3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Leafless]

But this is like any other business. You own stocks I will assume. And you vote at the AGM , and I suppose you either vote to keep the CEO in place or start a removal process. Yet, he does not call and ask for a vote on every issue. Every four years or so, give or take, we do the same thing. You have your vote , same as anyone else.

There is a democratic deficit in Canada, in case you have not noticed, that is drastically affecting the rights of the majority of Canadians.

Aside from the fact that they arent with the current man Dion in place? Man, loathe as I am to say it, Harper IS better than Dion. And I thought Chretien was painful, Dion is like root canal.

But to answer your question....hmm...I suppose because they have been the best at targeting what easteners want.

And what is that, entitled to tax payer support for the rest of time?

[guyser]

All in favor of bastardized French being jammed down the throats of ALL Canadians, please raise your wallets! You want French? You pay for it.

I want free exotic dancers for everyone. Why doesn't that idea get my tax dollars? It would be good for all Canadians, and should be paid for by the feds.

And ALL federal employees MUST be able to lapdance. Dancing predates the French language, so it has to be included in federal policies. If you can't lapdance, you will not be considered for the position.

I see no one has answered my earlier question of why sign language isn't an official requirement for federal employees. Wonder why that is? So deaf people don't matter, huh? How racist.

Kwebek can jam their bastardized French up their collective posteriors. The only official language in Canada is English. Don't like it? Get the hell out.

Normally I enjoy reading your views. Then I get caught unaware with a post like this. What a shame .

Get the hell out....thats your answer? Where they going to go? They are all as you and I are, Canadians.

[guyser]

There is a democratic deficit in Canada, in case you have not noticed, that is drastically affecting the rights of the majority of Canadians.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I give you a scenario about why we cant all be called for a vote everyday., and you come back with a democratic deficit.

And what is that, entitled to tax payer support for the rest of time?

Umm....what do you mean, all easterners are bums being supported ?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

How do you know what I have written, or complained about or suggested to my MP or even the PM's office?

The only thing that will make them move on the bilingualism issue is a revolution.

Good luck revolting! Without the right to bear arms, all you can do is complain to the Queen, who will not intervene unless she herself sees a serious problem in Canada, mainly if it becomes a threat to national security.

Yeah, but as you said, the American government will not allow trends of the day to change their laws, unlike Canada.

I never said that, you did.

No, you said it, and here is the proof:

The U.S. really puts Canada to shame when it comes to important changes in their constitution and does not allow the government of the day to freely re-write history.

All due to corrupt draconian dictated bilingual policies.

A few post back someone suggested that you must be dumb if you don't recognize what an octagon stop sign means.

Ottawa did not pass any rule to have bilingual stop signs. It must be really draconian if the city decided to put up a few bilingual signs in certain Franco-Ontarian residential areas... wow, that cost you a buck and some right there! You might lose your job because of a stop sign! It's cool to have bilingual stop signs. I never said I couldn't recognize a red octagon sign if it were in a language I could not understand, but my point is that there is no harm in having a stop sign in a language other than your own in your own country.

Politicians tow the party line in Canada, BUISNESS RULES.

Ok, in this case, private sector requires bilingualism because they want money, reflecting a natural demand for bilingualism, then they pressure the government in establishing bilingual policies to reflect a natural demand, yet somehow this is an artificial demand just because the private sector wants to cater to a huge minority in a language that is somehow not commercial.

This is not at all what you were saying earlier, which I believe was that Francophone=Québécois=Seperatist and some how wants to make all of Canada bilingual, yet wants to seperate. Either way you're not being consistant, nor making any sense.

No it is not since Canada is an 'official multicultural country' and French is not an internationally recognized language.

Officially multicultural does not mean anything, and French is indeed an international language. It may not be the biggest international language, but it's still up there. Also, this doesn't matter, because Canada's language scheme does not have to reflect the international language scheme.

There are other topics relating to the cost of 'federal official bilingualism' with estimates as high as $600-Billion dollars. Feel free to look them up.

I wasn't talking about the cost of bilingualism... I was talking about the cost of our nonsense "officially multicultural" slogan. I'm sure bilingualism is a tad pricey, but it's worth it. Canada has a reasonable cost of living, reasonable taxes, pretty good public services, etc. You'd be paying more for things you don't use if you were to move to just about any other developed country other than the United States.

My son- in- law is perfectly bilingual at the highest level.

We have several family members including myself who are or were federal public servants and are fully aware of ongoing bilingual based discrimination resulting in low moral, dissension, animosity, inefficiency.

Everyone knows about but few say anything.

Government efficiency is an oxymoron. Your son-in-law should not be having any troubles if he is bilingual. Socially, there are problems with both ends of the scope, so if there are tensions between anglophones and francophones, that needs to improve. Removing bilingual policies will not change that.

The 'Charter of the French Language' is basically a deluxe version of Bill-101 and we all know how that discriminates.

The point is Quebec is using this French Charter to nationalize Quebec characteristics is the same fashion as establishing a country.

You should read it sometime, as it makes interesting Nazi type reading and supports your type of imposed and dictated ideologies.

Charters of rights make for some very boring reads. I'd appreciate some quotes. However, I did take the initiative and found it, and I'll quote every mention of the word "language":

"(Chapter 1) 10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap."

"(Chapter 3) 28. Every person arrested or detained has a right to be promptly informed, in a language he understands, of the grounds of his arrest or detention."

"(Chapter 3 again) 36. Every accused person has a right to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter if he does not understand the language used at the hearing or if he is deaf."

Yeah, that's some real Nazi-like draconian oppresion. You should read it and maybe you'll see that their Charter of Rights in itself is not bad. I don't know how well it's respected, but their rights seem just and courteous. I don't think assisting the deaf and those who need an interpreter in court because they do not speak the judge's language is a waste of Québec residents' tax money, nor a waste of the money they get from equalization.

The point is to date ALL BILINGUAL POLICIES in Canada, federal or municipal, with Quebec not participating at all, were ALL created without the input of tax paying citizens of Canada who were denied that legal right that is so inherent of our constitution and British law, that gave us this free democratic country initially.

Who gave us a democratic country initially? I beg to differ! Canada did not have real sovereignty until the 80s, when we finally no longer had to go through the Queen for every little change in our country. Only since the 30s were we no longer obligated to assist the English in times of war. This is not democracy, we were an English colony for the longest time. We practically still are, because we never "claimed" independance.

You are imposing unprecedented (like the Liberals) draconian, undemocratic methods to implement bilingualism, which is not part of a democratic, freer society.

You must really like communism, although at the same time, your critical of Quebec for being communist.

The private sector is reflecting the natural demand of the Canadian people. I am not imposing any methods, I'm just writing in this forum.

I don't like communism. I don't see how you can accuse me of being a communist. I'm as capitalist as economics get. Socially I may swing between right and left, still mostly tending to the right, but as I said, I'm for privatization, so I am no where near communism. I'd be willing to abolish public medicare, stop subsidizing education beyond the sixth grade, and no longer subsidizing garbage pick up (only subsidize recycling). I'd also be willing to abolish wellfare and have job placements for the disabled, and only giving them a compensation check for the difference between their earnings and what they were making before they became disabled, or give them a compensation worth 30% or 40% of their earnings, not giving them a full disabled check. I'm also for the right to bear arms and against marijuana legalization. I'd also allow full privatization of public transportation. I don't see how I fit as a communist.

All in favor of bastardized French being jammed down the throats of ALL Canadians, please raise your wallets! You want French? You pay for it.

I want free exotic dancers for everyone. Why doesn't that idea get my tax dollars? It would be good for all Canadians, and should be paid for by the feds.

And ALL federal employees MUST be able to lapdance. Dancing predates the French language, so it has to be included in federal policies. If you can't lapdance, you will not be considered for the position.

I see no one has answered my earlier question of why sign language isn't an official requirement for federal employees. Wonder why that is? So deaf people don't matter, huh? How racist.

Kwebek can jam their bastardized French up their collective posteriors. The only official language in Canada is English. Don't like it? Get the hell out.

That's an idea. Lapdancing also predates the English language... what's your point? Lapdancing would fall into the arts category, which wouldn't make sense to require for an office job. I'm sure a lot of employers hire secretaries capable of lapdancing, but that's good for another post. Deaf people are not a race, by the way. Skills accommodating to the disabled are really expensive, especially if combined with computer and other language skills, and whatever skills needed to do the actual work. The government contracts skilled persons in order to cater to the disabled, but requiring it for employment would quickly drive us into bankruptcy.

There is a democratic deficit in Canada, in case you have not noticed, that is drastically affecting the rights of the majority of Canadians.

Then start a party whose goal is to abolish bilingual policies. See how far you get with that. If you win, you then truly reflect the majority of Canadians' interests.

[guyser]

I'm also for the right to bear arms and against marijuana legalization.

Say it aint so Joe..why ? I am not talking abut the guns.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I'm also for the right to bear arms and against marijuana legalization.

Say it aint so Joe..why ? I am not talking abut the guns.

Never said you were, but I'm for freedom and against communism. I also think Canada is big enough for two official languages.

[Leafless]

The French are in France and the English are in England. Canadians are in Canada, with the exception of some Canadians, Englishmen and Frenchmen living abroad. Apparently the bilingual policies have some sort of meaning to you, otherwise they wouldn't phase you. I was talking about Federal Bilingual Policies and propaganda, not provincial. Regardless of people of a given language in Québec and the rest of Canada, the feds are developing bilingual policies which does have a meaning to all Canadians.

You put great emphasis and obviously think it is a great thing relating to the feds totalitarian, dictated federal official bilingual policy. What I was saying it does not matter whose bilingual policy it was , either federal as in the federal government, or municiple as in Ottawa, Ontario, they were both force fed bypassing the democratic process to implement those policies.

Yeah, but there's no reason for Canadians to lose the language of the first colonizing European nation... if Switzerland is big enough for four official languages, I'm sure Canada is big enough for two.

Factually, France gave away all rights to Canada , if this means anything to you.

The English language prior to the 'official languages act', English was the 'de facto' language of Canada.

The Liberals undemocratic political maneuvering established the 'official languages act'.

Federal 'official bilingualism' is entirely in a separate area, as it is not written in the same act as 'official languages'.

If you do not see the corrupt nature in all of this, then my case is closed on this subject.

[Leafless]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I give you a scenario about why we cant all be called for a vote everyday., and you come back with a democratic deficit.

Running a country is not like running a business.

The PM's job is to demonstrate leadership and respect British democratic rights that form the basis of law in Canada.

The problem is Canada's PM's are retaining all the power to make up policies, constitutional changes etc. without reverting to or including the citizen's of Canada.

This is the democratic deficit I was making reference to. Maybe you don't understand that.

Umm....what do you mean, all easterners are bums being supported ?

I didn't use that type of language, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, yes, there is an ongoing problem relating to a perpetual stalled economy down that way, where the inhabitants of that part of the country are reluctant to make significant changes in their lives ( such as relocating) in order to improve their lives, rather than continually cater to federal parties for basic $$$ support.

We were talking about vote buying, remember.

[Argus]

But suppose I told you tomorrow that you have to train your replacement. He speaks Swedish, and from now on that is a requirement for your job, so you're out. The fact that Swedish is of little or no value is beside the point.

Actually , that would BE the point.

And that employer would be looking down the Employment Standards inspection shotgun in a matter of days. In other words, not gonna happen.

Why? We do it with French. Most federal jobs which require bilingualism do not actually need French. In many cases it's of no use whatever.

No. What I'm saying is that when you rule out 95% of potential candidates for a job based on something which is immaterial to the actual job at hand, then you wind up with less qualified people.

Pulled that one out of thin air huh?

No, actually. It's based on the number of bilingual people in this country. Which hovers around 5%

If not....then 95% of the people applying are morons. Anyone who has a brain knows the language skill is needed, if not demanded . Look in the paper, there are lots of jobs that demand things not necessarily needed to be a successful employee.

Really? List them for me, just a few. Because I can't think of an employer other than the government, who would put out ads for employees which screens out those applicants who don't have an unnecessary skill.

[guyser]

Pulled that one out of thin air huh?

No, actually. It's based on the number of bilingual people in this country. Which hovers around 5%

Your math is wrong then.

If not....then 95% of the people applying are morons. Anyone who has a brain knows the language skill is needed, if not demanded . Look in the paper, there are lots of jobs that demand things not necessarily needed to be a successful employee.

Really? List them for me, just a few. Because I can't think of an employer other than the government, who would put out ads for employees which screens out those applicants who don't have an unnecessary skill.

Pull out any paper and look in the want ads. There are plenty of jobs that require degrees etc that are not warranted on the job.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Yeah, but there's no reason for Canadians to lose the language of the first colonizing European nation... if Switzerland is big enough for four official languages, I'm sure Canada is big enough for two.

Factually, France gave away all rights to Canada , if this means anything to you.

The English language prior to the 'official languages act', English was the 'de facto' language of Canada.

The Liberals undemocratic political maneuvering established the 'official languages act'.

Federal 'official bilingualism' is entirely in a separate area, as it is not written in the same act as 'official languages'.

If you do not see the corrupt nature in all of this, then my case is closed on this subject.

France giving up it's rights away to Canada means nothing to me. We're now sovereign enough that we are not required to conform to British law. In fact, if we want, we can become a republic without discussing this with the Queen. I'm not exactly for the Official Languages Act, because as you said, the feds are not respecting it, so they might as well rewrite it or scratch it. I see that the Official Languages Act is a sign of corruption, so it should be scratched altogether.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I give you a scenario about why we cant all be called for a vote everyday., and you come back with a democratic deficit.

Running a country is not like running a business.

The PM's job is to demonstrate leadership and respect British democratic rights that form the basis of law in Canada.

The problem is Canada's PM's are retaining all the power to make up policies, constitutional changes etc. without reverting to or including the citizen's of Canada.

This is the democratic deficit I was making reference to. Maybe you don't understand that.

We are not bound by British rules. We have our own Charter of Rights. Speaking of which, you should read the Québec Charter of Rights and try to find me something bad about it. The politicians make promises and hold objectives, and it's up to us whether we vote for them or someone else. I haven't heard of any country that has a referendum on every issue.

Umm....what do you mean, all easterners are bums being supported ?

I didn't use that type of language, but if you want to get down to brass tacks, yes, there is an ongoing problem relating to a perpetual stalled economy down that way, where the inhabitants of that part of the country are reluctant to make significant changes in their lives ( such as relocating) in order to improve their lives, rather than continually cater to federal parties for basic $$$ support.

We were talking about vote buying, remember.

One can sell their vote. It is highly illegal, but it can still be done. Another neat thing one can do is eat one's ballot, but that too is highly illegal and is a vote towards the EBS (Edible Ballot Society) which I don't endorse due to their political views. I'm not exactly sure I'm getting what you're saying about vote buying, but either way... I'm sure "vote buying" would occur towards the referendum you seem to crave, so in the end it wouldn't make a difference.

[Argus]

In addition, English is a bastard language made up of others, put together by its users, adopting and adapting and growing towards the most efficient, effective communication of ideas. French is an academic's language that even few Francophones really know how to use well. It is extremely complex compared to English, and very hard, very time consuming, and very expensive to learn as an adult, especially to learn it well.

Actually, if we are to discuss linguistics, it's probably easier to pick up a working ability in the English language than the French language, but for fluency, I'd say French would come quicker.

You can say it all you want. You're wrong. English is easier in every conceivable way. Few Francophones know it properly. I see, on a daily basis, Francophones writing to each other in English - simply because it's far easier. I have heard complaints from Francophones at work, annoyance, when they have to write in French. Because it's much more complicated and time-consuming. I know a new manager who just took over a group - almost all French, who got a complaint that the memos she sent out were in English only. She's most irritated now that she has to write them in French too.

Almost all bilingual Francophones picked up English very young, because they live in an English milieu, with English TV, English movies, an English internet, English rock music, etc. etc. Anglophone youths don't grow up in a French milieu, except in Quebec - where, of course, they are the most bilingual group in Canada.

This is a practical advantage, however just because English is more accessible in this continent does not make it easier to learn.

It is easier to learn. I have heard that from numerous sources, including linguists and French teachers.

Anglophones in Québec are the most bilingual group of Canadians? Can you quote a source?

That actually makes too much sense not to give it to you. I don't see a statcan reference to the bilingualism rate of Francophones outside Quebec. Anglophones inside Quebec, however, have a higher bilingualism rate than Canadian Francophones as a group.

Government jobs that do not make use of language skills should be outsourced.

This makes absolutely no sense. You pretend to be interested in efficiency, but efficiency goes out the window compared to your dedication to bilingualism as some kind of nation building exercise. Let me tell you what efficiency is and what it is not.

I dealt with a customer service representative of a major corporation today in Toronto. The email from that person says "Bilingual customer service representative".

This corporation has certain specific people set out to handle areas of the country where there would be Francophones calling in or handling calls from Francophones. That is efficiency. You call, press 1 for English, and 2 for French.

The federal government simply requires ALL its customer service representatives to be bilingual, and pays a premium for that. It makes bilingualism THE screening criteria, rather than knowledge, ability, customer service orientation, or anything else. The result, of course, is that they are always short of staff, and their standards are far lower.

True story.

There was the large group of mostly Anglos handling most passport applications, and a smaller subgroup of Francophones who were not very busy, handling the French applications.

The govt decided to make bilingualism a requirement for all. The result: All the Anglos lost their jobs, a bunch more Francophones were hired. The vast majority of the applications are still English, but now they're handled by Francophones.

The bilingualism requirement is not there for efficiency. It is there for power. It is a political tool designed by Quebecers, implimented by Quebecers, expanded by Quebecers in order to get more jobs and more power into the hands of Quebecers.

If I may add, if that scenario were my case, I'd hopefully see it coming and learn Swedish before it would be required for the job.

The government sends people on language training, to learn French, for a full year. It is not a slack effort. It is an all-out intensive 5 day a week schooling with heavy after school workload. It is draining and frustrating with an incredible amount of stress.

Just how many people do you think can afford to take a full year off work to learn French?

In addition, French testing is harsh and unforgiving. The failure rate of managers who go on language training and take the test is 70%

Another datum. The cost for French training is not cheap. Last time I checked, several years back, it was about $700 per 90 hours (the equivalent of 12 days) at college. The rate at university was twice as high. The rate at private language schools, much higher still.

So again, how many people do you think have the money?

Sure, but such jobs should be outsourced. If the government believes that a certain position is worthy of being staffed by a government employee and not outsourced, they should feel free to require language skills.

Health Canada has many doctors and scientists. What you are suggesting is that their skill as physicians and scientists should be secondary to their ability to speak French, even though they never speak to the public and even though knowing French is of no use to them in their daily work. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec is noted for.

If the private sector insists candidates be bilingual, it's because they see a profitable advantage.

Which is why the private sector rarely requires skilled employees to be bilingual. Oh, sure, the bank clerk in an area of high French population will be bilingual. But you don't see them requiring their vice presidents to be bilingual. I doubt any of the senior managers for the big banks are bilingual except those working in Quebec. By contrast, the government is now requiring all its executives and managers be bilingual, even though few have any contact with the public.

Yeah, get rid of 7 million French voters and see how quick that changes.

Last I heard it was more like 9 million, but regardless.

Actually, I overestimated. The entire population of Quebec is around 7 million. About 6 million are French. I think 7 mill is the entire french population of Canada.

There is no chance whatsoever that after a separation, with a population of 24 million anglos and only 1 million francophones, the current official bilingualism requirement would remain in place.

[Argus]

If I am an employer and require certain skills for a job, I don't care if the applicant is black, white, hispanic, asian, francophone, anglophone or whoever, provided the applicant has the skills for the job.

But if you want a Francophone, then you will require bilingualism, even though bilingualism is neither necessary or even helpful to the job.

Since when? It wouldn't stop bilingual anglophones from getting the job.

No, it does happen on occasion. However, statistically, Far more bilingual people are French than English. That is why overall, according to Treasury Board figures, 71% of bilingual jobs go to Francophones. That figures is rising, however, as language training is curtailed, the fluency requirements are made more severe, and "non-imperative" jobs postings shrink.

[Argus]

No, but about 17% of Canadians are already bilingual,

That depends on how you define bilingualism. For the purposes of employment within the federal government bilingualism is defined as near perfect fluency in reading and writing as well as nearly flawless spoken French.

Your English can be cut and paste, but that's okay.

[Argus]

Umm....what do you mean, all easterners are bums being supported ?

No, just most Francophones - as they are Quebecers.

[Argus]

If not....then 95% of the people applying are morons. Anyone who has a brain knows the language skill is needed, if not demanded . Look in the paper, there are lots of jobs that demand things not necessarily needed to be a successful employee.

Really? List them for me, just a few. Because I can't think of an employer other than the government, who would put out ads for employees which screens out those applicants who don't have an unnecessary skill.

Pull out any paper and look in the want ads. There are plenty of jobs that require degrees etc that are not warranted on the job.

Not really. And those that use a university degree do it as a screening tool with the idea that they will get smarter, better educated employees.

Knowing many, many bilingual people, I can easily discount that as a motivation.

[Hydraboss]

Pull out any paper and look in the want ads. There are plenty of jobs that require degrees etc that are not warranted on the job.

So what if the federal government is looking for an account rep of some type. They get two applicants, both 38 years old, both married with two boys, both received (curiously enough) the EXACT same marks from business school, both have the same haircut, both are perfectly heterosexual.

One is bilingual and is an avid downhill skier. The other only speaks English, and is a good golfer.

Neither of the last traits are a "requirement" of the job. Who should the government hire?

Did I mention that the job is in Estevan, SK?

If you answered the bilingual guy, you are either racist or stupid.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Sure, but such jobs should be outsourced. If the government believes that a certain position is worthy of being staffed by a government employee and not outsourced, they should feel free to require language skills.

Health Canada has many doctors and scientists. What you are suggesting is that their skill as physicians and scientists should be secondary to their ability to speak French, even though they never speak to the public and even though knowing French is of no use to them in their daily work. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec is noted for.

Health Canada can outsource this work. They do not need to be government employees. Health Canada could even outsource it to a country with lower labor costs, or even fewer laws, allowing them to research more things and not have to worry about Canadian laws. It would make much more sense that they outsource it. Publicly employed researchers should be limited to universities, if we are to have public education.

If the private sector insists candidates be bilingual, it's because they see a profitable advantage.

Which is why the private sector rarely requires skilled employees to be bilingual. Oh, sure, the bank clerk in an area of high French population will be bilingual. But you don't see them requiring their vice presidents to be bilingual. I doubt any of the senior managers for the big banks are bilingual except those working in Quebec. By contrast, the government is now requiring all its executives and managers be bilingual, even though few have any contact with the public.

I agree that the private sector rarely requires bilingualism. The government is not, however, requiring that execs and managers in the private sector be bilingual. That's why monolingual anglophones need not to complain about bilingualism because they can still get a good job without being fluent in both languages. If they want a job in the government, however, they should make sure that they are bilingual.

Yeah, get rid of 7 million French voters and see how quick that changes.

Last I heard it was more like 9 million, but regardless.

Actually, I overestimated. The entire population of Quebec is around 7 million. About 6 million are French. I think 7 mill is the entire french population of Canada.

There is no chance whatsoever that after a separation, with a population of 24 million anglos and only 1 million francophones, the current official bilingualism requirement would remain in place.

Ok, so hypothetically speaking, without Québec, Canada would lose French as an official language. Still nto gonna happen though.

If I am an employer and require certain skills for a job, I don't care if the applicant is black, white, hispanic, asian, francophone, anglophone or whoever, provided the applicant has the skills for the job.

But if you want a Francophone, then you will require bilingualism, even though bilingualism is neither necessary or even helpful to the job.

Since when? It wouldn't stop bilingual anglophones from getting the job.

No, it does happen on occasion. However, statistically, Far more bilingual people are French than English. That is why overall, according to Treasury Board figures, 71% of bilingual jobs go to Francophones. That figures is rising, however, as language training is curtailed, the fluency requirements are made more severe, and "non-imperative" jobs postings shrink.

Said by the one who claims anglophone québécois are the most bilingual sample of Canadians. Fancy that!

No, but about 17% of Canadians are already bilingual,

That depends on how you define bilingualism. For the purposes of employment within the federal government bilingualism is defined as near perfect fluency in reading and writing as well as nearly flawless spoken French.

Your English can be cut and paste, but that's okay.

I define bilingualism anywhere between working ability and fluency. I'm not talking about being a literature major, but one still has to be able to carry out the tasks in the given language. I have a counter-example, though to your statement. In order to get the contractual job I had with Stats Can, I had to do the interview in English, with a really basic French language test. A bunch of anglophones who applied still managed to translate words like "river" in French. After hiring monolingual anglophones, they'd have them work in less French-speaking areas, and if they were to encounter francophones, they would code the case accordingly so Stats Can could give the case to a francophone (even though we were all identified with "English/Français" name tags). That to me is "cut & paste" French, but one could not pass the interview without fluent English.

Pull out any paper and look in the want ads. There are plenty of jobs that require degrees etc that are not warranted on the job.

So what if the federal government is looking for an account rep of some type. They get two applicants, both 38 years old, both married with two boys, both received (curiously enough) the EXACT same marks from business school, both have the same haircut, both are perfectly heterosexual.

One is bilingual and is an avid downhill skier. The other only speaks English, and is a good golfer.

Neither of the last traits are a "requirement" of the job. Who should the government hire?

Did I mention that the job is in Estevan, SK?

If you answered the bilingual guy, you are either racist or stupid.

Ok, both guys are equal in absolutely all aspects, except for sportsmanship and language skills.

People have their reasons for living in a given location, just like Leafless would never leave Ontario, even if Québec invaded the rest of Canada. The bilingual guy has his reasons for living in Estevan, even though he'd probably have to go to Alberta to ski, and his sense of belonging and his first language are undetermined. Just because he has to drive four hours to practice his favorite sport compared to the monolingual golfer who may have to drive half an hour to hit the golf field does not make him go down in the respect-o-meter. It depends on the needs... unless I need my account rep in on weekends, which unlikely (unless it's a small company), I'll take the bilingual guy because he has one arbitrary skill of more than the golfer. Nice scenario, but I'm neither racist nor stupid. If you give me more differences between the candidates, then it would be easier to choose one over the other.

[Hydraboss]

Let's put it this way. Golfing is a marketable skill in Estevan, especially when you hold the position of rep. The French is of no use, but according to your belief, that makes no difference. French would win.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

In addition, English is a bastard language made up of others, put together by its users, adopting and adapting and growing towards the most efficient, effective communication of ideas. French is an academic's language that even few Francophones really know how to use well. It is extremely complex compared to English, and very hard, very time consuming, and very expensive to learn as an adult, especially to learn it well.

Actually, if we are to discuss linguistics, it's probably easier to pick up a working ability in the English language than the French language, but for fluency, I'd say French would come quicker.

You can say it all you want. You're wrong. English is easier in every conceivable way. Few Francophones know it properly. I see, on a daily basis, Francophones writing to each other in English - simply because it's far easier. I have heard complaints from Francophones at work, annoyance, when they have to write in French. Because it's much more complicated and time-consuming. I know a new manager who just took over a group - almost all French, who got a complaint that the memos she sent out were in English only. She's most irritated now that she has to write them in French too.

I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. I don't know what your locale is, but I'm going to assume you don't live in Québec, because you make silly assumptions about Québec without stating feasible observations or even quoting facts or feasible observations about Québec.

Outside Québec, you'll encounter francophones of all types. I'd say the franco-Ontarians have it tough in terms of sense of belonging, like many hispanic minorities in the USA. Canada tells them they should identify themselves by their first language, yet they have a lot of anglophone peers, who often evaluate one's intellect according to how well one can speak English (which is unfortunate, but a reality for so many people of a majority language of a given locale), and many do not want to be perceived as "minorities". I have observed an unfortunate reality amongst franco-Ontarians in terms of sense of belonging, which should be discussed (amongst sociologists and the provincial government... some sort of government propaganda should be broadcasted in order to ease the situation). I cannot say it is the case for all franco-Ontarians, but I've encountered so many franco-Ontarians who don't speak neither French, nor English properly. I've heard of plenty of people not speaking their first language properly, so this is not a sign that French is a more difficult language in itself (plus there is a reason why so many franco-Ontarians struggle in French).

Speaking specifically about the linguistics of Canadian French, in spoken French many Canadians whose first language is French will not properly structure their questions. When they try to put it in writing, it doesn't work, because not only is this not grammatically correct, but it's never seen in writing outside instant messaging conversations and a few other exceptions. Canadians make plenty of other mistakes in French, some being between subject and object, others from being taught generation to generation archaisms that are no longer correct. Unless a francophone from a "French Canadian" home makes the effort of properly learning their first language, they pretty much speak a creole/patois of French, with different pronunciation and grammar.

This didn't happen with the English language, mostly thanks to the American mass media. In English, Canadians speak like Americans and spell like the English (huge generalization, but reasonably accurate). Speaking a dialect, almost a different language at home, francophones learn at school all these grammar rules and find out that the French they speak at home is full of mistakes, yet the grammar in my opinion, like accounting and a few other subjects, is not properly explained at school. That is why people learning French as a second language often have better grammar and can write with fewer mistakes in French than many "French Canadians". French is not necessarily a tougher language, Canadians whose first language is French just have a tough time learning written French. Also, French grammar may be more demanding than English grammar, like knowing transitive and intransitive verbs for the purpose of selecting an auxiliary verb, gender differentiation (which us

[Kapitän Rotbart]

In addition, English is a bastard language made up of others, put together by its users, adopting and adapting and growing towards the most efficient, effective communication of ideas. French is an academic's language that even few Francophones really know how to use well. It is extremely complex compared to English, and very hard, very time consuming, and very expensive to learn as an adult, especially to learn it well.

Actually, if we are to discuss linguistics, it's probably easier to pick up a working ability in the English language than the French language, but for fluency, I'd say French would come quicker.

You can say it all you want. You're wrong. English is easier in every conceivable way. Few Francophones know it properly. I see, on a daily basis, Francophones writing to each other in English - simply because it's far easier. I have heard complaints from Francophones at work, annoyance, when they have to write in French. Because it's much more complicated and time-consuming. I know a new manager who just took over a group - almost all French, who got a complaint that the memos she sent out were in English only. She's most irritated now that she has to write them in French too.

I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. I don't know what your locale is, but I'm going to assume you don't live in Québec, because you make silly assumptions about Québec without stating feasible observations or even quoting facts or feasible observations about Québec.

Outside Québec, you'll encounter francophones of all types. I'd say the franco-Ontarians have it tough in terms of sense of belonging, like many hispanic minorities in the USA. Canada tells them they should identify themselves by their first language, yet they have a lot of anglophone peers, who often evaluate one's intellect according to how well one can speak English (which is unfortunate, but a reality for so many people of a majority language of a given locale), and many do not want to be perceived as "minorities". I have observed an unfortunate reality amongst franco-Ontarians in terms of sense of belonging, which should be discussed (amongst sociologists and the provincial government... some sort of government propaganda should be broadcasted in order to ease the situation). I cannot say it is the case for all franco-Ontarians, but I've encountered so many franco-Ontarians who don't speak neither French, nor English properly. I've heard of plenty of people not speaking their first language properly, so this is not a sign that French is a more difficult language in itself (plus there is a reason why so many franco-Ontarians struggle in French).

Speaking specifically about the linguistics of Canadian French, in spoken French many Canadians whose first language is French will not properly structure their questions. When they try to put it in writing, it doesn't work, because not only is this not grammatically correct, but it's never seen in writing outside instant messaging conversations and a few other exceptions. Canadians make plenty of other mistakes in French, some being between subject and object, others from being taught generation to generation archaisms that are no longer correct. Unless a francophone from a "French Canadian" home makes the effort of properly learning their first language, they pretty much speak a creole/patois of French, with different pronunciation and grammar.

This didn't happen with the English language, mostly thanks to the American mass media. In English, Canadians speak like Americans and spell like the English (huge generalization, but reasonably accurate). Speaking a dialect, almost a different language at home, francophones learn at school all these grammar rules and find out that the French they speak at home is full of mistakes, yet the grammar in my opinion, like accounting and a few other subjects, is not properly explained at school. That is why people learning French as a second language often have better grammar and can write with fewer mistakes in French than many "French Canadians". French is not necessarily a tougher language, Canadians whose first language is French just have a tough time learning written French. Also, French grammar may be more demanding than English grammar, like knowing transitive and intransitive verbs for the purpose of selecting an auxiliary verb, gender differentiation (which uses a Latin logic, so it's still not too difficult to figure out whether a noun is masculin or feminin... just a few rules), then direct or indirect object, which only matters for spelling past participles in select cases, and knowing which past tense to use (two being simple, the other two being compound, yet the selection is easy because some of them are nearly archaic, even in Europe). Gender differentiation for semantic reasons is great because it makes for a more concise language. Knowing the rules in French grammar makes one pretty much ready to hit fluency (that along with vocabulary), yet in English once one has the grammar down (which is fairly easy), they still have to learn the nearly infinite amount of exceptions (to pronunciation, general rules, etc.).

Almost all bilingual Francophones picked up English very young, because they live in an English milieu, with English TV, English movies, an English internet, English rock music, etc. etc. Anglophone youths don't grow up in a French milieu, except in Quebec - where, of course, they are the most bilingual group in Canada.

This is a practical advantage, however just because English is more accessible in this continent does not make it easier to learn.

It is easier to learn. I have heard that from numerous sources, including linguists and French teachers.

Here's a quote:

"Learning How to Pronounce French is easier than learning English pronunciation" (http://www.gantguillory.com/phonetics/purpose.html)

It depends who you talk to. I've heard the craziest complaints about the French language... a common one was that bilingual employees did not like dealing with texts in French because they were usually longer. The reason being is that they were translations, and translations will always either be longer or not contain the entire message from the original text due to the fact that no two languages will line up perfectly. I find spelling tricky in both languages sometimes, because neither language is spoken the way it is written (unlike Spanish and German). I've also heard from a bunch of linguists and teachers that English is easier, yet I've heard other linguists and teachers claiming French is easier. It depends who you ask. According to my observations, though, the Italian community in Montréal manages to speak French (and often afterwards manage to learn English, because learning a third language is easier than learning a second) quite well other than those immigrating at a fairly old age, yet those in Southern Ontario never get around to speaking fluent English (and many don't speak it at all) unless they immigrated at a very young age (or were born in Canada). I've encountered this case with many other ethnic communities, so it's not just because Italian is a Latin language and therefore a little more like French (including Asians whose language is much different from both English and French). Your linguistics can claim what they want, but I'll have to disagree based on my observations. My point was that just because the American mass media for the most part is in English does not make the English language easier for people living in communities segregated from anglophones to learn English. Despite their American rock music collection and possibly being able to sing in English, the people who do not need the English language for school or for their day to day activities will not learn it unless they choose to learn it on their own or take classes.

Anglophones in Québec are the most bilingual group of Canadians? Can you quote a source?

That actually makes too much sense not to give it to you. I don't see a statcan reference to the bilingualism rate of Francophones outside Quebec. Anglophones inside Quebec, however, have a higher bilingualism rate than Canadian Francophones as a group.

I don't see how you could assume that a larger proportion of anglo-québécois are bilingual than franco-Ontarians. You'll have to quote a source to back this, at least give a link to Stats Can refering to the rate of anglophones in Québec. I honnestly don't see how you could possibly just assume this to be true and expect me to believe you. The bilingual anglophone québécois may be on average more proficient in both languages than the bilingual franco-Ontarians, nevertheless I do not define bilingual as "perfect in grammar in two languages".

Government jobs that do not make use of language skills should be outsourced.

This makes absolutely no sense. You pretend to be interested in efficiency, but efficiency goes out the window compared to your dedication to bilingualism as some kind of nation building exercise. Let me tell you what efficiency is and what it is not.

I dealt with a customer service representative of a major corporation today in Toronto. The email from that person says "Bilingual customer service representative".

This corporation has certain specific people set out to handle areas of the country where there would be Francophones calling in or handling calls from Francophones. That is efficiency. You call, press 1 for English, and 2 for French.

The federal government simply requires ALL its customer service representatives to be bilingual, and pays a premium for that. It makes bilingualism THE screening criteria, rather than knowledge, ability, customer service orientation, or anything else. The result, of course, is that they are always short of staff, and their standards are far lower.

True story.

There was the large group of mostly Anglos handling most passport applications, and a smaller subgroup of Francophones who were not very busy, handling the French applications.

The govt decided to make bilingualism a requirement for all. The result: All the Anglos lost their jobs, a bunch more Francophones were hired. The vast majority of the applications are still English, but now they're handled by Francophones.

All government call centers should be privatized. I want an incredibly small, bilingual government.

Ontario privatized their driver's licencing service. Service Canada (handling passports) could do the same.

The bilingualism requirement is not there for efficiency. It is there for power. It is a political tool designed by Quebecers, implimented by Quebecers, expanded by Quebecers in order to get more jobs and more power into the hands of Quebecers.

Oh right, because a million anglophone québécois want to rule the country. Québécois only want more power to their province, not caring to much about the federal government. As long as they can speak to Elections Canada, Service Canada, etc. employees in French in Québec, they're happy. I don't see why they would care that all federal jobs require bilingualism, if supposively mostly the anglophone québécois, who are typically federalists, would be the ones benefiting from this. From what I've seen, these are federalist bilingual Liberals who are promoting the bilingual policies, and the Liberals are much stronger in Ontario than in Québec.

If I may add, if that scenario were my case, I'd hopefully see it coming and learn Swedish before it would be required for the job.

The government sends people on language training, to learn French, for a full year. It is not a slack effort. It is an all-out intensive 5 day a week schooling with heavy after school workload. It is draining and frustrating with an incredible amount of stress.

Just how many people do you think can afford to take a full year off work to learn French?

In addition, French testing is harsh and unforgiving. The failure rate of managers who go on language training and take the test is 70%

Another datum. The cost for French training is not cheap. Last time I checked, several years back, it was about $700 per 90 hours (the equivalent of 12 days) at college. The rate at university was twice as high. The rate at private language schools, much higher still.

So again, how many people do you think have the money?

The government is slowing down on language training and increasing jobs already requiring bilingualism because indeed it is costing taxpayers a fortune. Many people can afford to take a year off with pay to learn French at the cost of the taxpayers, but this indeed is costing others. I think the best rates for French language training would be at Adult High Schools. Afterwards, most likely community colleges, which might be a better pick than universities in terms of actually learning the language, let alone taking tuition. Even if it's just night classes for a few years, most people have the time to learn a second language.

[Argus]

Health Canada has many doctors and scientists. What you are suggesting is that their skill as physicians and scientists should be secondary to their ability to speak French, even though they never speak to the public and even though knowing French is of no use to them in their daily work. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec is noted for.

Health Canada can outsource this work. They do not need to be government employees. Health Canada could even outsource it to a country with lower labor costs, or even fewer laws, allowing them to research more things and not have to worry about Canadian laws.

None of that going to happen. But regardless, you're jumping to a different subject which is irrelevant to whether or not the existing employees should be hired and promoted based on skill or based on an unneeded language skill.

I agree that the private sector rarely requires bilingualism. The government is not, however, requiring that execs and managers in the private sector be bilingual. That's why monolingual anglophones need not to complain about bilingualism because they can still get a good job without being fluent in both languages.

You'll forgive us miserable Anglos if we complain anyway, won't you?

Somehow the idea that all government services should be run by Quebecers when it's mostly Ontarions and Albertans paying the bills strikes me as a tad undemocratic.

No, it does happen on occasion. However, statistically, Far more bilingual people are French than English. That is why overall, according to Treasury Board figures, 71% of bilingual jobs go to Francophones. That figures is rising, however, as language training is curtailed, the fluency requirements are made more severe, and "non-imperative" jobs postings shrink.

Said by the one who claims anglophone québécois are the most bilingual sample of Canadians. Fancy that!

Are you arguing the point or weaseling out of talking about it as you tried above? The great majority of jobs which are given a bilingualism designation will go to Francophones. A large percentage of the rest (based on observation, as the govt does not record this) go to Anglo Quebecers. The govt also doesn't record that but generally speaking the great majority of bilingual people are Quebecers, so designating a job "bilingual" generally means it will go to a Quebecer. And generally, a less-competent employee than they could have had

I define bilingualism anywhere between working ability and fluency. I'm not talking about being a literature major, but one still has to be able to carry out the tasks in the given language.

How you define bilingualism is not particularly relevant. I'm telling you that the tests define it, depending on the rating, considerably more tightly. Executive jobs, for the most part, esp in Ottawa, are C/C/C, meaning perfect or near perfect fluency. Standards are lower outside the NCR, of course, esp out west, but the power is in Ottawa.

[Leafless]

France giving up it's rights away to Canada means nothing to me. We're now sovereign enough that we are not required to conform to British law. In fact, if we want, we can become a republic without discussing this with the Queen.

Quebec cannot become a republic as there is no political process to accommodate that demand.

What are you going to do, separate and call yourself a republic with nothing, because that's what would be left of Quebec, nothing, after business and the feds pull out.

[Argus]

I don't know what your locale is, but I'm going to assume you don't live in Québec,

No, like many of the Jews in pre-war Germany, my family saw the writing on the wall, and got out before the language fascists could make life any more miserable.

because you make silly assumptions about Québec without stating feasible observations or even quoting facts or feasible observations about Québec.

What assumptions about Quebec have I made? I don't recall mentioning any. Please list these assumptions.

All government call centers should be privatized. I want an incredibly small, bilingual government.

Again, you are weaseling out of responding to the actual point. The government is not going to outsource all jobs, so deal with the situation as it stands. Your statements have been, to paraphrase "I dont' care about skill or ability, so long as they speak French." Is that an innacurate summation?

So again, how many people do you think have the money?

The government is slowing down on language training and increasing jobs already requiring bilingualism because indeed it is costing taxpayers a fortune. Many people can afford to take a year off with pay to learn French at the cost of the taxpayers,

What makes you think "many people" will be given the opportunity to take a year off with pay to learn French?

but this indeed is costing others. I think the best rates for French language training would be at Adult High Schools.

You think so, do you? Adult High schools? At two evenings a week? Yes, presuming you can work all day, then go to school in the evening, and study hard, that should have you passing those bilingual tests in no more than five or six years.

Afterwards, most likely community colleges, which might be a better pick than universities in terms of actually learning the language, let alone taking tuition. Even if it's just night classes for a few years, most people have the time to learn a second language.

Your knowledge about the time required, and how much time people have available are as ridiculous as your assertions about language and bilingualism in general. In fact, all your posts are unthinkingly arrogant and condescending towards anyone who, unlike you, did not have the benefit of growing up with both languages.

[Leafless]

How you define bilingualism is not particularly relevant. I'm telling you that the tests define it, depending on the rating, considerably more tightly. Executive jobs, for the most part, esp in Ottawa, are C/C/C, meaning perfect or near perfect fluency. Standards are lower outside the NCR, of course, esp out west, but the power is in Ottawa.

Government bilingual test are crap.

There are few perfectly bilingual Francophone's, and you know 95% of the time that person is Francophone.

I know many Francophone's and although I don't make it an issue and relating to many of them, their comprehension of the English language is terrible and many do not comprehend what you are telling them in simple English.

A direct comparison can be made to a parrot, they can speak English words, but do not understand, what is being said.

BTW- Your condescending statement. "Standards are lower outside the NCR, of course, especially out west, but the power is in Ottawa", describes exactly the corrupt, discriminatory aspects of 'official bilingualism' in our federal government.