3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Peter F]

Québec does provide services in English.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

[Pat Coghlan]

Québec does provide services in English.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

I think most would agree that this makes sense. If an anglophone in Quebec needs government services, they should be provided.

However, French is used pretty much exclusively as the language of work by the various levels of government everywhere in the province except perhaps in federal government buildings in Gatineau.

It makes no sense to try to give equal status to both languages in the workplace in Ontario, except to provide services to the public or employees (e.g. HR and compensation services), especially when you consider that Quebec is doing exactly the opposite.

[jbg]

Québec does provide services in English.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

Then why is public education of children of Allophone parents virtually mandated to be in French?

[Peter F]

Québec does provide services in English.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

Then why is public education of children of Allophone parents virtually mandated to be in French?

Canadians have a right to public education. That education is either in French or English. If one of the parents was educated in English then you have the right to have your children educated in English. If one of the parents was educated in French then your children have a right to be educated in French. This applies throughout the country. If neither parent was educated in French then there is no right to a French education and you get whatever the provincial government makes available...that being an education in English in most cases except Quebec. Possibly New Brunswick also. In Quebec, naturally, it works in reverse. If neither parent was educated in English then the children gets the education provided by the Province - French.

That is to say that, yes, public education of the children of allophones is, in Quebec, French. Everywhere else the allophone's children are educated in English.

...and somehow or other all that results in the Quebec government communicating with me in English.

[capricorn]

Québec does provide services in English.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

Then why is public education of children of Allophone parents virtually mandated to be in French?

...and somehow or other all that results in the Quebec government communicating with me in English.

What this tells me is that there are a fair number of Quebec government workers able to communicate in English. I find that most public servants are usually kind and generous enough, and accommodate the preferred language of citizens. I was pleased by your comment. It shows not all francophones in Quebec live and breathe Bill 101.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

The only reason French is still alive in Québec is because the English failed at assimilating the Québecers upon colonization. As I mentioned earlier, no people voluntarily choose assimilation; it's always forced.

The English did not fail at assimilating French Quebec.

They did not want to be assimilated. After the fall of Quebec City in 1759 and under British rule, the 65,000 French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec had a single aim - to retain their traditions, language and culture.

You are totally wrong to assume, "no people voluntarily choose assimilation; it's always forced."

I would assert, English Canadians in general, have voluntarily choose to be U.S. assimilated, as many Quebecers also have chosen that route, outside of language which they retain for political reasons and pure spite, stemming from the fact relating to their outright hatred of anything English.

It would be an outright lie to suggest Quebecers have not been U.S. assimilated outside of their language.

Yes the English failed at assimilating the Québecers.

The Québecers did not want to be assimilated just like no one chooses assimilation.

How could English Canadians be assimilated by the USA? Assimilation almost exclusively refers to language when refering to a people of a given locale. English Canadians may devour American mass media, yet the local cultures between the RoC and the USA are still quite different (food, religion - proportionally speaking in terms of denominations... the USA has tons of culture that never reached Canada significantly). People of all countries consume American mass media, it does not mean that they are any less of their own culture.

Nonsense. I have pointed out the many aspects of Québec's culture other than language that is unique to the QC. Only in Québec can one buy a poutine at McDonald's. Suggesting that Québecers have been assimilated in all aspects other than language would be either a lie or a sign of great ignorance.

What the taxpayers are paying for is federal bilingualism. It's not that big an expense considering the kind of money all governments waste on the most useless things (like redecorating the prime minister's house every time a new PM is elected).

Thirty-three years of bilingualism have cost Canadian tax payers $700-Billion dollars, which is more than our national debt.

http://www.languagefairness.com/Cost.php

That's a very biased website. Are you a member of this "language fairness" community? Please give me a source without such a strong bias. By the way, when these costs are added up, they are not taking into consideration the fact that they would need staff to work certain jobs anyway, so staffing these positions with bilingual candidates is not really an additional expense, despite the fact that it seems your sources includes the salaries of all bilingual employees (money which would be spent anyway).

Plus we have something to show for this expense; we are a country of two languages.

At the expense of running Canada like a 'banana republic' by corrupt French PM's, under the guise of emulating a democracy where the judiciary can also determine what can and cannot be legislated and then rubber stamped by our so called, self serving elected representatives.

I thought you didn't like any of our PMs, not just the ones from France.

[Leafless]

Yes the English failed at assimilating the Québecers.

The Québecers did not want to be assimilated just like no one chooses assimilation.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion "no one wants to be assimilated'.

When a smaller body is absorbed into a larger body, it is more or less automatic as it is to ones benefit to do this.

If this is not true, why then did many Quebecers voluntarily become bilingual?

Answer: Because it is personally beneficial to do so.

How could English Canadians be assimilated by the USA? Assimilation almost exclusively refers to language when refering to a people of a given locale.

I would gather this is your personal opinion as language is only a single component of culture.

Please provide proof to your claim.

I have pointed out the many aspects of Québec's culture other than language that is unique to the QC. Only in Québec can one buy a poutine at McDonald's. Suggesting that Québecers have been assimilated in all aspects other than language would be either a lie or a sign of great ignorance.

Traditions vary throughout any country concerning culinary desires, but so what, the fact of the matter is there is very little difference between major customs of Americans and Canadians including Quebec.

That's a very biased website. Are you a member of this "language fairness" community? Please give me a source without such a strong bias.

I am not a member of 'Language fairness' nor do I consider their findings biased.

What other findings are there? The Liberals have REFUSED to do an audit.

By the way, when these costs are added up, they are not taking into consideration the fact that they would need staff to work certain jobs anyway, so staffing these positions with bilingual candidates is not really an additional expense, despite the fact that it seems your sources includes the salaries of all bilingual employees (money which would be spent anyway).

What your stating is a matter of opinion.

No one knows what procedure would have been used if 'official bilingualism' was never incorporated.

As far as I am concerned, any government that does not keep record of tax payers money spent on 'federal official bilingualism' is not only incompetent but absolutely corrupt.

Ithought you didn't like any of our PMs, not just the ones from France.

PM's are participating in a corrupt, dysfunctional political system, and doing nothing about it.

You would have to be a moron to support an existing political party that participates in a dysfunctional, corrupt political system.

[Leafless]

Canadians have a right to public education. That education is either in French or English. If one of the parents was educated in English then you have the right to have your children educated in English. If one of the parents was educated in French then your children have a right to be educated in French. This applies throughout the country.

Pertaining to a right to public education in French is 'where numbers warrant', concerning provinces in Canada, other than Ontario.

This is an extremely expensive burden on tax payers considering Quebec not offering for instance what Ontario offers even considering the fact that their are more anglophones in Quebec than their are francophones in Ontario.

See chart to see (federal-provincial co-operation) funding throughout Canada:

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/lo...sh/page_14.html

If neither parent was educated in French then there is no right to a French education and you get whatever the provincial government makes available...that being an education in English in most cases except Quebec. Possibly New Brunswick also. In Quebec, naturally, it works in reverse. If neither parent was educated in English then the children gets the education provided by the Province - French.

That is to say that, yes, public education of the children of allophones is, in Quebec, French. Everywhere else the allophone's children are educated in English.

In Quebec, "naturally it works in Quebec is reverse" is totally discriminatory and I don't know why a province who never signed Canada's constitution is entitled to any type of publicly paid for education outside of Quebec.

[Peter F]

In Quebec, "naturally it works in Quebec is reverse" is totally discriminatory and I don't know why a province who never signed Canada's constitution is entitled to any type of publicly paid for education outside of Quebec.

The province of Quebec is entitled to a public education outside of Quebec??

[Leafless]

In Quebec, "naturally it works in Quebec is reverse" is totally discriminatory and I don't know why a province who never signed Canada's constitution is entitled to any type of publicly paid for education outside of Quebec.

The province of Quebec is entitled to a public education outside of Quebec??

If you want to get technically picky, a province can't sign anything either, but the premiers can.

What was implied, was pertaining to all francophones in general, should not be entitled to any other type of education, other than the standard English education, outside of the province of Quebec.

Apparently the proposed Canadian national animal (Jackass) is burdened by a great load it has to pull, (Liberals, Statism, Quebec) but has neither the brains nor the will to get rid of it.

[geoffrey]

Or perhaps the burden is best relieved by getting rid of the Jackass we call Canada?

[jbg]

Or perhaps the burden is best relieved by getting rid of the Jackass we call Canada?

You're willing to jettison one of the greatest nations in the history of the world so fast? Isn't it worth a fight?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@capricorn

I totally agree that English is easier to learn than French

English is easier than French for Ottawans, because English is the majority language in Ottawa. However, I browsed a couple websites and here are my findings:

http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/l...pectations.html

Website provided by the National Virtual Translation Center. Here are the criteria for the research:

"It must be kept in mind that that students at FSI are almost 40 years old, are native speakers of English. and have a good aptitude for formal language study, plus knowledge of several other foreign languages. They study in small classes of no more than 6. Their schedule calls for 25 hours of class per week with 3-4 hours per day of directed self-study." This was to achieve general professional proficiency in reading and speaking.

French was in the first (easiest) category, learnable in 575-600 hours. Spanish was also listed in this category.

http://perso.orange.fr/enotero/langues.htm (website in French with links to sites in English)

States that 1 500 to 2 000 hours would be required to achieve enough proficiency in the English language to complete English language studies in public education (the French Baccalauréat). I will assume that they are refering to 15 to 20 year olds.

From my personal observations, bilingual francophones in Ottawa can manage a working ability in Spanish after 360 hours of class in high school.

I'll admit it's tricky to compare monolingual high school kids to multilingual 40 year olds, but I don't think I could justify 1 500 to 2 000 hours of language training to learn another language. Anglophones can still learn French very feasibly.

Spanish is said to be the easiest of the world's most spoken languages (in terms of language speakers) and the NVTC ranks it in the same difficulty category as French, so as difficult as learning as second language may be, French is no where near being a particularly difficult language.

As the NVTC states, it's really difficult to compare, because people have such varied language backgrounds (and different levels of second language training), so it's difficult (or impossible) to determine absolutes of "one language being easier than another language for all people". If it takes roughly the same amount of time for an Anglophone to learn French as Spanish, and Spanish being the easiest international language to learn as a foreign language, French can't be that difficult. I don't know if we could say the same about the English language, being a language of exceptions. Francophones in most parts of Québec would find it just as tough as those living in non-English speakin countries to learn the language because they didn't have your opportunity to "learn it on the streets".

@Leafless:

I don't know how you come to the conclusion "no one wants to be assimilated'.

When a smaller body is absorbed into a larger body, it is more or less automatic as it is to ones benefit to do this.

If this is not true, why then did many Quebecers voluntarily become bilingual?

Answer: Because it is personally beneficial to do so.

Assimilation in terms of language is usually forced. The 'absorbing' body enforces their school system immediately on the 'absorbed' body. People learn languages for their own benefit. Some people learn languages for when they go on vacation, some to work within a certain community... and some to simply increase work opportunities. People will learn a language if it's available and they see the need, however at the exception of a handful of individuals, most people do not have the intention of losing their family's language in order to gain another one (and the less people feel they need second language training, the less likely they are to learn a second language... no matter how many opportunities may be waiting for them in another language in another locale).

The typical scenario upon colonization is: generation A only speaks their mother tongue; generation B is bilingual because they speak their parents' language at home and they learn the newly implemented language at school (and are forced to use that language) and then generation C usually only speaks the new majority language of their locale, because generation B felt less attached to their inherited language. This didn't happen in Québec because the English never changed the education system, so anyone going to public schools in Québec wanting to learn English would have to learn it as a second language, meaning most won't learn it.

Why do English Canadians learn French? (I'll give you a hint, it's the same answer).

I would gather this is your personal opinion as language is only a single component of culture.

Please provide proof to your claim.

Personal opinion?! Would I state it if it weren't my opinion? Silly statement of yours.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation. First mention is linguistic assimilation. Second mention is irrelevant to this thread (biology assimilation) and the third mention is cultural assimilation, with its definition, possible relevant terms and the example of religious assimilation of the Jews (and it mentions that assimilation often occurs with immigration). Notice the three mentions are not in alphabetical order, meaning it's probably in order of importance.

English Canadians have the same similarities/differences with Americans as a century ago. We have the same amount of similar/different food, similar/different holidays... etc. If anything, English Canadians are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metrics.

Canadian English however may be threatened by American English (other than writing color with a U), but that's another example of language usually being the major issue in terms of assimilation.

You're welcome to try to prove my 'opinion' wrong.

What your stating is a matter of opinion.

No one knows what procedure would have been used if 'official bilingualism' was never incorporated.

As far as I am concerned, any government that does not keep record of tax payers money spent on 'federal official bilingualism' is not only incompetent but absolutely corrupt.

Again, I wouldn't state it if it weren't my opinion. Maybe you'd state things which weren't your opinions, because you seem to have to point out what my opinion is.

Without official bilingualism, we'd still have costs and government corruption. It's inevitable.

Keeping a record? That depends on how you identify gov't expenses. If you include all salary paid to bilingual employees, then yes, you'll tabulate a large expense which would have been spent on salary anyway. What if two or more people disagree on the definition of the expense of bilingualism? Good luck tabulating it... any numbers tabulated would show bias directly affecting how one defines these expenses.

PM's are participating in a corrupt, dysfunctional political system, and doing nothing about it.

You would have to be a moron to support an existing political party that participates in a dysfunctional, corrupt political system.

I suppose you don't think highly of most Ottawans, who breathe politics. I don't support any of the parties myself but for reasons other than language.

If you want to get technically picky, a province can't sign anything either, but the premiers can.

What was implied, was pertaining to all francophones in general, should not be entitled to any other type of education, other than the standard English education, outside of the province of Quebec.

Apparently the proposed Canadian national animal (Jackass) is burdened by a great load it has to pull, (Liberals, Statism, Quebec) but has neither the brains nor the will to get rid of it.

It is reciprocal. Canadians can receive public education in their parents' domestic language anywhere. However, it's tricky if you're not from the locale's minority language (English in the QC, French in the RoC) to get public education in that language. Even though Québec didn't sign the constitution, they still pretty much comply with everything in it. By the way, I ask you again to point out the specific parts of Québec's constitution which you find discriminating (if that's still your opinion).

[Leafless]

Assimilation in terms of language is usually forced.

No, cultural assimilation is not "forced", it is usually voluntary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation

If it was forced Quebec and Quebecers would probably no longer exist if the British did originally force assimilation.

Personal opinion?! Would I state it if it weren't my opinion? Silly statement of yours.

Your personal opinions are not factual and therefore require proof to enforce your personal opinion.

English Canadians have the same similarities/differences with Americans as a century ago. We have the same amount of similar/different food, similar/different holidays... etc. If anything, English Canadians are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metrics.

Another blurted out personal opinion with no prove to back up your statement.

The scientific communities in the U.S. and Canada were metric all along, nothing new there.

But if your trying to associate a partially integrated public metric system in Canada as being responsible to create a great cultural wall between American/Canadian customs, shows how twisted your logic and thinking process is.

Canadian English however may be threatened by American English (other than writing color with a U), but that's another example of language usually being the major issue in terms of assimilation.

There is a variation in a number of English words between the U.S. and Canada but the base language English is derived from the same people who won this country , the British.

Again, I wouldn't state it if it weren't my opinion. Maybe you'd state things which weren't your opinions, because you seem to have to point out what my opinion is.

My opinions are based on common knowledge.

Your opinions are mentally fabricated to suit your point of view.

Without official bilingualism, we'd still have costs and government corruption. It's inevitable.

'Official bilingualism' spits in the face of freedom and democracy making Canada no different than a repulsive communist type country.

Keeping a record? That depends on how you identify gov't expenses. If you include all salary paid to bilingual employees, then yes, you'll tabulate a large expense which would have been spent on salary anyway. What if two or more people disagree on the definition of the expense of bilingualism? Good luck tabulating it... any numbers tabulated would show bias directly affecting how one defines these expenses.

Another attempt to obfuscate important matter in this thread by implying again (without proof), with your personal opinion overriding the competency of our federal government.

Even though Québec didn't sign the constitution, they still pretty much comply with everything in it. By the way, I ask you again to point out the specific parts of Québec's constitution which you find discriminating (if that's still your opinion).

Bill-101 otherwise known as Quebec's 'Charter of the French language' is a total sham, makes a mockery out of the federal 'Official Languages Act' and the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

This begs the question ' who is running the show in Canada' the Federal Government of Canada, Quebec, the Aboriginals and why is the federal government so afraid to show leadership?

Either way, I don't support any of these undemocratically imposed documents, that have transformed Canada into a corrupt ' banana republic'.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Assimilation in terms of language is usually forced.

No, cultural assimilation is not "forced", it is usually voluntary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation

If it was forced Quebec and Quebecers would probably no longer exist if the British did originally force assimilation.

Yeah, that article says:

"Assimilation may be voluntary, which is usually the case with immigrants, or forced upon a group, as is usually the case with the receiving "host" group or country."

When assimilation is forced upon a group, most are willing to comply. Assimilation of immigrant populations is irrelevant to assimilating a newly-acquired colony. My point was that no group will choose to assimilate unless it is forced upon them. Please try to find a counter-example.

English Canadians have the same similarities/differences with Americans as a century ago. We have the same amount of similar/different food, similar/different holidays... etc. If anything, English Canadians are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metrics.

Another blurted out personal opinion with no prove to back up your statement.

The scientific communities in the U.S. and Canada were metric all along, nothing new there.

But if your trying to associate a partially integrated public metric system in Canada as being responsible to create a great cultural wall between American/Canadian customs, shows how twisted your logic and thinking process is.

The scientific community?! That is quite irrelevant as it doesn't represent the majority of a country's population. I never said it created a cultural wall, I just said it's a cultural difference, and otherwise English Canadians and Americans pretty much share the same similarities/differences as they did long ago.

By the way, you misspelt 'prove', it's 'proof' in this case. Also, my statement is pretty much common knowledge, so there's no need for proof.

Canadian English however may be threatened by American English (other than writing color with a U), but that's another example of language usually being the major issue in terms of assimilation.

There is a variation in a number of English words between the U.S. and Canada but the base language English is derived from the same people who won this country, the British.

I'll let you argue that one with English Canadian language purists.

Again, I wouldn't state it if it weren't my opinion. Maybe you'd state things which weren't your opinions, because you seem to have to point out what my opinion is.

My opinions are based on common knowledge.

Your opinions are mentally fabricated to suit your point of view.

Really? I was just about to say the same to you.

Without official bilingualism, we'd still have costs and government corruption. It's inevitable.

'Official bilingualism' spits in the face of freedom and democracy making Canada no different than a repulsive communist type country.

That's what Canada gets when two large groups can't seem to get along. To prevent official bilingualism, a solution would have had to be found a long, long time ago.

Keeping a record? That depends on how you identify gov't expenses. If you include all salary paid to bilingual employees, then yes, you'll tabulate a large expense which would have been spent on salary anyway. What if two or more people disagree on the definition of the expense of bilingualism? Good luck tabulating it... any numbers tabulated would show bias directly affecting how one defines these expenses.

Another attempt to obfuscate important matter in this thread by implying again (without proof), with your personal opinion overriding the competency of our federal government.

My "personal opinion overriding the competency of our federal gov't"?! My opinions go that far? That's awsome!

My point is that there's no way to calculate the cost of bilingualism without bias. The statement stands until proven otherwise, meaning the absence of proof is enough to make it credible. There's no point quoting a website claiming bilingualism has cost us X amount of cash when it's obvious that they would include every possible expense to support their cause, even if this money would have been spent had bilingualism not been an issue.

Even though Québec didn't sign the constitution, they still pretty much comply with everything in it. By the way, I ask you again to point out the specific parts of Québec's constitution which you find discriminating (if that's still your opinion).

Bill-101 otherwise known as Quebec's 'Charter of the French language' is a total sham, makes a mockery out of the federal 'Official Languages Act' and the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

This begs the question ' who is running the show in Canada' the Federal Government of Canada, Quebec, the Aboriginals and why is the federal government so afraid to show leadership?

Either way, I don't support any of these undemocratically imposed documents, that have transformed Canada into a corrupt ' banana republic'.

Bill 101 is not in their constitution. The aboriginals are far from running the country, they simply have a leeching system. I guess same goes for Québec and all other provinces benefiting from equalization.

Seeing as Bill 101 is not in Québec's constitution, do you have any discriminatory citations from their actual constitution?

Banana Republic? Canada can't grow bananas! Despite language policies, Canada still has a fairly strong economy and to this day has not yet had a civil war nor insurrection. Not likely to change any time soon.

[Leafless]

Yeah, that article says:

"Assimilation may be voluntary, which is usually the case with immigrants, or forced upon a group, as is usually the case with the receiving "host" group or country."

Why don't you quote the article properly:

"Cultural assimilation (often called merely assimilation) is an intense process of consistent integration whereby members of an ethno-cultural group, typically immigrants, or other minority groups, are "absorbed" into an established, generally larger community."

So what are you exactly saying? Are you suggesting Quebec is a country and does not qualify as a plain old minority group?

Also, my statement is pretty much common knowledge, so there's no need for proof.

Your statement is NOT common knowledge: "If anything, English Canadians are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metrics."

Canada initially began implementing the metric system thinking the U.S. would also be going ahead with the metric system, but never did.

Canada was stuck and burdened by a half implemented metric system that serves no purpose other than confuse everyone.

So your statement is FALSE and is NOT common knowledge that Canadians "are now less like Americans since Canada switched to metric.

I'll let you argue that one with English Canadian language purists.

That is not the point.

The point is that the Canadian English language has NEVER been threatened by the U.S., like you were claiming.

"Canadian English however may be threatened by American English (other than writing color with a U), but that's another example of language usually being the major issue in terms of assimilation."

That's what Canada gets when two large groups can't seem to get along. To prevent official bilingualism, a solution would have had to be found a long, long time ago.

Canada "gets it" because there is NO real federal government representing the majority of Canadians.

What we have (again) is a dysfunctional political system caused by lack of federal leadership to kick out an uruly minority.

My point is that there's no way to calculate the cost of bilingualism without bias.

Then the federal government is totally incompetent for implementing it, besides the fact it is being racially discriminatory.

Bill 101 is not in their constitution.

'The Charter of the French Language' is an upscaled version of Bill-101.

Seeing as Bill 101 is not in Québec's constitution, do you have any discriminatory citations from their actual constitution?

I already made clear I don't recognize Quebec's 'Charter of the French Language', 'OLA', nor the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

That is the primary reason I don't vote. Our political system is constitutionally corrupt and dysfunctional.

Banana Republic? Canada can't grow bananas! Despite language policies, Canada still has a fairly strong economy and to this day has not yet had a civil war nor insurrection. Not likely to change any time soon.

Place your bets, ladies and gentleman!

[Kapitän Rotbart]

So what are you exactly saying? Are you suggesting Quebec is a country and does not qualify as a plain old minority group?

Not at all. They are a minority group who would be assimilated had the English made this possible. If the Québecers go to school, work, go shopping, read the newspaper, etc. in French, all this under the English, how can you expect them to assimilate?!

Canada initially began implementing the metric system thinking the U.S. would also be going ahead with the metric system, but never did.

Thinking the US would go along? That's new to me. You must hate me when it comes to quotes by now but I am curious and up for a quick read... could you please provide a citation for this?

I'll agree that our half-way metric system is silly. With time Canucks will measure their height and weight in metrics, and it's just a matter of time until we get stoves who cook in Celsius, otherwise it's pretty much fully implemented.

The point is that the Canadian English language has NEVER been threatened by the U.S., like you were claiming.

Travelling, counselling, litre or traveling, couseling, liter? Most Canadians don't know the difference and will actually use foreign spelling. Check out this website for a good read:

http://www.luther.ca/~dave7cnv/cdnspelling/cdnspelling.html

Canada "gets it" because there is NO real federal government representing the majority of Canadians.

What we have (again) is a dysfunctional political system caused by lack of federal leadership to kick out an uruly minority.

Yet most MPs are WASPs last I checked (though not a majority in Québec, they have a high proportion of WASP MPs considering Québec's population). It would be cool to have more minorities represented in parliament.

Then the federal government is totally incompetent for implementing it, besides the fact it is being racially discriminatory.

Requiring a skill, even if arbitraty, is not racist. Anyone wanting employment should make sure they have the required skills, and if they don't have them, they should achieve them. The policies themselves are not racist (there may be racist individuals in parliament, but then again, that depends on how inclusive you are at defining racism).

'The Charter of the French Language' is an upscaled version of Bill-101.

Really? Please provide at least a single discriminating excerpt from their charter. I have yet to have one pointed out to me.

I already made clear I don't recognize Quebec's 'Charter of the French Language', 'OLA', nor the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

That is the primary reason I don't vote. Our political system is constitutionally corrupt and dysfunctional.

Good for you. That's why I'm thankful most Canadians don't agree with you.

Place your bets, ladies and gentleman!

Yes! Money is everyones' favorite language. I bet if large-scale bets were to be made on this, some mob would make it happen just to get their coin out of it.

[Leafless]

Not at all. They are a minority group who would be assimilated had the English made this possible. If the Québecers go to school, work, go shopping, read the newspaper, etc. in French, all this under the English, how can you expect them to assimilate?

Actually corrupt federal politics and confederation in Canada allows this unfortunate scenario.

To bad ALL provinces were not like Quebec and didn't sign Canada's constitution, then we would see how far Quebec would get along in French only.

Thank Canadians for the gift of being able to retain Quebec's language under our existing dysfunctional political system.

Thinking the US would go along? That's new to me. You must hate me when it comes to quotes by now but I am curious and up for a quick read... could you please provide a citation for this?

I did a quick check on this subject and found many articles pointing in that direction, (thinking the U.S. would be also conforming to the metric system), but not much blatantly stating that fact, although I did not spend that much time researching. Regardless, this was a well known fact in the 70's.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=a1ARTA0005262

Requiring a skill, even if arbitraty, is not racist. Anyone wanting employment should make sure they have the required skills, and if they don't have them, they should achieve them. The policies themselves are not racist (there may be racist individuals in parliament, but then again, that depends on how inclusive you are at defining racism).

The federal 'official bilingualism policy' is discriminatory, as Quebec's legal place in Canada relating to the French language has never been legally established in respect to the majority English language used commercially throughout the country.

If French is an 'official language' and used in the federal government, then why is it not an 'official language' across the entire country.

This is what makes French NOT a genuine 'official language' but one the federal government chooses to blatantly discriminate against users of the English language.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Not at all. They are a minority group who would be assimilated had the English made this possible. If the Québecers go to school, work, go shopping, read the newspaper, etc. in French, all this under the English, how can you expect them to assimilate?

Actually corrupt federal politics and confederation in Canada allows this unfortunate scenario.

To bad ALL provinces were not like Quebec and didn't sign Canada's constitution, then we would see how far Quebec would get along in French only.

Thank Canadians for the gift of being able to retain Quebec's language under our existing dysfunctional political system.

Thinking the US would go along? That's new to me. You must hate me when it comes to quotes by now but I am curious and up for a quick read... could you please provide a citation for this?

I did a quick check on this subject and found many articles pointing in that direction, (thinking the U.S. would be also conforming to the metric system), but not much blatantly stating that fact, although I did not spend that much time researching. Regardless, this was a well known fact in the 70's.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=a1ARTA0005262

Requiring a skill, even if arbitraty, is not racist. Anyone wanting employment should make sure they have the required skills, and if they don't have them, they should achieve them. The policies themselves are not racist (there may be racist individuals in parliament, but then again, that depends on how inclusive you are at defining racism).

The federal 'official bilingualism policy' is discriminatory, as Quebec's legal place in Canada relating to the French language has never been legally established in respect to the majority English language used commercially throughout the country.

If French is an 'official language' and used in the federal government, then why is it not an 'official language' across the entire country.

This is what makes French NOT a genuine 'official language' but one the federal government chooses to blatantly discriminate against users of the English language.

1. We also have the English to thank for not forcing all Québecers to study and work in English upon colonization.

2. Thanks for the link. Not as convincing as I would have hoped, and stating a "consideration" is kind of weak, but it's not all that relevant to this thread.

3. But the Canadians in Neu-Braunschweig who prefer to speak French are officially recognized. Québec's not the only part of Canada to officially use the French language.

Why is English also not official in all parts of Canada? Just because language is regionally recognized doesn't mean there's no place for it in federal offices. Your logic is flawed.

[Leafless]

Why is English also not official in all parts of Canada? Just because language is regionally recognized doesn't mean there's no place for it in federal offices. Your logic is flawed.

Before the 'Official Languages Act' came along, English was the 'de facto' majority residential and commercial language of Canada.

The English language in Canada never required any officialization of any kind.

'Official multiculturalism' along with the 'Official Languages Act' and corrupt government made English and minority French the official languages of Canada with the intent to make Canada a bilingual nation.

We all know the federal bilingual plan failed miserably, with at this time a little over 17% of Canadians are fluently bilingual, which basically represents the French population of Quebec and a handful of other French speaking Canadians scattered throughout Canada.

But nevertheless the federal government never abandoned or discontinued as 'unworkable and racially discriminatory', 'federal official bilingualism' in the federal government.

Why the federal government wishes to continue blatant discrimination against users of the English language with this useless federal bilingual policy only proves how dysfunctional the federal government really is.

Why is the federal government making the majority English speakers of Canadian society unduly suffer, for parliaments incompetency and inability, for once and for all, to settle Quebec's grievances without dragging down the English speaking population of Canada to appease Quebec's self induced problems.

My logic is not flawed but yours certainly is.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Before the 'Official Languages Act' came along, English was the 'de facto' majority residential and commercial language of Canada.

De facto in the RoC, that is.

'Official multiculturalism' along with the 'Official Languages Act' and corrupt government made English and minority French the official languages of Canada with the intent to make Canada a bilingual nation.

Official languages were established due to spite.

The English failed at assimilating the Québecers. Instead of making English the academic and working language of Québec, they made attempts at populating Québec with Anglo-Europeans (kind of like when Italy tried to populate South-Tyrol in Italy with Italians to make it less German-speaking... gues what; South-Tyrol has sovereignty-association, what many 'somewhat-realistic-seperatists' of Québec want). It was a stupid move. Think of it this way; suppose you were to live in a given area and you were to speak a language hardly used outside this region. Then your area is colonized and instead of forcing you to learn their language, they let you continue to study, work, etc. in your language and don't supply proper language training for you to learn their language. Then they populate parts of your region with foreigners who are favored by the system because they speak the government's language. You don't have the opportunity to leave your area, not even to a neighboring province/state just to learn the language. This creates rivalry.

Proportionally speaking, it's like if you were expected to speak Turkish to get a high-end job, yet the language training is hardly available and few native speakers of this language were to live in your area (and you couldn't justify a trip to Turkey because it's either too far, can't afford it, affraid of not being able to come back, the list goes on).

The English did a terrible job at colonizing Québec, so the Québecers made sure this would never happen again. The Liberals did a terrible job at governing Canada (scandal, favoring left-wing policies to get the support of the NDP, etc.) and the Conservatives wrote a long, expensive legislation to make sure the scandal and the benefit of a few other loop-holes would never happen again (at least not feasibly).

This is called action-reaction. We have the English to blame for the current state of Québec.

We all know the federal bilingual plan failed miserably, with at this time a little over 17% of Canadians are fluently bilingual, which basically represents the French population of Quebec and a handful of other French speaking Canadians scattered throughout Canada.

Most Québecers are not fluent in English and could not be considered bilingual (I thought you would have figured that when you would go to a grocery store in Gatineau).

I also figure there be a larger proportion of bilingual Francophones than bilingual Anglophones in Canada, however the highest proportion of bilingual Canadians would be amongst Anglo-Québecers and Francophones in the RoC (with some bilingual Francophones in Québec and some bilingual Anglophones in the RoC). By the way, bilingual Anglophones who aren't spiteful like you and actually learned French average the highest income in Canada because language is no longer an issue for them to advance their career.

But nevertheless the federal government never abandoned or discontinued as 'unworkable and racially discriminatory', 'federal official bilingualism' in the federal government.

Why the federal government wishes to continue blatant discrimination against users of the English language with this useless federal bilingual policy only proves how dysfunctional the federal government really is.

Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population. It's not discriminatory; people are not discriminated based on their background, so it can't be a case of discrimination.

There is a large proportion of Anglophones and a large proportion of Francophones in Canada. This makes for a country of two languages and both languages are just as genuine. Your reasoning of language is absurd. You only look at one side/segment of Canada's history, and you ask if French is not official throughout Canada, why it is official. Most multi-lingual European countries have more than one language limited to a certain region, yet they're still official (for instance Belgium and Switzerland).

[Pat Coghlan]

I also figure there be a larger proportion of bilingual Francophones than bilingual Anglophones in Canada, however the highest proportion of bilingual Canadians would be amongst Anglo-Québecers and Francophones in the RoC (with some bilingual Francophones in Québec and some bilingual Anglophones in the RoC). By the way, bilingual Anglophones who aren't spiteful like you and actually learned French average the highest income in Canada because language is no longer an issue for them to advance their career.

That's the problem. It shouldn't be an issue for anglophones in Ontario (or francophones in Quebec) unless providing service to the public or employees (e.g. HR or compensation).

Taxpayers receive zero benefit from trying to get anglophones to talk French to their francophone collegues in the performance of their jobs in, say Ottawa. We are spending billions on this useless training. When people finish language school (possibly after 2+ years), 80% of them go back to their jobs and speak English.

Bilignual requirement for services, fine. Bilingual requirement for jobs that just end up speaking the language of the majority, assinine (unless you're a francophone, so blocking anglophones from thousands of positions in ROC makes perfect sense to you).

Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population. It's not discriminatory; people are not discriminated based on their background, so it can't be a case of discrimination.

There is a large proportion of Anglophones and a large proportion of Francophones in Canada. This makes for a country of two languages and both languages are just as genuine. Your reasoning of language is absurd. You only look at one side/segment of Canada's history, and you ask if French is not official throughout Canada, why it is official. Most multi-lingual European countries have more than one language limited to a certain region, yet they're still official (for instance Belgium and Switzerland).

Yeah, and when officials from, say Italy, get together with officials from, say Germany, they write up the contracts in English.

You say requiring bilingualism isn't discriminatory. What do you call it then, when a position in Ottawa is classified bilingual, yet the employee speaks English virtually 100% of the time?

Please explain why we should spend billions of dollars on language training for people to go back to their jobs and speak only English?

Is Sheila Fraser listening???

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I also figure there be a larger proportion of bilingual Francophones than bilingual Anglophones in Canada, however the highest proportion of bilingual Canadians would be amongst Anglo-Québecers and Francophones in the RoC (with some bilingual Francophones in Québec and some bilingual Anglophones in the RoC). By the way, bilingual Anglophones who aren't spiteful like you and actually learned French average the highest income in Canada because language is no longer an issue for them to advance their career.

That's the problem. It shouldn't be an issue for anglophones in Ontario (or francophones in Quebec) unless providing service to the public or employees (e.g. HR or compensation).

Taxpayers receive zero benefit from trying to get anglophones to talk French to their francophone collegues in the performance of their jobs in, say Ottawa. We are spending billions on this useless training. When people finish language school (possibly after 2+ years), 80% of them go back to their jobs and speak English.

Bilignual requirement for services, fine. Bilingual requirement for jobs that just end up speaking the language of the majority, assinine (unless you're a francophone, so blocking anglophones from thousands of positions in ROC makes perfect sense to you).

Wouldn't it be a majority of government employees who have to deal with either the public or other employees? I'd imagine that would include a huge portion of gov't employees.

If the position isn't labeled bilingual, language is not an issue. If the position is labeled bilingual, the employer would have to justify doing so one way or another.

Most gov't work can be outsourced, and it should because then the private sector would be much more efficient. Plus the issue of requiring bilingualism just to serve employees in their prefered domestic language to satisfy the OLA would no longer be an issue.

Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population. It's not discriminatory; people are not discriminated based on their background, so it can't be a case of discrimination.

There is a large proportion of Anglophones and a large proportion of Francophones in Canada. This makes for a country of two languages and both languages are just as genuine. Your reasoning of language is absurd. You only look at one side/segment of Canada's history, and you ask if French is not official throughout Canada, why it is official. Most multi-lingual European countries have more than one language limited to a certain region, yet they're still official (for instance Belgium and Switzerland).

Yeah, and when officials from, say Italy, get together with officials from, say Germany, they write up the contracts in English.

You say requiring bilingualism isn't discriminatory. What do you call it then, when a position in Ottawa is classified bilingual, yet the employee speaks English virtually 100% of the time?

Please explain why we should spend billions of dollars on language training for people to go back to their jobs and speak only English?

Is Sheila Fraser listening???

There are enough people in a given European country who speak the language(s) of other European countries that this wouldn't be an issue. English is used between non-English speaking European countries for academics (public research) and private sector (for "international" contracts), yet the gov'ts still communicate in one of the two countries' language. By officials I am assuming you mean gov't representatives.

A justification would have to exist in order to categorize a position as bilingual. Besides, the language training is available; nothing is holding Anglophones back from becoming bilingual and benefiting from the opportunities that come with it.

Last I heard the feds were cutting back on expensive language training and simply requiring bilingualism instead to save money. IMHO, If I had to choose between people of one group storming gov't offices or providing training for those of the other group at the expense of tax payers, I'd rather see less wasted tax money and bite the fact that fewer Anglophones will grab gov't work. Federal gov't emplyees consist of a small portion of Canada's population (it may have an impact on Ottawa's job market, yet Ottawa still somehow has an impressively low unemployment rate) but everyone has to pay taxes, so expecting applicants to be bilingual right off the bat costs so few yet benefits so many. Requiring bilingualism in the job description may be less discriminating than spoiling tax money on laguage training if in the end the acquired language is not needed.

[Pat Coghlan]

Wouldn't it be a majority of government employees who have to deal with either the public or other employees? I'd imagine that would include a huge portion of gov't employees.

Actually, no.

There are something like 240,000 federal public servants. Most of them never deal directly with the public.

Do they deal with other employees? Well, they work with other employees, and a small percentage of the total provide HR and compensation-type services. These are the only ones that really need to be bilingual.

If the position isn't labeled bilingual, language is not an issue. If the position is labeled bilingual, the employer would have to justify doing so one way or another.

Not much justification is required. I'd like to see Sheila Fraser do an audit to see what language is actually used 99% of the time for so-called bilingual positions in Ottawa.

Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population. It's not discriminatory; people are not discriminated based on their background, so it can't be a case of discrimination.

The incentive is the billions of dollars spent annually to train anglophone employees to speak French so that 80% of them can go back to work and speak English.

There is a large proportion of Anglophones and a large proportion of Francophones in Canada. This makes for a country of two languages and both languages are just as genuine. Your reasoning of language is absurd. You only look at one side/segment of Canada's history, and you ask if French is not official throughout Canada, why it is official. Most multi-lingual European countries have more than one language limited to a certain region, yet they're still official (for instance Belgium and Switzerland).

Official should mean you can get served by the government in the language of your choice. It should not mean that both languages are interchangeable in the workplace, because I have yet to see a workplace where that is the case. You cannot have meetings etc. in both languages.

There are enough people in a given European country who speak the language(s) of other European countries that this wouldn't be an issue. English is used between non-English speaking European countries for academics (public research) and private sector (for "international" contracts), yet the gov'ts still communicate in one of the two countries' language. By officials I am assuming you mean gov't representatives.

No, I mean company representatives. A friend of mine is a lawyer who spent a year in France working for a firm there. While contracts between companies in the same country were written up in the language of that country, all contracts between companies from different countries were written in English.

A justification would have to exist in order to categorize a position as bilingual. Besides, the language training is available; nothing is holding Anglophones back from becoming bilingual and benefiting from the opportunities that come with it.

A manager can very easily make a position bilingual. Very little justification is required.

Last I heard the feds were cutting back on expensive language training and simply requiring bilingualism instead to save money. IMHO, If I had to choose between people of one group storming gov't offices or providing training for those of the other group at the expense of tax payers, I'd rather see less wasted tax money and bite the fact that fewer Anglophones will grab gov't work. Federal gov't emplyees consist of a small portion of Canada's population (it may have an impact on Ottawa's job market, yet Ottawa still somehow has an impressively low unemployment rate) but everyone has to pay taxes, so expecting applicants to be bilingual right off the bat costs so few yet benefits so many. Requiring bilingualism in the job description may be less discriminating than spoiling tax money on laguage training if in the end the acquired language is not needed.

Like I said, if the postion provides a service to the public or other employees, fine.

Otherwise, making a position bilingual only ensures that more and more jobs go to francophones. You cannot justify this trend when the fact of the matter is that 80% of the employees in bilingual positions in Ottawa conduct their work exclusively in English.

[jbg]

No, I mean company representatives. A friend of mine is a lawyer who spent a year in France working for a firm there. While contracts between companies in the same country were written up in the language of that country, all contracts between companies from different countries were written in English.

*******

Otherwise, making a position bilingual only ensures that more and more jobs go to francophones. You cannot justify this trend when the fact of the matter is that 80% of the employees in bilingual positions in Ottawa conduct their work exclusively in English.

How abouit ending this colonialist, imperialist and Zionist imposition of English, and require all people, everywhere, to do business in Esperanto or Urdu?