3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Leafless]

De facto in the RoC, that is.

You almost make Quebec sound linguistically significant in comparison to the rest of Canada, when you KNOW, this is not the case.

Official languages were established due to spite.

Official languages was established by a certain federal party sympathetic to (third world Quebec's) perpetual unrealistic linguistic plight based on constitutional rights pertaining only to the province of Quebec and nothing to do with ROC.

The English failed at assimilating the Québecers. Instead of making English the academic and working language of Québec

The English were not stupid enough to waste time with a French minority that never had any intention to conform to English standards.

Don't forget, the Roman Catholic religion was very influential at that time adding to the problems of assimilation.

But I wouldn't go blaming the English for failing to assimilate Quebecers, because to this day Quebec still does not know when to throw in the linguistic towel, despite being outnumbered by hundreds of millions of anglophones.

This of course does not say much for the mentality of Quebec politicians, as they must be fully aware their linguistic plight is the total destruction of Canada as a country, tit for tat.

I certainly hope Canadian premiers of all other Canadian provinces are aware of this.

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 know for a fact, many store clerks are acting in solidarity to support the 'French fact' (tit for tat, but still FAIL to understand the difference between a majority and a minority) and only pretending they do not understand English. I checked and verified with store managers in Gatineau that employees of larger stores or chains are indeed bilingual and the Quebec ads in Ontario to come to shop in Quebec will verify this also.

Gatineau which is part of the Outaouais, has one of the highest rates of bilingual francophones in Quebec.

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.

So, some people will sell their souls to the devil for advancement, nothing new there.

BTW-I am not spiteful but am resentful of the fact the federal government stripped away my constitutional rights pertaining to 'federal official bilingualism' and resentful that the federal government ignored the 'will of the people of Canada' relating to this issue.

For the federal government to have a high level contempt against its own majority English speaking citizen's is an abnormal and unacceptable occurrence and only shows the federal government of the past to actually be unnaturally biased against English speakers of Canada and hold the English accountable for problems they were unable to solve.

Which begs the question to be answered: 'Who the hell is running Canada'???

Once bilingual policies have started, there were no incentives to remove them because of the large Francophone voting population.

What large francophone population?

Approx. 50% of Quebec's population are separatist, that leaves approx. 50% some federalist others nationalist.

At the very best your looking at 3-million people who are possibly in agreement with federalist policies.

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.

Please post those numbers for all to see otherwise we will take it for granted what you stated is BS, like mostly everything else you post.

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).

Canada is not Europe, we have rules governing official languages and Quebec is not a country.

It is outright madness to enforce minority French as a language of equal importance to majority English to be used in the workings of our federal government outside of Quebec.

As if Quebec cannot control French services within the province of Quebec utilizing modern technology.

The current federal bilingualism ploy,is a spiteful game played by opposing federal parties who see French assimilation as a horrible insult and try to even the game by forcing unconstitutional policies for 'tit for tat, which in the long run are only inflaming the failed bilingualism issue.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@jbg:

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

Do you want to be the first to promote such an idea? With no one to back these languages, they won't be used.

@Pat Coghlan:

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.

Do you have any resources on hand to back this statement? I'd be curious to read some. I found this link:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/careers/eng/pubserv-e.htm but their link to "A Day in the Life of the Public Service of Canada" is broken (and may relfect gov't bias). Maybe you can find something objective to back your statement.

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

A justification is nevertheless required. If the 2nd language is never needed, then there's no way one could justify classifying the position as bilingual.

@Leafless:

You almost make Quebec sound linguistically significant in comparison to the rest of Canada, when you KNOW, this is not the case.

Québec is linguistically significant; the QC is the 2nd most populated province. English was never de facto in Québec, not even while controled by the English.

The English were not stupid enough to waste time with a French minority that never had any intention to conform to English standards.

Don't forget, the Roman Catholic religion was very influential at that time adding to the problems of assimilation.

But I wouldn't go blaming the English for failing to assimilate Quebecers, because to this day Quebec still does not know when to throw in the linguistic towel, despite being outnumbered by hundreds of millions of anglophones.

This of course does not say much for the mentality of Quebec politicians, as they must be fully aware their linguistic plight is the total destruction of Canada as a country, tit for tat.

I certainly hope Canadian premiers of all other Canadian provinces are aware of this.

Then why were the French so successful at establishing their language as the official working and academic language (and not their religion) in the French colonies of North Africa? The North Africans may still prefer to speak Arabic, but they most certainly speak French (and do not share any culture nor religion with France). There's a greater difference between Catholicism and Islam than between Catholicism and the Church of England, yet the English were still unsuccessful at merely implementing their language in Québec.

Nowadays, changing a region's majority language is much more difficult than in previous times (because colonization does not happen in the same way as it did a couple centuries ago). Once Québec joined Canada, the incentives to become a predominantly English speaking region were lessened, because when official languages were established, their regionally dominant language was included.

I know for a fact, many store clerks are acting in solidarity to support the 'French fact' (tit for tat, but still FAIL to understand the difference between a majority and a minority) and only pretending they do not understand English. I checked and verified with store managers in Gatineau that employees of larger stores or chains are indeed bilingual and the Quebec ads in Ontario to come to shop in Quebec will verify this also.

Gatineau which is part of the Outaouais, has one of the highest rates of bilingual francophones in Quebec.

Bilingualism may be required to work in the larger stores in Gatineau, but like in Ottawa, plenty of people 'claim' to be bilingual just to get the job yet are not capable of working in both languages (this claim normally doesn't stop them from getting hired because the interview is done in the region's dominant language as well as most of the labor upon employment). There may be plenty of folks who claim to be bilingual in those stores just to get the job, but they won't speak to you in English because they can't. Same thing goes for plenty of places in Ottawa where one could assume that the staff would be bilingual, yet they can hardly speak French.

Most truly bilingual people in Gatineau work in Ottawa. The ones who claim to be bilingual work on their side of the fence. These large stores can easily find a translator to translate their ads for Ottawa, but that doesn't mean the staff speak English.

So, some people will sell their souls to the devil for advancement, nothing new there.

This leads me to gather that you believe the follwoing:

If a Francophone learns English with the hopes of getting a good job that might require the use of English, he's doing the right thing.

If an Anglophone learns French with the hopes of getting a good job that might require the use of French, he's selling his soul to the devil.

This is nonsense. I bet there are Francophones who believe the same (yet inverse Francophone with Anglophone and English with French).

Which begs the question to be answered: 'Who the hell is running Canada'???

An elite group of Canucks who pretty much own the politicians. I'll assume most of them are Ontarian or Albertan, where the highest proportions of wealthy Canucks live (with the exception of other Canadian WASPs who choose to live abroad). They probably don't care whether Anglophones or Francophones get federal work, as long as the political parties pay them premiums for their investments.

What large francophone population?

Approx. 50% of Quebec's population are separatist, that leaves approx. 50% some federalist others nationalist.

At the very best your looking at 3-million people who are possibly in agreement with federalist policies.

The referenda are kinda old. Most seperatists have toned down and would settle for sovereignty-association (like in South-Tyrol, Italy). Even the seperatists would support federal policies regarding an increased use of their language.

Please post those numbers for all to see otherwise we will take it for granted what you stated is BS, like mostly everything else you post.

All know the numbers already. You don't consider 24% of Canadians a large proportion?! That's a much higher proportion than that of Spanish speakers in the USofA.

It is outright madness to enforce minority French as a language of equal importance to majority English to be used in the workings of our federal government outside of Quebec.

The federal gov't does not pertain to any region, so it uses the two official languages, one being equally official to the other. The private sector reflects the natural demand for language.

As if Quebec cannot control French services within the province of Quebec utilizing modern technology.

What technology would you expect them to use? Everyone either uses American, Japanese or German technology or model their own based on American, Japanese or German technology.

The current federal bilingualism ploy,is a spiteful game played by opposing federal parties who see French assimilation as a horrible insult and try to even the game by forcing unconstitutional policies for 'tit for tat, which in the long run are only inflaming the failed bilingualism issue.

Is it really a failed issue? Wouldn't there be a higher proportion of bilingual Canadians now than in Canada's entire history? If so, wouldn't that reflect a certain success coming from bilingual policies?

This bilingual issue is bilateral; you'd probably find a much weaker proportion of bilingual people in Québec aswell in the past.

By the way, on the topic of assimilation, you've mentioned that the definition of assimilation admits the possibility of voluntary assimilation, yet you have not yet provided a historical example of a people choosing to adopt another culture/language while renouncing their own. The example of the Americanisation of English Canadians doesn't really work because just like English Canadians join the American mass media band wagon, so does most of the world, and English Canadian culture is still relatively just as similar and different compared to American culture as a century ago (I write Americanisation with an S for the purpose of irony).

[Pat Coghlan]

Do you have any resources on hand to back this statement? I'd be curious to read some. I found this link:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/careers/eng/pubserv-e.htm but their link to "A Day in the Life of the Public Service of Canada" is broken (and may relfect gov't bias). Maybe you can find something objective to back your statement.

I worked every summer in the public service, and I'm back working for a government agency again here in Ottawa. I also have many neighbours working in the federal government, including PWGSC (huge department) and the CRTC, both of which are headquartered in Gatineau. I can show you lots of positions that are bilingual, but almost no one who directly serves the public. Virtually all the work in the office is done in English.

My own position is classified bilingual, as of the day after the anglophone that occupied it retired (it was English essential for the 10 years previous). As a result, I had to go on language training for 6 months. I'm now C-B-C, but haven't had to speak a word since I got back and none of my francophone collegues even bother to talk to me in French. It's the same story for all the anglophones that I know directly or indirectly.

BTW, you will be asked to pay for all this training.

A justification is nevertheless required. If the 2nd language is never needed, then there's no way one could justify classifying the position as bilingual.

Kindly explain my personal experience then, plus that of the roughly 80% of anlglophones that I know of that spent up to 2 years on language training only to return to work and never use their 2nd language.

Can you acknowledge that perhaps there's a problem with the number of jobs being classified bilingual?

[Leafless]

Québec is linguistically significant; the QC is the 2nd most populated province.

Take away the Anglophone, allophones and Aboriginals and Quebec's net linguistic effect is reduced to about 18% of Canada's total population and almost equal to the 17% of all Canadians that are bilingual.

English was never de facto in Québec, not even while controled by the English.

English is the 'de facto' language of the country of Canada which includes Quebec.

Then why were the French so successful at establishing their language as the official working and academic language (and not their religion) in the French colonies of North Africa?

They were successful because: "The French were able to accept an African as French, if he gave up his African culture and adopted French ways, even including marriage with a French woman."

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

The French are linguistically insane it seems: "In the case of Rwanda in 1994, for example, France made the terrible mistake of seeing the struggle there as being fundamentally one between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. "

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_co...5/5.2smith.html

Sounds familiar doen't it?

The federal gov't does not pertain to any region, so it uses the two official languages, one being equally official to the other.

Only under the federal fairy make believe kingdom are the official languages equal and not in the real world.

The private sector reflects the natural demand for language.

Certainly.

But by forced to co-operate by a phony, corrupt federal style municipal bilingual policy (Ottawa for example)is not the definition of "natural demand".

Is it really a failed issue? Wouldn't there be a higher proportion of bilingual Canadians now than in Canada's entire history?

It is a 100% failed issue considering the amount of federal money poured into a policy that was forced on the Canadian public, who had virtually no say in that discriminatory policy.

If you consider 17% of Canadians who are currently bilingual a great achievement, considering the fact this represents 90% of them Francophone from Quebec, then good for you.

By the way, on the topic of assimilation, you've mentioned that the definition of assimilation admits the possibility of voluntary assimilation, yet you have not yet provided a historical example of a people choosing to adopt another culture/language while renouncing their own. The example of the Americanisation of English Canadians doesn't really work because just like English Canadians join the American mass media band wagon, so does most of the world, and English Canadian culture is still relatively just as similar and different compared to American culture as a century ago (I write Americanisation with an S for the purpose of irony).

Let's face it without Canada there would be no Quebec.

Quebec at this time would probably be a U.S. possession similar to Louisiana with a lifestyle similar to residents of Louisiana.

You have a lot of nerve suggesting Quebec is so different culturally while leeching off of the rest of Canada and taking advantage of the loyalist who voluntarily allowed themselves to be assimilated, to conform to American customs, that have benefited Quebec tremendously.

It is dysfunctional Canadian politics that have allowed Quebec the right to retain the 'Quebec Act' when they should have been forced by federal authorities to surrender that document if they want to remain a province in Canada.

You have demonstrated absolute contempt for English speaking Canadians and I will no longer be debating this issue with you any further as you are displaying the same type of unbearable arrogance Quebec displays towards Canada.

[Peter F]

Leafless:

Take away the Anglophone, allophones and Aboriginals and Quebec's net linguistic effect is reduced to about 18% of Canada's total population and almost equal to the 17% of all Canadians that are bilingual.

Is leafless suggesting that the 17% of Canadians who are bilingual are almost all Quebecers? That 90% of e Quebec so-called Franco-phones can in fact speak English well enough to be considered bilingual?

If you consider 17% of Canadians who are currently bilingual a great achievement, considering the fact this represents 90% of them Francophone from Quebec, then good for you.

Yes indeed he does! I'd call Leafless a liar if it wasn't for the Gatineau storekeepers crap wich indicates he actually believes this bullshit.

It is dysfunctional Canadian politics that have allowed Quebec the right to retain the 'Quebec Act' when they should have been forced by federal authorities to surrender that document if they want to remain a province in Canada.

You have demonstrated absolute contempt for English speaking Canadians and I will no longer be debating this issue with you any further as you are displaying the same type of unbearable arrogance Quebec displays towards Canada.

LOL. What arrogance.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Pat Coghlan:

Can you acknowledge that perhaps there's a problem with the number of jobs being classified bilingual?

Perhaps, but I think there's a lack of outsourced and/or privatized labor. The private sector always does it better.

How do they classify jobs as bilingual if there's no possible justification?

If you establish a prefered language with another person, no matter how many languages you may have in common, it's unlikely that this language preference would change and conversing in another shared language would be awkward, so it makes sense that you resume speaking in English with the Francophone coworkers you knew prior to the language training.

@Leafless:

Take away the Anglophone, allophones and Aboriginals and Quebec's net linguistic effect is reduced to about 18% of Canada's total population and almost equal to the 17% of all Canadians that are bilingual.

Are you suggesting something? If we plug this into a Venn diagramme, I'd say out of the 17% of bilingual Canadians, there are the almost two percent of Canadians born lucky (raised with both languages equally), then the rest is a split between Francophones and Anglophones where most are Anglo-Québecers and Francophones from the RoC. Québec is just as bilingual as the RoC.

English is the 'de facto' language of the country of Canada which includes Quebec.

Canada doesn't need a de facto language since it has official languages.

I suggest you look up the American states which do not have an official language in Wikipedia. Language in those states is typically de facto (supporting my claim that a de facto language can be measured not only nation-wide, but also regionally).

They were successful because: "The French were able to accept an African as French, if he gave up his African culture and adopted French ways, even including marriage with a French woman."

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

The French are linguistically insane it seems: "In the case of Rwanda in 1994, for example, France made the terrible mistake of seeing the struggle there as being fundamentally one between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. "

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/jo...5/5.2smith.html

Sounds familiar doen't it?

As for the first reference, it lacks relevance because I specifically stated North Africa, in other words the Islamic nations where the French did not implement their religion, only their language. In most other French-speaking African countries, the French have succesfully implemented their religion aswell.

Some Africans assimilated into French culture in order to pertain to the higher class society. Most wouldn't, even if it were advantageous to do so (notice most French speaking Africans do not celebrate French culture, but rather their own, and few went out of their way to marry a French woman, otherwise there'd be a much larger group of Euro-Africans/Afro-Europeans). There were some Englishmen who did the same when England was occupied by France, nothing new here.

Regarding your second source, do you have a subscription to access the full text?

Rwanda's an interesting country. First colonized by the Germans, then handed to Belgium after WWI. English is however quite the minority language in Rwanda, so the Franco-Europeans still had the largest success at language implementation in Rwanda.

It is a 100% failed issue considering the amount of federal money poured into a policy that was forced on the Canadian public, who had virtually no say in that discriminatory policy.

If you consider 17% of Canadians who are currently bilingual a great achievement, considering the fact this represents 90% of them Francophone from Quebec, then good for you.

Yes, money that would have been spent anyways.

Seriously though, money spent on salary is inevitable, and gov't departments have spending quotas, so throwing cash at bilingualism would have been spoiled anyway.

As I said earlier, most bilingual Francophones are from the RoC, and Québec as a whole is roughly as bilingual as the RoC.

You have a lot of nerve suggesting Quebec is so different culturally while leeching off of the rest of Canada and taking advantage of the loyalist who voluntarily allowed themselves to be assimilated, to conform to American customs, that have benefited Quebec tremendously.

All Canadians are equally benefiting from what the loyalists fought for; Québec, as well as most provinces in the RoC leech off Ontario and Alberta; and Québec has the most distinct Canadian culture per province. I not only suggest it, I state it. What are you going to do about it?

[Pat Coghlan]

How do they classify jobs as bilingual if there's no possible justification?

There are only Treasury Board guidelines, and no auditing afterwards, so a manager (almost always a francophone) changes the classification, and it's virtually never challenged.

I'd like to see Sheila Fraser do a value-for-money audit on this. I'm sure Canadians would be shocked.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

If you pay a bilingual or a monolingual Canadian to do the same job, it costs you the same in salary. I don't know how even the best accountants could figure this out, especially considering we don't know how much "less" money would be spent had the feds not opted for bilingualism (as I said, salaries are inevitable and gov't depts have quotas so they have to blow a certain amount of cash to preserve the same cash inflow).

There are Francophone managers because the gov't hired them in the first place.

We could essentially replicate America's "affirmative action" and have every government decision approved by an Anglophone, a Francophone, a native speaker of another language, etc. where at least one of these is a woman (just like in the American USofA where many decisions must be approved by a Caucasian, a Black and an Asian where at least one is a woman). We could do that, but that would increase costs. At least then a justification would be required for classifying these jobs as bilingual. The problem with this is language is less obvious than skin color... a bilingual person could easily claim to have a given language as a first/second if that gets them a good job. Assuming that all Canadians do their public education in their first language is also a flawed logic, so this possible solution would be tricky.

[Leafless]

Leafless:

Is leafless suggesting that the 17% of Canadians who are bilingual are almost all Quebecers? That 90% of e Quebec so-called Franco-phones can in fact speak English well enough to be considered bilingual?

Peter, what I am saying is the 17% of all Canadians considered bilingual are 90% Quebecers.

Yes indeed he does! I'd call Leafless a liar if it wasn't for the Gatineau storekeepers crap wich indicates he actually believes this bullshit.

What Gatineau storekeeper "crap" are you referring to?

[jbg]

If you pay a bilingual or a monolingual Canadian to do the same job, it costs you the same in salary.

I agree with you. In fact, I'd take it one step further and make the sole qualification for public service work being bi-lingual or able to speak French, with no testing on the whether the prospective government hire can substantively do the work expected of him or her.

[capricorn]

If you pay a bilingual or a monolingual Canadian to do the same job, it costs you the same in salary. I don't know how even the best accountants could figure this out, especially considering we don't know how much "less" money would be spent had the feds not opted for bilingualism (as I said, salaries are inevitable and gov't depts have quotas so they have to blow a certain amount of cash to preserve the same cash inflow).

Actually, a person occupying a bilingual position and who meets the language requirements receives an annual bonus of $800.00. This income counts toward the calculation of the retirement pension. Does it make any sense that the government pays for language training for unilingual employees then rewards them with a language bonus? Should plumbers or electricians receive a bonus because they are certified in their trades?

What's to stop managers from designating positions bilingual simply to reward friends? Bilingual employees would not contest the language designation of their position as this would hit them in the pocketbook. The bonus system is open to abuse and should be discontinued. You can bet the unions would put up a huge fight.

Other hidden costs to bilingualism in the public service are the various bodies set up to oversee this program. One example is the National Joint Council Official Languages Committee. This is a joint union-management committee that regularly discusses language policy changes and hears grievances related to the bilingualism bonus. There are others.

A true accounting of these costs could only be properly done by the Auditor General. I think a lot of rot would be uncovered. I suggest calling it "bil-gate".

[Pat Coghlan]

A true accounting of these costs could only be properly done by the Auditor General. I think a lot of rot would be uncovered. I suggest calling it "bil-gate".

It would be soooooooooooooo much easier if the government admitted that there is this thing called language of work, and that the language of work everywhere but Quebec is English, while in Quebec the language of work is French (except for the federal offices in Gatineau).

I mean, this is what happens in reality anyhow.

[Leafless]

Actually, a person occupying a bilingual position and who meets the language requirements receives an annual bonus of $800.00.

It is ironic that a Francophone whose obvious mother tongue is French is always tested in English and not French.

This obviously means many Francophones who speak slang french, could very well be incompetent in in their own French language.

[capricorn]

Actually, a person occupying a bilingual position and who meets the language requirements receives an annual bonus of $800.00.

It is ironic that a Francophone whose obvious mother tongue is French is always tested in English and not French.

This obviously means many Francophones who speak slang french, could very well be incompetent in in their own French language.

The majority of the components of the official languages program operate in favour of francophones. No doubt, the framework for language testing is flawed. As soon as francophones declare that French was their first language learned it is recorded as their mother tongue. They are then tested in English.

A public service wide review of the language designation of all positions should have been done a long time ago. This review raises 2 questions. Would the government be willing to spend the money to complete this review? (I can hear protests against this expenditure). Would the results be much different if managers were assigned to conduct this review? I think this review should be limited to the National Capital Region (includes Gatineau) where the majority of bilingual jobs are located. This is also where anglophones are being squeezed out of the hiring and promotion process in large numbers. Why? There are a lot more francophone employees than anglophones and too many jobs are designated "bilingual. Also, too many are designated "bilingual imperative", meaning you have to pass the language test before you get the job and there is no access to language training.

In terms of the language proficiency of francophones in the French language, it's not so much the slang part. Obviously, slang has more to do with verbal communication which enables parties to converse. For many francophones, the problem arises in reading a French text and understanding it and answering written questions in proper French (grammar, vocabulary, etc). This is not surprising since many francophones outside Québec have worked primarily in English for a long time, i.e. manuals, files and other documents.

If the City of Ottawa looks to the feds as a model, it will commit the same mistakes and fall into the same trap. Anglophone employees and the community have got to speak up to avoid the pitfalls.

[Leafless]

In terms of the language proficiency of francophones in the French language, it's not so much the slang part. Obviously, slang has more to do with verbal communication which enables parties to converse. For many francophones, the problem arises in reading a French text and understanding it and answering written questions in proper French (grammar, vocabulary, etc). This is not surprising since many francophones outside Québec have worked primarily in English for a long time, i.e. manuals, files and other documents.

If the City of Ottawa looks to the feds as a model, it will commit the same mistakes and fall into the same trap. Anglophone employees and the community have got to speak up to avoid the pitfalls.

What the Canadian English community is up against is the promotion of 'linguistic duality' by our dear friend, our federal government, with no input on what the Canadian tax payer has to day about all of this by way of referendum or whatever.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/pub/ola-action2004.html

Constitution Act 1982, under 'Official Languages of Canada', Sec. 16(3), states:

"Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of parliament to advance the equality status or use of English or French."

This is most disturbing in a country that is suppose to advocate democracy but in reality, Canada is a country that rejects 'the will of the people'.

I would say the unstable nature of our federal government pertaining to the actual government of the day, fueled by continual cultural unrest has destroyed the meaning of Canada as a country.

Our government is obsolete and is in need of a major tune up, so that it will be able to perform its basic function, the administration or running of this country, rather than to be totally self absorbed with social engineering or statism.

[capricorn]

In terms of the language proficiency of francophones in the French language, it's not so much the slang part. Obviously, slang has more to do with verbal communication which enables parties to converse. For many francophones, the problem arises in reading a French text and understanding it and answering written questions in proper French (grammar, vocabulary, etc). This is not surprising since many francophones outside Québec have worked primarily in English for a long time, i.e. manuals, files and other documents.

If the City of Ottawa looks to the feds as a model, it will commit the same mistakes and fall into the same trap. Anglophone employees and the community have got to speak up to avoid the pitfalls.

What the Canadian English community is up against is the promotion of 'linguistic duality' by our dear friend, our federal government, with no input on what the Canadian tax payer has to day about all of this by way of referendum or whatever.

Our government is obsolete and is in need of a major tune up, so that it will be able to perform its basic function, the administration or running of this country, rather than to be totally self absorbed with social engineering or statism.

I think the Conservatives are trying to turn things around. Abolishing the Court Challenges Program is an excellent example. This program encouraged Canadians from minority groups to bring forward their complaints of unequal treatment, no matter how petty. As a result their will was imposed on the majority. To add insult to injury, each and every Canadian payed through to nose for this litigation only to get kicked in the butt by the resulting court decisions. I'm pleased and surprised the Conservatives had the guts to do this. They're still getting blasted by the opposition over this decision.

I would add that not just English Canadians are worried or being affected by the imposition of rights for special interest and minority groups. French Canadians also do not digest or accept some of the rights conferred to special interest groups and ethnic minorities. Yes, French Canadians are a minority. Yet, we represent around 23% of Canada's population and we share many of the concerns of our English compatriots. Remember, most of us were born in Canada.

The Conservative minority government is trying its best to govern while confined to a straight jacket. They need to achieve a majority to bring about real change and to undo the system of social engineering instilled by previous administrations.

Now when you say our government is obsolete, if you mean the parliamentary system......then that is an entirely different discussion.

[Leafless]

The Conservative minority government is trying its best to govern while confined to a straight jacket. They need to achieve a majority to bring about real change and to undo the system of social engineering instilled by previous administrations.

Now when you say our government is obsolete, if you mean the parliamentary system......then that is an entirely different discussion.

No, not really.

Our system of government being a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional democracy has been badly abused and IMO is only retained pertaining to the TRMENDOUS POWER given to the prime minister.

For instance Quebec despises the Queen as our head of state along with the monarchy. It also is responsible for electing a separatist a federal party to parliament, while maintaining (not at the moment) close advantageous ties to the federal Liberals who have been directly responsible for social engineering for the benefit of Quebec.

Our present system is broken and dysfunctional and our current form of government has been transformed into a cultural weapon and used by Quebec to beat down English majority interest in a totally legal fashion.

Since when does a minority control the political interest of the majority?

[capricorn]

Quoting Leafless: "Since when does a minority control the political interest of the majority?"

This situation arose because of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism of the early 60's (Pearson-Lib), the Official Languages Act of 1969 (Trudeau-Lib) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1985 (Trudeau-Lib). Successive PM's from Québec and years of Liberal rule have entrenched the powers of minorities throughout the bureaucracy. Being all things to all people has entered the psyche of the majority of Canadians.

Although I am a francophone, I do not associate my identity in any way with Québec and I want that province to sever from Canada. Many francophones inside and outside that province see me and those like-minded as traitors.

If Québec does separate, I don't think undue control of minority groups over the majority will go away. Liberals will continue to pander to the ethnic and minority vote. It's always worked for them, has it not? I worry that the Conservatives may use this tactic to stay in power. No wonder Conservative supporters are confused.

[Leafless]

If Québec does separate, I don't think undue control of minority groups over the majority will go away. Liberals will continue to pander to the ethnic and minority vote. It's always worked for them, has it not?

It is the type of dangerous Liberal pandering that is the problem wth the end result being a loss of Canadian identity' our values and cutoms and traditions as a country in the singular sense and a dysfunctional federal government.

I worry that the Conservatives may use this tactic to stay in power. No wonder Conservative supporters are confused.

Two wrongs don't make a right and if the Conservatives continue to cater to the same type of tactics as the Liberals, total political chaos could reign, but this is not totally a Conservative problem.

You said it quite well: "The Conservative minority government is trying its best to govern while confined to a straight jacket."

These are dangerous, difficult times indeed with parliamentarians failing to address and correct the root cause before all hell breaks loose.

[jbg]

These are dangerous, difficult times indeed with parliamentarians failing to address and correct the root cause before all hell breaks loose.

Politicians' instinct is to dither and temporize, put off decisions so that they become someone else's problem.

[Leafless]

These are dangerous, difficult times indeed with parliamentarians failing to address and correct the root cause before all hell breaks loose.

Politicians' instinct is to dither and temporize, put off decisions so that they become someone else's problem.

No politician will advocate civil war, thus the reason for selling the country down the drain.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@jbg:

I agree with you. In fact, I'd take it one step further and make the sole qualification for public service work being bi-lingual or able to speak French, with no testing on the whether the prospective government hire can substantively do the work expected of him or her.

I stand corrected. I meant to include caeteris paribus. If you hire a Bilingual or a Monolingual Canadian, caeteris paribus (provided both Canadians be equally qualified, etc. and the wages are the same), then the salary cost is the same.

Politicians' instinct is to dither and temporize, put off decisions so that they become someone else's problem.

Yes and no. Politicians want to create a future for their country according to their platform, provided it dosen't cost them a significant proportion of votes.

@capricorn:

You do have an objective point of view. However, if we compare a system with bilingualism never implemented with the one we have now (bilingualism half-implemented), it's difficult to figure how much "more" money we're spending/wasting as opposed to never having implemented bilingualism. Gov't will always find some reason to waste money. That bonus for Bilingual employees makes sense. It's a good inviting incentive for people to acquire a second language without it being forced down their throat. This is huge in the private sector (outside IT).

Regarding Québec, I'll second that I have no interest in having anything to do with that province. The fact is, Francophone Canadians are more likely to be socialist (fortunately not all of them are) just like black people are more likely to be communitarian (socially right, economically left). If Francophone Canadians were more conservative, they would likely still increase the use of their language in parliament, only Leafless would have one reason less to not like Québec (that is, if they were conservative).

@Leafless:

Constitution Act 1982, under 'Official Languages of Canada', Sec. 16(3), states:

"Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of parliament to advance the equality status or use of English or French."

Nothing wrong with that. Canada has two official languages, they might as well use both.

It is ironic that a Francophone whose obvious mother tongue is French is always tested in English and not French.

This obviously means many Francophones who speak slang french, could very well be incompetent in in their own French language.

Oh I'd be for first language testing! Would be such a great idea. It may decrease the number of incompetent "supposively" bilingual French-dominant Canadians in federal offices. It won't, however, decrease the number of Francophones who truly are bilingual in federal offices though.

Many Anglophones do not speak nor write in English correctly. Keep in mind that you're living in Ottawa, one of Canada's most educated cities. 2 universities and 2 community colleges (another university and a few CEGEPs on the other side), plus I heard 90% of Ottawans enroll in post-sec. within 3 years of completing high school (I could be wrong, this is simply what's been told to me and I've had no reason to disagree... the actual numbers may vary, nevertheless Ottawa is a very educated Canadian city compared to others). The T. and Montréal may have more universities, but they have 4 to 6 times Ottawa's population. Granted there are some less literate Ottawans, but if you step out of Ottawa, the rate of good spellers decreases. Many Francophones in Ottawa who are quite evidently "French-dominant" may not have the good fortune of being native Ottawans (they likely come from somewhere in the 819, not the 514 nor the 418). If you go to reasonably sized cities in Québec (Montréal and Québec City), you'd be much more likely to meet Francophones who can speak and write better in French than many Anglophones in the RoC could in English.

[capricorn]

K.R,

I don't see the bonus as such a successful financial motivator for employees to learn a second language. Look at the numbers. $800.00 per annum equates to $66.00 per month, deduct say $13.00 (20%) in income tax, leaving approx $53.00 clear monthly on the employee's paycheque. It is not an easy task for most adults to learn a second language. How many employees would actually put out that effort for a measly 50 bucks a month, especially if they have to pay their own way.

The bonus was set at $800.00 over 30 years ago and was never increased by one penny. If the government believed the bonus would significantly contribute to an increase in its workforce's level of bilingualism, why wasn't it ever increased? In the 80s and 90s, unions pressured for an increase of the bonus in accordance with the inflation rate. The government steadfastly refused. Had the government agreed, today the bonus would be worth around $2,000.00 or more per annum.

Government has never bothered or been able to place a monetary value on second language skills. Personally, I don't think a bonus should be paid nor should it be increased. The real motivators for employees to learn a second language should be to increase their personal qualifications, and to become more competitive for promotion and career advancement.

I think that rather than receive a bilingualism bonus, anglophones would much prefer a level playing field.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

However, an extra $800 per year in one's bank account isn't bad. I'm surprised it hasn't been increased. At $800 per year, all the money one could have spent on classes in night school would be paid off in less than two years at any rate (and probably less than a year).

What do you mean by a level playing field though?

[Pat Coghlan]

However, an extra $800 per year in one's bank account isn't bad. I'm surprised it hasn't been increased. At $800 per year, all the money one could have spent on classes in night school would be paid off in less than two years at any rate (and probably less than a year).

What do you mean by a level playing field though?

Adopting English as the language of work in ROC, the way French has been adopted as the language of work in Quebec.

Save the bilingual requirement only for those jobs that actually provide services to the public or employees (e.g. compensation and staffing).

This would save a TON of money, but of course would result in fewer jobs going to francophones in ROC.