the ear as the saturation of the hearing environment complicates my destination too....see they say if you hear voices of things that are not normally in the brain you are shizophrenic with an induced psychosis and here in Long Beach California we are still battling the police with thier tickets and they in the County jail say they killed 1 person every three months and they lost 20 people in the last 2 years and the planes and the helecopters fly continually saturating the environment even more and the put troups on the streets they rumoured last week when the killed Williams with a leathal injection as he was suppose to be the founder of the crypts yet who is after the christians too when you see they are being banned from attending school at Cal State University and the Peace Corps is accused as being spys and the army is finding a law to bring them into active duty as a warrior ...odd hugh? a war corp? Anyway do this ... behold the self-evident truths we all share as people...our birth was perfect in an inperfect place where the laws are a refuted assent of what they all should be and know all women are the same fleshly birth and men who go that direction in life are also going to change this political sytem we find ourselves in and protect the widows and orphans....have a happy Holiday Tis the season for wish giving....George Ronald Adkisson

[Yaro]

Canada is not a bilingual country but a country with two offical languages and this does not make Canada a bilingual country.

Fine, a turn of phrase turns you on then Canada has two official languages that maintain equal standing. Citizens of Canada regardless of where they live have the right to deal with the government in either official language.

It contravenes the Charter like eureka mentioned but the problem is we have a Liberal government that refuses to recognize it violates other Canadians rights basically in my estimation, mainly -Equality Rights Sec. 15 (1), Mobility Rights Sec. 3 (a), even Sec. 12 in reference to cruel and unusual treatment.

While I have already stated that I dislike Quebec's language laws it contravenes neither of those rights and the reference to cruel and unusual punishment is ludicrous. I think both of you are missing something here, the Quebec Charters and not the Canadian charter are the laws which possessed the not withstanding clauses in question. Bill 101 may be ugly, and I may not like it but I have yet to see anything strictly illegal about it.

[Leafless]

Yaro

You wrote- " Fine, a turn of phrase turns you on "

No , you simply used the word bilingual incorrectly.

Bill-101 denies Charter rights to Canadians living in Quebec.

Equality rights pertaining national or ethnic origin includes language.

And in the case of English speaking Canadians living in Quebec fundamental freedoms are affected in Sec.2-B pertaining to -freedom of thought , belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.

This violates Charter rights and the government so far as refused to force Quebec to allow the use of English any way the user whishes especially pertaining to publicly written material.

Actually since Quebec did not sign the Constitution it should be EXCLUDED from any Charter benefits itself.

BTW, Quebec's language rights as a French language legally only apply within that province. French rights outside of Quebec are owed by forcing provinces to honour Charter Rights especially minority rights and rights derived with anything associated to federal services which covers a lot of territory with Quebec not responding to the English with the same type of rights it receives from other Canadian provinces.

Many Canadians are tired of Quebec's 'one way street' approach with the Liberals actually advancing Quebec's political interest outside of Quebec in English provinces. Language is a provincial right like in Quebec and residents in Ontario are being denied the oppurtunity to rejct any type of bilingual federal crusade by the provincial Liberal Dalton Mc.Guinty Ontario government.

Mc.Guinty's Ontario provincial Liberals are not standing up for the English Ontarians concerning English majority rights to reject any type of government induced bilingualism or French conversion of signs or anything else that reflects French content.

I think it's time to call a spade a spade and rewrite the Charter or implement a referendum to exclude Quebec from confederation or Charter rights.

[Argus]

You speak out of sheer ignorance. Less than 4% of the population of this country is really bilingual. So you're shutting out 96% of the population from even being considered for these jobs. Not only is this unjust, but you're drastically limiting the talent pool you can draw on, and wildly skewing it towards one particular geographical entity.

It is irrelevant what % of the population is bilingual although it is most certainly FAR greater then 4% since a large % of university graduates required french fluency less then 10 years ago for entrance. My statement was that learning a second language was hardly an onerous requirement, at most fluency in french would require a year of night school.

Untrue. I deal with people out of university, some of whom have gone through French immersion since kindergarten and they can't pass the fed's French language tests. We have managers who have been away on full time French training for over a year who fail the tests repeatedly. My sister, who has lived across the river in Quebec for over fifteen years, much of that with a French boyfriend and family, supervises twenty people at a government building and speaks and writes in French. She is scheduled to go on French language training, though, and was assessed as needing over 700 hours in order to pass the required tests. That's from a position of being able to effectively communicate in French already. Algonquin College here has an intensive French language program. The beginner classes take 180 hrs, intermediate 360 hrs, and advanced another 360 hrs. And even passing the advanced is no guarantee you'll get through the government's French testing. You want to go to night school for a couple of hours a week?! Good luck with that one.

More ignorance. First of all, before the testing became more onerous, the government's own reports showed that 71% of bilingual positions were staffed by Francophones. Is their French so beneath you? The number, of course, is higher now.

Again irrelevant, the fact that a higher % of francophone's are bi lingual is the cause not a bias towards francophone's.

And if a group of Chinese people suddenly decide that only people who are bilingual - Chinese and English, can work in management positions in government, will we know who is going to wind up in those jobs? Of course we will. There are very obvious social/sociological reasons why far and away more Chinese can speak both langugages, just as there were very obvious reasons why far more French would speak both languages. That the new rules would cause a massive surge in the number of Francophones in government, especially in the highest, policy making ranks of government, was well-known when the policies were implimented - by Francophones.

Young Anglos do not have the same benefit, except in Quebec, where, naturally, they are the most bilingual group in the country. And technically, according to the French teachers I've had, French is much more complex for Anglos to learn than the reverse. Most Anglo managers, even having been given a year of French language education, fail the French tests, often several times straight. Most of the French managers pass first time.

I would like to point out, btw, that while Anglophone Quebecers are the most bilingual group in Canada by far (according to stats canada) almost none of them can find work for the Quebec public service. Less than 1% of the public service in Quebec is Anglo. In fact, the Quebec government long ago made it virtually illegal to even demand bilingualism as a job condition in any job, inside or outside government, without special permission.

Every young anglo in the country who goes to school has the opportunity to learn French.

Unrealistic, to put it mildly. You don't get into the government with high school French. And you don't learn real French from a few hours a week in a classroom in Alberta or Toronto.

Again this is not uneven application of criteria which is the basis of discrimination. The only question is whether the requirement of bilingualism as it stands in and of itself is reasonable. I think it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You believe it's reasonable that over 90% of all senior managers and executives in the federal public service will be Quebecers? These are the people who will be making policy, advising ministers of new policy changes and laws, interpreting and mapping out programs, dispersing money and setting budgets across the country, etc. etc. They are, in many respects, more important than the cabinet ministers.

And they must all speak French why again? Can you name any of them? Can you tell me the last time any of them was on TV, or any other contact with the public?

[Yaro]

Untrue. I deal with people out of university, some of whom have gone through French immersion since kindergarten and they can't pass the fed's French language tests. We have managers who have been away on full time French training for over a year who fail the tests repeatedly. My sister, who has lived across the river in Quebec for over fifteen years, much of that with a French boyfriend and family, supervises twenty people at a government building and speaks and writes in French. She is scheduled to go on French language training, though, and was assessed as needing over 700 hours in order to pass the required tests. That's from a position of being able to effectively communicate in French already. Algonquin College here has an intensive French language program. The beginner classes take 180 hrs, intermediate 360 hrs, and advanced another 360 hrs. And even passing the advanced is no guarantee you'll get through the government's French testing. You want to go to night school for a couple of hours a week?! Good luck with that one.

Ok, then it sounds like there is an issue with the examination itself being far to difficult. I have no problem with a REASONABLE level of french being required, the ability to communicate in french.

And if a group of Chinese people suddenly decide that only people who are bilingual - Chinese and English, can work in management positions in government, will we know who is going to wind up in those jobs? Of course we will. There are very obvious social/sociological reasons why far and away more Chinese can speak both langugages, just as there were very obvious reasons why far more French would speak both languages. That the new rules would cause a massive surge in the number of Francophones in government, especially in the highest, policy making ranks of government, was well-known when the policies were implimented - by Francophones.

While I understand where your coming from I still can't see the ability to communicate in french being a huge barrier. If someone graduates from grade 12 french then they should have mastered the language to the extent necessary and I don't think that would constitute an unreasonable bias towards Francophones.

I do however have a problem with the attitude that Canada's official languages are 1. English and 2. french, that simply is not the case regardless of the practical realities.

I would like to point out, btw, that while Anglophone Quebecers are the most bilingual group in Canada by far (according to stats canada) almost none of them can find work for the Quebec public service. Less than 1% of the public service in Quebec is Anglo. In fact, the Quebec government long ago made it virtually illegal to even demand bilingualism as a job condition in any job, inside or outside government, without special permission.

Again I have to say that I dislike the Quebec language laws, I certainly won't defend them, the only thing I said concerning them was that I didn't as a strict rule of law find them illegal. I do agree with you that the tests sound unreasonable.

Unrealistic, to put it mildly. You don't get into the government with high school French. And you don't learn real French from a few hours a week in a classroom in Alberta or Toronto.

I disagree, when I graduated high school I spoke and wrote french to a level that made it fairly simple for me to communicate effectively in the language (although since then I have pretty much forgotten it).

You believe it's reasonable that over 90% of all senior managers and executives in the federal public service will be Quebecers? These are the people who will be making policy, advising ministers of new policy changes and laws, interpreting and mapping out programs, dispersing money and setting budgets across the country, etc. etc. They are, in many respects, more important than the cabinet ministers.

Of course I don't, I agree with you 100% that there should be a reasonable divide for the origins of our public service (although I don't believe artificial restrictions on origins is the right way to go either-not a fan of affirmative action)

And they must all speak French why again? Can you name any of them? Can you tell me the last time any of them was on TV, or any other contact with the public?

The purpose of civil servants being bilingual isn't so they can address the nation its so that whatever business they do they can work with each other. If you don't enforce bilingualism then you could wind up with the ridiculous circumstance of two civil servants requiring a translator.

[Leafless]

Yaro

You wrote- " The purpose of civil servants being bilingual isn't so they can address the nation it's so they can work with each other. If you don't enforce bilingualism you could wind up eith the ridiculous circumstance of two civil servants requiring a translator."

What you say is ridiculous also.

Ontario is a majority English province that is NOT officially bilingual.

What right does the federal goverment have in Ottawa Ontario implementing bilingual policies in a province that is not officially bilingual? What is the federal government trying to pull off, allowing Quebec to control federalism in unilingual French Quebec and pushing that French ideology into the ranks of the federal government in Ontario.

In Quebec that province even controls federal pensions of federal employees and controls all aspects of federal government in that province but yet remains 'unilingually officially French' the only province in Canada with that kind of self imposed status.

Why the discriminatory forceful application of French in Ottawa where the use of French is not necessary at all with federal enities in Quebec serving as an information base for all of francophones in Canada.

[Argus]

Untrue. I deal with people out of university, some of whom have gone through French immersion since kindergarten and they can't pass the fed's French language tests. We have managers who have been away on full time French training for over a year who fail the tests repeatedly. My sister, who has lived across the river in Quebec for over fifteen years, much of that with a French boyfriend and family, supervises twenty people at a government building and speaks and writes in French. She is scheduled to go on French language training, though, and was assessed as needing over 700 hours in order to pass the required tests. That's from a position of being able to effectively communicate in French already. Algonquin College here has an intensive French language program. The beginner classes take 180 hrs, intermediate 360 hrs, and advanced another 360 hrs. And even passing the advanced is no guarantee you'll get through the government's French testing. You want to go to night school for a couple of hours a week?! Good luck with that one.

Ok, then it sounds like there is an issue with the examination itself being far to difficult. I have no problem with a REASONABLE level of french being required, the ability to communicate in french.

There are three levels of French; A, B, and C, with C being the most fluent. When bilingualism was introduced, A was often sufficient for many jobs, but it crept up over time. B is now the standard. B (flluency) was the standard for managers, but that has crept up. Now C (perfect fluency) is required. The highest requirement is C/C/C, meaning perfect fluency in reading, writing and in oral communication, the ability to not only communicate but to discuss, read and write about complex ideas. Bear in mind that recent studies have shown that 1/3 of university grads are considered incapable of engaging in or understanding complex discussions in writing even in their own language.

Also bear in mind French testing is not done on the kind of French which is routinely spoken and written by Francophones. It is academic French. My sisters's former employer, ironically, the House of Commons, once gave their French test to their Francophone employees after complaints from Anglophones. They all failed. They simply never use all those tenses in real life. In addition, it is known that Francophones have a far lower tolerance for what you might call mangled or heavily accented French than Anglos do for accented English. Some of those French testers are extremely demanding - and, btw, the organization which employs them, is 93% Francophone.

Unrealistic, to put it mildly. You don't get into the government with high school French. And you don't learn real French from a few hours a week in a classroom in Alberta or Toronto.

I disagree, when I graduated high school I spoke and wrote french to a level that made it fairly simple for me to communicate effectively in the language (although since then I have pretty much forgotten it).

And when you graduated French were you capable of reading a long, compex report in often tehnical or bureaucratic language in French, then discussing it intelligently, without grammatical errors, with half a dozen others?

You believe it's reasonable that over 90% of all senior managers and executives in the federal public service will be Quebecers? These are the people who will be making policy, advising ministers of new policy changes and laws, interpreting and mapping out programs, dispersing money and setting budgets across the country, etc. etc. They are, in many respects, more important than the cabinet ministers.

Of course I don't, I agree with you 100% that there should be a reasonable divide for the origins of our public service (although I don't believe artificial restrictions on origins is the right way to go either-not a fan of affirmative action)

Well, it's headed that way now. As I said, before they toughened the rules 71% of bilingual positions (all senior positions are CCC bilingual) were held by Francophones - the great majority, obviously, Quebecers. I can tell you as well that a huge chunk of the Anglophones holding those jobs are Quebecers, though that measurement doesn't appear anywhere I've seen.

And they must all speak French why again? Can you name any of them? Can you tell me the last time any of them was on TV, or any other contact with the public?

The purpose of civil servants being bilingual isn't so they can address the nation its so that whatever business they do they can work with each other. If you don't enforce bilingualism then you could wind up with the ridiculous circumstance of two civil servants requiring a translator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well guess what, pal, every time the government holds a large meeting or conference or get-together among its executives full bilingual translations are required, often at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Those bills cross my desk, and we pay between $3k - $8k just to rent the translation equipment for a conference, never mind the actual translators (minimum 3 at $50hr each)

[Yaro]

There are three levels of French; A, B, and C, with C being the most fluent. When bilingualism was introduced, A was often sufficient for many jobs, but it crept up over time. B is now the standard. B (flluency) was the standard for managers, but that has crept up. Now C (perfect fluency) is required. The highest requirement is C/C/C, meaning perfect fluency in reading, writing and in oral communication, the ability to not only communicate but to discuss, read and write about complex ideas. Bear in mind that recent studies have shown that 1/3 of university grads are considered incapable of engaging in or understanding complex discussions in writing even in their own language.

Also bear in mind French testing is not done on the kind of French which is routinely spoken and written by Francophones. It is academic French. My sisters's former employer, ironically, the House of Commons, once gave their French test to their Francophone employees after complaints from Anglophones. They all failed. They simply never use all those tenses in real life. In addition, it is known that Francophones have a far lower tolerance for what you might call mangled or heavily accented French than Anglos do for accented English. Some of those French testers are extremely demanding - and, btw, the organization which employs them, is 93% Francophone.

What can I say other then I agree with you?

And when you graduated French were you capable of reading a long, compex report in often tehnical or bureaucratic language in French, then discussing it intelligently, without grammatical errors, with half a dozen others?

Reasonably complex yes, I would also say that it would be pretty rare when a bureaucrat would have to use highly technical terms or read "complex reports". But again I already agreed with you, obviously the level of french required is over the top.

Well guess what, pal, every time the government holds a large meeting or conference or get-together among its executives full bilingual translations are required, often at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Those bills cross my desk, and we pay between $3k - $8k just to rent the translation equipment for a conference, never mind the actual translators (minimum 3 at $50hr each)

Then this is no doubt one of those ludicrous circumstances that pisses everyone off. The question is what is anyone doing about it?

Ontario is a majority English province that is NOT officially bilingual.

Ontario is covered by the Charter which guarantees language rights for both French and English. Ontario is officially bilingual.

[Guest eureka]

No, Yaro, the only province that is officially bilingual is New Brunswick. Ontario is not and will not be so long as Quebec outlaws the English language.

It is only the federal government that is Officially bilingual and is obligated to provide services in both languages.

Of couse, Quebec is historically and legally a dual language (not bilingual) province that has used its larger French population to suppress its other language(s).

[Argus]

And when you graduated French were you capable of reading a long, compex report in often tehnical or bureaucratic language in French, then discussing it intelligently, without grammatical errors, with half a dozen others?

Reasonably complex yes, I would also say that it would be pretty rare when a bureaucrat would have to use highly technical terms or read "complex reports". But again I already agreed with you, obviously the level of french required is over the top.

It is over the top and extremely expensive. Everything; every single thing, every memo, every report, every powerpoint presentation has to be in both languages, regardless of the fact that, for example, every work place has a "language of work". That is to say, in my work place, there are NO "French Essential" jobs, not one. That means that every job is listed as either English Essential, or with a high level of bilingualism. Therefore, every single person MUST speak reasonably good English to work there. Regardless, every report, every memo, every poster has to be in both languages, and every service has to be offered in both languages. This means that all security staff, IT staff, Clerical and adminsitrative staff, messengers, HR and staffing people, Building services people, etc, must be fluent in both languages. This is not done for efficiency, it is done becaus if it's not done some Francophone will get his or her nose out of joint and make a major stink. And no, it won't matter that he or she is fluently bilingual, is being paid a bilingual bonus, and only got their job because of their bilingualism. Under the government's bilingualism policy they have the absolute right to work in the language of their choice.

Well guess what, pal, every time the government holds a large meeting or conference or get-together among its executives full bilingual translations are required, often at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Those bills cross my desk, and we pay between $3k - $8k just to rent the translation equipment for a conference, never mind the actual translators (minimum 3 at $50hr each)

Then this is no doubt one of those ludicrous circumstances that pisses everyone off. The question is what is anyone doing about it?

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm voting for the Conservatives...