3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Kapitän Rotbart]

That is what the problem is when you refer to 'Quebecers' as 'Quebecois', as it adds a political dimension and as a result, does NOT identify ALL residents of Quebec appropriately.

As I recall, a Québécois is a resident of Québec, regardless of language or background.

The word is part of the English language and completely appropriate.

You are purposely confusing the association of a 'federal official language' to that of a commonly spoken national language. The TWO are not related. English 'nationally' speaking, is the majority language of all provinces excluding 'officially French province of Quebec' and 'officially bilngual' province of New Brunswick

Regardless I fail to see your point as primarily there are monolingual federal public servants and you are magnifying (again) the racial discriminatory self imposed hiring conditions of the federal public service.

Firstly, I'm not confusing Official Languages with Majority Regional Languages.

Secondly, let's agree on a very specific definition of race for the purpose of this thread. Either we agree that language is not a component of race and therefore your above statement is absurd because white Canadians would either hire or not hire other white Canadians based on language, having nothing to do with skin color. Or we can agree that language is a component of race, meaning when you expressed distastefully that it's not appropriate that the leader of the Liberal party of Canada be a French citizen (yet being indifferent about other dual citizenship combinations in the case of Canadian politicians) would be making a racist comment.

My point was that Canadians have a right to work in Canada, but they do not have a right to certain positions (jobs are privileges... no one is obliged to hire a given candidate). If a given job requires bilingualism, no candidate is denied their rights if they are denied the position, because the position itself is a privilege, get it? The Canadian gov't will not deny their rights to work at all, in other words Canadians can legally be employed in Canada, but it's up to the candidate to convince the employer to choose them (by having the required skills and being good at interviews).

If that is the case why has the federal government 'unilaterally' made French an 'official language'.

It is obvious warring federal parties continue to corrupt the political system in favour, in the case of Quebec an ongoing linguistic war.

This is one politically dysfunctional country at a HUGE undemocratic and financial expense.

Can you propose anything the political parties can do without risking losing popularity? No party will touch language issues if it costs them votes.

The feds do not pertain to any province, so of course they'll unilaterally make French an official language. It's not a major issue, because most federal offices are in Ottawa or Québec, where employers do not have too much trouble finding qualified bilingual candidates, so it's not like moving federal offices in Alberta where it would be trickier to find qualified bilingual candiates (or any bilingual candidates).

Linguistic war? I still don't see any violence resulting in supporting two languages (the FLQ is history, and besides, a couple crazy commies don't reflect the general regional population of Québec).

During the Jean Chretien era as PM, he incorporated a 'decentralization program' thus moving federal departments to other provinces.

Quebec gained more than any other province in Canada from this decentralization program.

Furthermore are you unable to accept the plain common sense logic that Ottawa being the capital of Canada, naturally would be supplying local Ottawa residents the bulk of federal employment.

Are you unable to figure what I've been saying all this time about Ottawa? I know that it makes sense Ottawa's biggest employer would be the feds because it is the capital city. That's why it's not 'just like any other Canadian city'.

I never liked Jean Chrétien. His decentralization program was a waste of money. Still doesn't change the fact that the feds are governing a country of two languages and should represent this land by being skilled in both languages.

You are making learning the French language a compulsory issue again when that is not the case.

The federal government nor anyone else can force Canadians to speak French. The feds are already discriminating enough in that area.

The only way the feds could force everyone to speak French is if education becomes a federal issue and the feds would make all schools French language schools. Not going to happen any time soon.

Language is not a compulsory issue. Not all Canadians have to be bilingual. A Canadian can still find tonnes of work knowing only one of the two languages. The government should not be expected to supply jobs to monolingual Canadians in a country of two languages. If Ottawa's biggest employer is the federal gov't, then it makes sense that most jobs in Ottawa require bilingualism.

[Leafless]

As I recall, a Québécois is a resident of Québec, regardless of language or background.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you.

Post your proof when you make a controversial statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it is evident no English speaking person would go to the trouble and ridiculous lengths you do to support such an undemocratic initiative as 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service.

'Official bilingualism' in the federal public service is totally 'out of control' by implementing an inferior foreign (separatist supported including 50% of the population of Quebec) language to control the the most sensitive workings of government that all of Canada ultimately depends on.

The federal government of Canada is providing Canadians a disservice by leading Canada down a very dangerous path.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

As I recall, a Québécois is a resident of Québec, regardless of language or background.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you.

Post your proof when you make a controversial statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it is evident no English speaking person would go to the trouble and ridiculous lengths you do to support such an undemocratic initiative as 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service.

'Official bilingualism' in the federal public service is totally 'out of control' by implementing an inferior foreign (separatist supported including 50% of the population of Quebec) language to control the the most sensitive workings of government that all of Canada ultimately depends on.

The federal government of Canada is providing Canadians a disservice by leading Canada down a very dangerous path.

I quote your source:

A Québécois (IPA: [ke.be'kwa]), or in the feminine Québécoise (IPA: [ke.be'kwaz]), is a native or resident of the Canadian province of Quebec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province, or to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture.

"But may also" does not mean "exclusively". Regardless, I don't think Anglophone residents of Québec seem to bother you, so it's a non-issue... you're the one trolling on an arbitrary definition. If you like we can agree to use Québécois to refer exclusively to Francophone residents of Québec for the purpose of this thread, but instead you just suggest that I'm a French Nationalist despite the fact that I don't like Québec because of it's socialism and I would never live there.

"Not worth replying to"? Bwahahahahaha, you're not able to reply to it. I've got you cornered. You'd have to admit that you either made a racist comment (concerning Stéphane Dion's French citizenship) or that your argument that Canada's language policies being racist is not valid. Also you seem to make this language issue seem like such a big deal. You seem to think that there it's a problem that one group of Canadians is over-represented in federal gov't offices yet you claim to not hate any group of people (so it shouldn't be an issue), you claim that rights are denied yet you failed to justify this argument (because there is no justification, no rights have been denied because jobs are privileges, the right to work does not grant an individual the right to a specific position). You also can't seem to get over the FLQ who were a couple crazy commies and do not represent anyone, just their crazy ideas.

Sure Canadians need their gov't, but French is not a foreign language. The only seperatists in the federal gov't are the block parties (Bloc Québécois, Western Block and possibly others, can't remember if Newfoundland has a block party). Seperatists don't have any interest in working for federal gov't departments, it's not where they can do their lobbying. From what I gather, Seperatists have no real interest in learning English and working for the feds, they want the feds to work for them.

Besides, if you lose your job to a seperatist, shame is on you. Seems like you're the troll, going on with your nonsense about seperatists, French being a foreign language, language policies running the federal gov't down the funnel, etc. Be a real man and justify your arguments or agree that you're wrong.

[Leafless]

Kapitan Robert

Everything in your above post as already been covered in this thread many times.

You keep coming back with the same old unsubstantiated personal opinion and it is obvious you don't know the meaning of undemocratic federal government initiatives and discriminatory policies which forms the basis and purpose of this thread.

It also is apparent you are unable to reply with a few short meaningful sentences but prefer to reply in a relative useless 'mumble jumble' lengthy type reply.

It makes no sense to carry out any further debate with you.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

As you wish, but the reason I went back on my arguments is because you haven't responded to them (because you can't, you keep trying to escape the arguments where I've got you cornered).

As for discriminatory policies, any job requirement is discriminating... I hope blind people are screened out for truck driving (which is discrimination, by the way). Anyone can achieve the skills required for federal work, including language skills, so it's not discriminating people based on their background, but rather on their capacities (which makes sense).

Undemocratic federal government initiatives? How many federal gov't initiatives are democratic? Canada never asked me whether or not they should recognize the Armenian war. The Armenian war didn't even concern Canada... why take a stand?! So many things pass in the federal gov't without consulting the general population. Sometimes it's a shame (especially for foreign policies) when the feds do not consult its population. These are things that happen all the time and you might as well get over it.

I tried to keep this one short and sweet for you. We don't have to go on about this if you prefer, but that would mean that I win because you fail to respond to my arguments.

[Leafless]

I tried to keep this one short and sweet for you. We don't have to go on about this if you prefer, but that would mean that I win because you fail to respond to my arguments.

You are incapable of keeping anything short and sweet.

I am ready for any argument but don't deal with people like you who are unable to focus your reply on what you have 'quoted' without dragging in the whole thread, that includes your unsubstantiated nonsensical replies that I have not accepted.

If you think you have won, kindly describe what you have won?

[Argus]

As you wish, but the reason I went back on my arguments is because you haven't responded to them (because you can't, you keep trying to escape the arguments where I've got you cornered).

As I recall you rarely respond to other people's arguments, and your own consists almost entirely of saying everyone who works for the federal government should be bilingual - because... because? Because why? To better represent Canada? But the fact of making jobs bilingual imperative basically means they will be filled by Francophones as opposed to representatives of the other 80% of the population.

That doesn't concern you, however. If ninety percent of managerial and executive positions in the federal public service are held by Francophones, well, that's okay.

As for discriminatory policies, any job requirement is discriminating... I hope blind people are screened out for truck driving (which is discrimination, by the way).

The difference is that vision is an actual requirement of doing the job. Being bilingual is usually not an actual requirement of doing the job. It's an artificial requirement instituted for political reasons unrelated to the tasks of the job.

[jbg]

As for discriminatory policies, any job requirement is discriminating... I hope blind people are screened out for truck driving (which is discrimination, by the way). Anyone can achieve the skills required for federal work, including language skills, so it's not discriminating people based on their background, but rather on their capacities (which makes sense).

*snip*

I tried to keep this one short and sweet for you. We don't have to go on about this if you prefer, but that would mean that I win because you fail to respond to my arguments.

Here goes. While it is true that some government jobs might require facility in both languages, most don't. How bi-lingual must a customs official posted to the U.S. - Canadian border in BC, AB or SK really be? Must the signs say "Duanes" or would "Customs" do?

If people's advancement is halted because of a spurious need for "bi-lingualism" is that fair?

[Leafless]

As I recall, a Québécois is a resident of Québec, regardless of language or background.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you.

Post your proof when you make a controversial statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it is evident no English speaking person would go to the trouble and ridiculous lengths you do to support such an undemocratic initiative as 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service.

'Official bilingualism' in the federal public service is totally 'out of control' by implementing an inferior foreign (separatist supported including 50% of the population of Quebec) language to control the the most sensitive workings of government that all of Canada ultimately depends on.

The federal government of Canada is providing Canadians a disservice by leading Canada down a very dangerous path.

I quote your source:

A Québécois (IPA: [ke.be'kwa]), or in the feminine Québécoise (IPA: [ke.be'kwaz]), is a native or resident of the Canadian province of Quebec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province, or to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture.

"But may also" does not mean "exclusively". Regardless, I don't think Anglophone residents of Québec seem to bother you, so it's a non-issue... you're the one trolling on an arbitrary definition. If you like we can agree to use Québécois to refer exclusively to Francophone residents of Québec for the purpose of this thread, but instead you just suggest that I'm a French Nationalist despite the fact that I don't like Québec because of it's socialism and I would never live there.

Arbitrary definition?

It is obvious you don't have a clue what the word means.

The definition (Quebecois) from my source, that you quoted IS FROM AN INFORMED SORCE and has no single exclusive meaning to what a Quebecois is.

To describe English Quebecers, immigrant Quebecers and French Quebecers who describe themselves differently, the only word that can be used to cover ALL residents of Quebec is word what even the Prime Minister of the country refers to Quebec residents and that word is QUEBECERS.

I know this is hard for you to understand, not being a resident of Quebec.

[Leafless]

"Not worth replying to"? Bwahahahahaha, you're not able to reply to it. I've got you cornered. You'd have to admit that you either made a racist comment (concerning Stéphane Dion's French citizenship) or that your argument that Canada's language policies being racist is not valid.

I have every right to complain about Dion retaining his French citizenship, the reason primary being it goes back to the 'Plains of Abraham' and shows a disrespect for our inherited British constitution and the country of Canada.

Canada's language policies ARE racist and are VALID and I make NO apologies for that.

Also you seem to make this language issue seem like such a big deal.

It is a big deal especially when the government of Canada unilaterally writes racial discrimination into our constitution.

You seem to think that there it's a problem that one group of Canadians is over-represented in federal gov't offices yet you claim to not hate any group of people (so it shouldn't be an issue)

I don't have any hate towards anyone, but the federal government writing a racist policy into our constitution is a major issue.

You also can't seem to get over the FLQ who were a couple crazy commies and do not represent anyone, just their crazy ideas.

Are you denying that the creation of Canada's 'official languages' 'OLA' were not prompted by FLQ activities and concerns.

Sure Canadians need their gov't, but French is not a foreign language.

French is the language of France.

When compared to the majority language of Canada, English, notwithstanding the federal government's definition of 'official languages' which does not reflect the reality of Canada and excludes the provinces, all but New Brunswick being officially bilingual, then yes, IMO French is a foreign language.

Separatists don't have any interest in working for federal gov't departments, it's not where they can do their lobbying. [From what I gather, Seperatists have no real interest in learning English and working for the feds, they want the feds to work for them.

Not quite true.

I knew separatist in the federal government who were there for the cool cash.

They were so separatist they use to dress in jeans with a picture of Rene Leveque laminated to their back jean pocket.

This is one of the things what official bilingualism has done to our federal government. It has forced management into a difficult position to enforce rules in maintaining a level of respect for our 'Queen' as 'Head of State' and the enforcement of a proper dress code as to not ridicule our federal government.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I have every right to complain about Dion retaining his French citizenship, the reason primary being it goes back to the 'Plains of Abraham' and shows a disrespect for our inherited British constitution and the country of Canada.

Canada's language policies ARE racist and are VALID and I make NO apologies for that.

Nonsense. Dion is 100% Canadian, just as Canadian as anyone else with Canadian citizenship, so all other citizenships are irrelevant. It's bad enough people were upset that Michaëlle Jean had French citizenship when she became our Governor General but I understand because she represents the Queen of England (I only didn't like the fact that she's a seperatist). Dion doesn't represent any Englishman in Canada, so provided he is a Canadian citizen then no other citizenship should be an issue.

It is a big deal especially when the government of Canada unilaterally writes racial discrimination into our constitution.

Language is not a racial issue. Canada decided on two official languages, languages being for the purpose of communication, regardless of which culture and in which languages culture in Canada is celebrated. Canada could choose any languages it wants to provided to political system supports it.

Are you denying that the creation of Canada's 'official languages' 'OLA' were not prompted by FLQ activities and concerns.

Is that a question.

I'm not denying anything, but the FLQ is history. The Act itself is not evil. I quote under languages of work:

35. (1) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that

( a ) within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or in any place outside Canada, that is prescribed, work environments of the institution are conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees; and

( b ) in all parts or regions of Canada not prescribed for the purpose of paragraph (a), the treatment of both official languages in the work environments of the institution in parts or regions of Canada where one official language predominates is reasonably comparable to the treatment of both official languages in the work environments of the institution in parts or regions of Canada where the other official language predominates.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/O-...anchorbo-ga:l_V

You can report your work in your prefered domestic language in certain regions and if people can report to you in their prefered domestic language, to live up to that right, you need both languages for your position. Makes sense.

French is the language of France.

No... really?? What's your point?

When compared to the majority language of Canada, English, notwithstanding the federal government's definition of 'official languages' which does not reflect the reality of Canada and excludes the provinces, all but New Brunswick being officially bilingual, then yes, IMO French is a foreign language.

French is official in two provinces and unofficial yet heavily supported in Ontario (containing roughly two thirds of Canada's population within these areas where French is heavily supported, meaning beyond any federaly imposed minimum). I don't see how you could consider French a foreign language.

Not quite true.

I knew separatist in the federal government who were there for the cool cash.

They were so separatist they use to dress in jeans with a picture of Rene Leveque laminated to their back jean pocket.

This is one of the things what official bilingualism has done to our federal government. It has forced management into a difficult position to enforce rules in maintaining a level of respect for our 'Queen' as 'Head of State' and the enforcement of a proper dress code as to not ridicule our federal government.

About the seperatist you knew, makes sense because money is everyone's favorite language, but that makes this seperatist a sell-out for learning enough English and then landing a job with the feds. I don't see how language policies could compromise dress-code control. On the other hand, I'm sure there are sell-out unpatriotic Anglophones who work for the feds. Seperatists are not the only enemy.

Arbitrary definition?

It is obvious you don't have a clue what the word means.

The definition (Quebecois) from my source, that you quoted IS FROM AN INFORMED SORCE and has no single exclusive meaning to what a Quebecois is.

To describe English Quebecers, immigrant Quebecers and French Quebecers who describe themselves differently, the only word that can be used to cover ALL residents of Quebec is word what even the Prime Minister of the country refers to Quebec residents and that word is QUEBECERS.

I know this is hard for you to understand, not being a resident of Quebec.

Arbitrary indeed. You argue that Quebecer is the only appropriate word for all residents of Québec, despite the fact that the definition given for Québécois is a resident of Québec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province. Going by your sources, Québécois could also be used to refer to all residents of Québec, not necessarily strictly the Francophones of that province. I don't really care, seems like it would make you much happier if I refer to all residents of Québec as Quebecers and use Québécois only to refer to the Francophones of that province. Quebecer it is.

Here goes. While it is true that some government jobs might require facility in both languages, most don't. How bi-lingual must a customs official posted to the U.S. - Canadian border in BC, AB or SK really be? Must the signs say "Duanes" or would "Customs" do?

If people's advancement is halted because of a spurious need for "bi-lingualism" is that fair?

At the federal boarder Canada can use international policies and can determine whether or not both languages are needed. Only communist governments try to advocate fairness. If someone thinks knowing their second domestic language will increase their opportunities, they should start working on it as early as possible.

As I recall you rarely respond to other people's arguments, and your own consists almost entirely of saying everyone who works for the federal government should be bilingual - because... because? Because why? To better represent Canada? But the fact of making jobs bilingual imperative basically means they will be filled by Francophones as opposed to representatives of the other 80% of the population.

That doesn't concern you, however. If ninety percent of managerial and executive positions in the federal public service are held by Francophones, well, that's okay.

I was saying to Leafless that he was slipping his way out of my arguments, and I usually respond to other peoples' arguments. Whether all the jobs are staffed by Quebecers, Ontarians, Albertans... I couldn't care less provided they have the skills required for the job. I'd imagine if none of the positions were held by Francophones, you wouldn't be complaining.

The difference is that vision is an actual requirement of doing the job. Being bilingual is usually not an actual requirement of doing the job. It's an artificial requirement instituted for political reasons unrelated to the tasks of the job.

My point is that requiring bilingualism does not discriminate candidates based on the way they're born (gender, skin color, place of birth, any other trait identifiable at birth before one is able to speak). In other words anyone can shape themselves to fit the job requirements regardless of where and to whom they're born.

[Leafless]

Language is not a racial issue. Canada decided on two official languages, languages being for the purpose of communication, regardless of which culture and in which languages culture in Canada is celebrated. Canada could choose any languages it wants to provided to political system supports it.

The federal government making French an 'official language' of Canada is only valid under federal entities and racially discriminates against the majority English language, since the government of Canada has no business UNILATERALLY dictating language policies.

This basically all stems from the B&B Royal Commission which at that time consisted of nothing more than a Liberal government inquiry.

It should be noted constitutionally speaking only Quebec is entitled to the legal use of the French language.

But since France relating to the 'Treaty of Paris' all of French North America were ceded to Britain by France except the two small islands St.Pierre and Miquelon off of the south shore of Newfoundland.

This means French has NO LEGAL BASIS in all of the other provinces in Canada excluding New Brunswick that is a 'officially bilingual province' by its own FREE CHOICE.

For the federal government of Canada to make French a working language of the federal government and to promote French in provinces out of its jurisdiction could be seen as a traitorous action by our own federal government.

The biggest joke of all is when Liberal Don Bourdia appeared on t.v., endorsed the politically correct fraud that: "...Canada is a bilingual nation with 'linguistic duality, and that since the Quebec Act of 1774 ...both founding nations are equal partners", which is absolutely a false claim.

[Leafless]

No... really?? What's your point?

France ceded all North American rights to the British in the 'Treaty of Paris'.

French only carries constitutional legal weight in the province of Quebec and the racial discriminatory undemocratic charter that recognizes French 'only under federal entities' but NOT PROVINCIALLY speaking.

For Mr. Dion to retain his French citizenship especially as a potential PM in waiting, demonstrates contempt for the country of Canada since it conflicts with the fact, it was Britain that gave us our constitution and not France, the other country that lost to the British.

Mr. Dion should wake up and acknowledge retaining his French citizenship will only hamper his chances of potentially becoming Canada's next PM.

[Argus]

As I recall you rarely respond to other people's arguments, and your own consists almost entirely of saying everyone who works for the federal government should be bilingual - because... because? Because why? To better represent Canada? But the fact of making jobs bilingual imperative basically means they will be filled by Francophones as opposed to representatives of the other 80% of the population.

That doesn't concern you, however. If ninety percent of managerial and executive positions in the federal public service are held by Francophones, well, that's okay.

I was saying to Leafless that he was slipping his way out of my arguments, and I usually respond to other peoples' arguments. Whether all the jobs are staffed by Quebecers, Ontarians, Albertans... I couldn't care less provided they have the skills required for the job. I'd imagine if none of the positions were held by Francophones, you wouldn't be complaining.

And here is the blatant hypocrisy of your position laid bare. You insist every single member of the public service be "bilingual" in order to better represent Canada, but you then go on to say that you couldn't care less if all jobs were filled by Albertans or Quebecers. Thus you have no particular care about whether those in the federal public service represent Canada or not.

It seems the only thing you actually care about is French. You want all jobs to be bilingual because it serves your personal interests as a bilingual person. That it might actually be harmful to Canadian unity, that it is inefficient, and costly and leads to poorer choices in employees is completely irrelevant to you.

That's okay - to be completely selfish and thoughtless, but you ought to get off your high moral horse of pretense that there is anything else behind your position.

[Leafless]

Arbitrary indeed. You argue that Quebecer is the only appropriate word for all residents of Québec, despite the fact that the definition given for Québécois is a resident of Québec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province. Going by your sources, Québécois could also be used to refer to all residents of Québec, not necessarily strictly the Francophones of that province.

It is not arbitrary. I provided proof that the word 'Quebecois' does not have a single exclusive definition.

I cited a reference that the word 'Quebecois' has different meanings and is not suited to describe 'all residents of Quebec' many of who want 'no connection' to the word Quebecois.

The word 'Quebecer' appropriately describes all residents of Quebec.

Your the one who is inconsistent with your definition of Quebecois and trying to label my definition as arbitrary, when in fact I am proving you wrong concerning the word Quebecois as being not accurate in describing all residents of Quebec since it has SEVERAL meanings.

Here is what you said:

Post #249: "Quebecois has nothing to do with nationalism" Well the fact is Quebec nationalist and separatist call themselves Quebecois.

Post#251: " Quebecois is a resident of Quebec regardless of language or background" Not true. My link provided proof that the Quebecois does not exclusively say that.

Post #253 "Regardless I don't think Anglophone residents seem to bother you....Your the one trolling an arbitrary definition." Anglophone residents do certainly concern me and most if not all do not want to be identified with the word Quebecois.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Here is what you said:

Post #249: "Quebecois has nothing to do with nationalism" Well the fact is Quebec nationalist and separatist call themselves Quebecois.

Post#251: " Quebecois is a resident of Quebec regardless of language or background" Not true. My link provided proof that the Quebecois does not exclusively say that.

Post #253 "Regardless I don't think Anglophone residents seem to bother you....Your the one trolling an arbitrary definition." Anglophone residents do certainly concern me and most if not all do not want to be identified with the word Quebecois.

I quote your source again:

A Québécois (IPA: [ke.be'kwa]), or in the feminine Québécoise (IPA: [ke.be'kwaz]), is a native or resident of the Canadian province of Quebec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province, or to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture.

The first thing mentioned in your source is that a Québécois is a native or resident of Québec. I may also specifically refer to something else (meaning that the very first thing mentioned is valid "as is").

Non-seperatists may also call themselves Québécois. Definitions and sense of belonging are very different.

Why would Anglophone Quebecers concern you? They're not as likely to advocate bilingualism in Canada as the Francophone Quebecers, so I don't see why they'd be a concern.

Your definition admits the use of Québécois to refer to any native or resident of Québec, so I was using this word correctly. Because you insist that Québécois exclusively refers to French Canadian residents of Québec, then I'll use Quebecers to refer to all residents of Québec. It's not an issue for me, but let's have it your way to end this discussion about the definition of Québécois... it's completely irrelevant to the fact that more jobs are requiring both languages in Ottawa.

[Leafless]

Non-seperatists may also call themselves Québécois. Definitions and sense of belonging are very different.

And this is why using the word 'Quebecois' is wrong when commonly making reference to residents of Quebec as it has 'nationalistic sentiments' not every Quebecer wants to be associated with.

It could mean Quebecois society, Quebecois nation, Quebecois people, Quebcois separatist, Quebecois country.

This all started in post #238 when you said: "Quebecois wanting to work in Ottawa blah, blah blah."

You were not being specific what Quebecois you are talking about and this is why the word Quebecer is much easier understood to include all Quebecers regardless of political affiliation, language or culture.

Simple isn't it.

Why would Anglophone Quebecers concern you? They're not as likely to advocate bilingualism in Canada as the Francophone Quebecers, so I don't see why they'd be a concern.

Who's talking about advocating bilingualism?

There are other Quebecers looking for work in Ottawa and all over Canada other than Francophone Quebecers.

It's not an issue for me, but let's have it your way to end this discussion about the definition of Québécois... it's completely irrelevant to the fact that more jobs are requiring both languages in Ottawa.

There are jobs in Ottawa that require the use of both English and French thanks to federal government interference in provincial concerns out of their jurisdiction and the fact the CITY of Ottawa UNILATERALLY IMPOSED an official bilingual policy on the city of Ottawa residents in the SAME FASHION the federal government IMPOSED 'federal official bilingualism' in the federal government totally BYPASSING and EXCLUDING the VOICE of the ELECTORATE.

Commie country anyone?

[Pat Coghlan]

There are jobs in Ottawa that require the use of both English and French thanks to federal government interference in provincial concerns out of their jurisdiction and the fact the CITY of Ottawa UNILATERALLY IMPOSED an official bilingual policy on the city of Ottawa residents in the SAME FASHION the federal government IMPOSED 'federal official bilingualism' in the federal government totally BYPASSING and EXCLUDING the VOICE of the ELECTORATE.

Commie country anyone?

IMHO, any manager that wants to classify a job as biligual must have to certify that the person in the job will use the minority language at least 60 minutes per day.

If a person can function in a job for more than 7 hours in just one language, there is no way that the manager should be allowed to classify it as biligual.

Interestingly, no where in any of the fed/prov/municipal guidelines are there any standards regarding the amount of time spent speaking the second language.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

IMHO, any manager that wants to classify a job as biligual must have to certify that the person in the job will use the minority language at least 60 minutes per day.

If a person can function in a job for more than 7 hours in just one language, there is no way that the manager should be allowed to classify it as biligual.

Interestingly, no where in any of the fed/prov/municipal guidelines are there any standards regarding the amount of time spent speaking the second language.

Humble opinion indeed. I'd imagine federal employees could be working on different projects/contracts at different times and may be required to relocate, so depending on the work coming in one could need English, French or both. It would be quite useful for federal employees to be bilingual because then the government could assign more projects to a federal employee over the course of one's career with the feds, so even if a federal employee goes months without using their second language, the need could come up at any time (and the gov't could assign more pressing projects to their most efficient employees, language not being an issue if all are blingual). Plus there's no way of anticipating how many minutes per day will be spent answering phone calls in one's second language, so it would be tricky to figure how many minutes/hours per day would be spent working in one's second language in order to draw a line for when an employer should not make a job position exclusively bilingual.

And this is why using the word 'Quebecois' is wrong when commonly making reference to residents of Quebec as it has 'nationalistic sentiments' not every Quebecer wants to be associated with.

It could mean Quebecois society, Quebecois nation, Quebecois people, Quebcois separatist, Quebecois country.

This all started in post #238 when you said: "Quebecois wanting to work in Ottawa blah, blah blah."

You were not being specific what Quebecois you are talking about and this is why the word Quebecer is much easier understood to include all Quebecers regardless of political affiliation, language or culture.

Simple isn't it.

Simple? You make it complicated. Québécois is synonymous to Quebecer. You seem to have mistaken sense of belonging for definition. Regardless of who "considers" themselves Québécois, if Québécois means a native or resident of Québec, then it is synonymous to Quebecer. Because I don't care too much to argue this, I'll use "Quebecers" instead when refering to all residents of Québec.

Who's talking about advocating bilingualism?

There are other Quebecers looking for work in Ottawa and all over Canada other than Francophone Quebecers.

Sure, but Anglophone Quebecers are not contributing to the need for the French language, plus most of them are not seperatists, so even if I were excluding them by refering to the Québécois wouldn't be an issue.

There are jobs in Ottawa that require the use of both English and French thanks to federal government interference in provincial concerns out of their jurisdiction and the fact the CITY of Ottawa UNILATERALLY IMPOSED an official bilingual policy on the city of Ottawa residents in the SAME FASHION the federal government IMPOSED 'federal official bilingualism' in the federal government totally BYPASSING and EXCLUDING the VOICE of the ELECTORATE.

Commie country anyone?

Wasn't unilateral; it affected all residents equally.

Canada took Armenia's side for the case of the Armenian war and never sought my opinion. Government in all countries make decisions that may favor as few as only politicians and their friends, even in the most democratic countries. Get over it.

[Leafless]

Simple? You make it complicated. Québécois is synonymous to Quebecer. You seem to have mistaken sense of belonging for definition. Regardless of who "considers" themselves Québécois, if Québécois means a native or resident of Québec, then it is synonymous to Quebecer. Because I don't care too much to argue this, I'll use "Quebecers" instead when refering to all residents of Québec.

I will even make it easier for you to understand.

French speaking Quebec residents are by nature 'Quebec nationalist', you know, Quebec comes FIRST mentality and Canada second, even if they are so called federalist.

It is a simple fact to acknowledge that NOT All Quebec residents don't want to be identified by the word Quebecois.

There is really nothing to argue about as you should readily see and understand the word 'Quebecois' is offensive to many Quebec residents and therefore should not be used to collectively describe the whole population of Quebec.

Sure, but Anglophone Quebecers are not contributing to the need for the French language, plus most of them are not seperatists, so even if I were excluding them by refering to the Québécois wouldn't be an issue.

Anglophone Quebecers are not compelled to contribute to the need of the French language.

Actually the "need of the French language" is purely political and has nothing to do with the life and death realistic requirement of imposing an obsolete residential minority language on users of the majority commercial English language.

Wasn't unilateral; it affected all residents equally.

Ottawa's 'official bilingualism policy' was unilaterally imposed by Ottawa city council and unilaterally approved by Ontario Liberal premier Dalton Mc.Guinty.

[Pat Coghlan]

IMHO, any manager that wants to classify a job as biligual must have to certify that the person in the job will use the minority language at least 60 minutes per day.

If a person can function in a job for more than 7 hours in just one language, there is no way that the manager should be allowed to classify it as biligual.

Interestingly, no where in any of the fed/prov/municipal guidelines are there any standards regarding the amount of time spent speaking the second language.

Humble opinion indeed. I'd imagine federal employees could be working on different projects/contracts at different times and may be required to relocate, so depending on the work coming in one could need English, French or both. It would be quite useful for federal employees to be bilingual because then the government could assign more projects to a federal employee over the course of one's career with the feds, so even if a federal employee goes months without using their second language, the need could come up at any time (and the gov't could assign more pressing projects to their most efficient employees, language not being an issue if all are blingual). Plus there's no way of anticipating how many minutes per day will be spent answering phone calls in one's second language, so it would be tricky to figure how many minutes/hours per day would be spent working in one's second language in order to draw a line for when an employer should not make a job position exclusively bilingual.

I'll tell you what happens when a manager doesn't have to certify that a second language will be used at least, say 60 minutes per day, on average. There are few limits on the number of positions that a manager can classify as bilingual. In Ottawa, a francophone manager will often try to classify as many positions as possible as bilingual, and often require that the candidate be bilingual in order to START the job, so as to avoid losing the person for 1-2 years on language training. I've seen it happen.

If the position serves the public, or interfaces with a peer working in a region with a different majority language, it can be justified. Otherwise, a whole lot of money (and grief) can be saved by requiring that employees speak the language of the majority in a given region. That means English everywhere in Ontario. Ditto for Quebec. Problem (and money) solved :-)

Isn't this what is done everywhere in the private sector???

[Argus]

The difference is that vision is an actual requirement of doing the job. Being bilingual is usually not an actual requirement of doing the job. It's an artificial requirement instituted for political reasons unrelated to the tasks of the job.

My point is that requiring bilingualism does not discriminate candidates based on the way they're born (gender, skin color, place of birth, any other trait identifiable at birth before one is able to speak).

Bullshit. Where you are born in this country has a dramatic affect on what chance there is you will be bilingual. Those born in Montreal and western Quebec or Eastern Ontario, in New Brunswick, or in Francophone communities in northern Ontario are far, far far more likely to be bilingual than anyone born in BC or Alberta. For that matter, if you are born to a French family in Ottawa as opposed to an English family, you are far, far more likely to be bilingual. So don't tell me that ethnic background doesn't play a part either.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Bullshit. Where you are born in this country has a dramatic affect on what chance there is you will be bilingual. Those born in Montreal and western Quebec or Eastern Ontario, in New Brunswick, or in Francophone communities in northern Ontario are far, far far more likely to be bilingual than anyone born in BC or Alberta. For that matter, if you are born to a French family in Ottawa as opposed to an English family, you are far, far more likely to be bilingual. So don't tell me that ethnic background doesn't play a part either.

Some people are born luckier than others. An upbringing does not guarantee non-language skills, nor does it guarantee that one's skills in those languages are good enough to work managerial positions (sure basic language skills may be needed to serve someone a cold beer, but one still has to learn their first language(s) in order to write letters, etc.). Being born in Alberta or BC does not stop you from being bilingual.

I'll tell you what happens when a manager doesn't have to certify that a second language will be used at least, say 60 minutes per day, on average. There are few limits on the number of positions that a manager can classify as bilingual. In Ottawa, a francophone manager will often try to classify as many positions as possible as bilingual, and often require that the candidate be bilingual in order to START the job, so as to avoid losing the person for 1-2 years on language training. I've seen it happen.

If the position serves the public, or interfaces with a peer working in a region with a different majority language, it can be justified. Otherwise, a whole lot of money (and grief) can be saved by requiring that employees speak the language of the majority in a given region. That means English everywhere in Ontario. Ditto for Quebec. Problem (and money) solved :-)

Isn't this what is done everywhere in the private sector???

Makes sense, no one wants to hire someone knowing they'll lose the employee to training. On the other hand, a huge amount of federal jobs could easily be outsourced, making language no longer an issue. If these employers anticipate losing their monolingual employees to language training, then both languages are most likely needed for the job.

I will even make it easier for you to understand.

French speaking Quebec residents are by nature 'Quebec nationalist', you know, Quebec comes FIRST mentality and Canada second, even if they are so called federalist.

It is a simple fact to acknowledge that NOT All Quebec residents don't want to be identified by the word Quebecois.

There is really nothing to argue about as you should readily see and understand the word 'Quebecois' is offensive to many Quebec residents and therefore should not be used to collectively describe the whole population of Quebec.

Oh I understand, that you arguing a definition with sense of belonging is silly. You assume that Francophone residents of Québec are naturally nationalists, which I understand by that you mean seperatist. This goes back to your nonsense deduction I pointed out earlier that 100% of Francophones = 100% of residents of Québec = 100% Seperatists. Québecers may have a different sense of belonging than other Canadians by putting their province first, but that does not mean they like Canada any less.

Right, because despite the fact that you're from Ontariario, you somehow speak on behalf of Québec residents to determine their sense of belonging. The Quebecers can call themselves what they want. According to the English language, Québécois can be synonymous to Quebecer, so I was not wrong in using that word. I'll use an example to explain. A friend of mine from Texas is a Chicano (meaning "A person of Mexican descent" according to WordWeb, often defined as an American born to Mexican parents). He does not consider himself Chicano (but rather Mexican American, Latino, etc.) because he does not feel part of the cultural movement using that word as a sense of belonging but does not argue when someone refers to him as a Chicano because he fits the definition. Even if many Quebecers don't consider themselves Québécois, they still are by definition. Somehow because you think this is an issue, I'll use the synonym 'Quebecer' to please you, an 'Ontarian' because it might upset the 'Quebecers' who do not consider themselves 'Québécois', despite the fact that they are 'Québécois' by definition.

Actually the "need of the French language" is purely political and has nothing to do with the life and death realistic requirement of imposing an obsolete residential minority language on users of the majority commercial English language.

Tell that to the businesses who will gladly provide service in French and do commerce in French because in increases their revenues. Money is everyone's favorite language.

Ottawa's 'official bilingualism policy' was unilaterally imposed by Ottawa city council and unilaterally approved by Ontario Liberal premier Dalton Mc.Guinty.

Unilaterally imposed by democratically elected politicians... right. It was so unilateral, that it was introduced by those elected by a majoirty of voters! They wouldn't have done it if it were to flush their popularity prior to the following election, so apparently it's not as unilateral as you claim.

[jbg]

Some people are born luckier than others. An upbringing does not guarantee non-language skills, nor does it guarantee that one's skills in those languages are good enough to work managerial positions (sure basic language skills may be needed to serve someone a cold beer, but one still has to learn their first language(s) in order to write letters, etc.). Being born in Alberta or BC does not stop you from being bilingual.

The problem is that people born in Quebec or in the "Francophone pockets" of other provinces get "English immersion" from Day 1. Their exposure to English as a second language in school is reinforced by continual real-life exposure to English as the dominant language on the continent. The reverse is not true, and thus BC'ers, etc. are at a real disadvantage in obtaining civil service jobs.

In addition, I suspect there is some policy designed, sub silentio, to favor Francophones. What do you think?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Some people are born luckier than others. An upbringing does not guarantee non-language skills, nor does it guarantee that one's skills in those languages are good enough to work managerial positions (sure basic language skills may be needed to serve someone a cold beer, but one still has to learn their first language(s) in order to write letters, etc.). Being born in Alberta or BC does not stop you from being bilingual.

The problem is that people born in Quebec or in the "Francophone pockets" of other provinces get "English immersion" from Day 1. Their exposure to English as a second language in school is reinforced by continual real-life exposure to English as the dominant language on the continent. The reverse is not true, and thus BC'ers, etc. are at a real disadvantage in obtaining civil service jobs.

In addition, I suspect there is some policy designed, sub silentio, to favor Francophones. What do you think?

Immersion does help, but is not necessary in order to learn a language. Considering the opportunities available for Westerners to immerse in the French language in Québec, any Westerner can achieve fluency in the French language, and should if considering ever working for the federal gov't (in this case I'm not arguing this because I think these jobs should require bilingualism but rather because many of these jobs actually do require both languages and it would be wise for anyone hoping to tap into this employment to learn their 2nd Canadian language).

For the second point I can only speak based on experience. I have been led to believing that virtually everyone holding a blingual position would have French as a first language, leading me to first speak in French with people working such positions in order to ease communication. I was astonished that many of these people working bilingual positions in Ottawa are actually Anglophones. One could tell that French was not their first language when spoken to in French and that they were fastest in French with terms related to their work, but I applause them for putting enough effort into their language skills in order to whip up a working ability in their second domestic language. I must say that one should not assume that a given person working a bilingual position speaks French as a first language. It would be convenient for me if I could assume most (if not all) working bilingual positions were of a given first language, that way I would naturally choose that language when speaking with those serving me, but there seems to be a good diversity of bilingual people of both languages working bilingual positions in Ottawa. I really couldn't speak about other cities, though.

As for policies, they may be written by people wanting to favor Francophones (could be) yet permitted by our democratic system. Also even if those who wrote our language policies had the intentions of favoring Francophones, they still came no where near to giving special treatment to them like the case of the Aboriginals. Quebecers may be getting a little extra money from equalization, but a province with a population of 7 million and a lower economy than Ontario would receive the same amount of funding regardless of language, and non-Francophone Quebecers are receiving the same amount per capita from equalization as their Francophone counterparts. Francophones are still paying taxes and paying for services in the English language which they are not using, so they still don't get a significant advantage over other Canadians like the natives do.