3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Leafless]

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.

[Leafless]

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.

The bilingualism bonus does nothing but rip off tax payers, like everything else associated with federal 'official bilingualism' and was never meant to be an incentive.

You probably won't be able to find this anywhere on the net, but the original purpose of the bilingualism bonus was to fill the void in positions not classified bilingual.

There were many federal public servants who were doing work that required the use of both languages and that was the purpose of the bilingual bonus, to provide a little extra to compensate for that extra work, if it was proven that actually was the case.

To-day federal bilingual positions are advertised as such and a salary paid according to duties making the 'bilingual bonus' a fraudulent extra.

Those Liberal guys will make Quebecers millionaires yet, with no thanks to our chicken livered premiers in the rest of the country.

[capricorn]

What do you mean by a level playing field though?

Appointments to government jobs are supposed to be based on merit, meaning the most qualified person is selected. Section 30(1) of the Public Service Employment Act:

"Appointments by the Commission to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit and shall be free of political influence."

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/P-...-ga:l_2-gb:s_30

The "Commission" is the Public Service Commission, that delegates its staffing powers to deputy heads. Screening candidates in a selection process on the basis of language proficiency interferes with selecting and appointing on the basis of merit. That is, the most qualified employee is passed over for appointment or promotion. In many staffing actions, anglophones are the most qualified but are screened out of the process on the basis of language. The system is not flexible or fair enough to assess qualifications (merit) first and look at language as a second step. For example, if a unilingual anglophone is appointed on merit, managers should be able to adjust the work unit accordingly. Language training could then be offered on a voluntary basis.

Anglophones who want a career in the public service constantly face this disadvantage. As a group, they are particularly affected in the national capital region since this is where the majority of bilingual jobs are found.

Providing a systemic advantage to francophones and having too many jobs designated bilingual does not place both language groups on equal footing.

[Peter F]

30. (1) Appointments by the Commission to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence.

Meaning of merit

(2) An appointment is made on the basis of merit when

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency;

Public Service Employment Act ( 2003)

PSEA at DoJ Canada

So merit actually includes language proficiency as established by the deputy head.

[capricorn]

30. (1) Appointments by the Commission to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence.

Meaning of merit

(2) An appointment is made on the basis of merit when

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency;

Public Service Employment Act ( 2003)

PSEA at DoJ Canada

So merit actually includes language proficiency as established by the deputy head.

Deputy Heads sub-delegate most of this authority to subordinate managers. So the question becomes: How objective (unbiased?) are managers in determining that a position should be bilingual and in setting the language proficiency of positions. When the 1969 Official Languages Act was revised in 1988, Section 91 was introduced to address this.

“Section 91 emphasizes the need for objectivity in setting the language requirements of jobs in federal institutions for the purposes of a particular staffing action. In general terms, this provision states that no federal employer may arbitrarily set language requirements in applying the provisions relating to service to the public or language of work. These requirements must be genuinely necessary to perform the duties of the position to be filled.

Complaints concerning failure to comply with the objectivity requirement in section 91 in connection with a specific staffing action may be filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages, and eventually with the Federal Court.

Complaints relating to bilingual positions may concern the levels of skill required in the second language or the obligation, or lack thereof, to meet the requirements at the time of staffing.”

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/archives/op_ap/a...llo_annot_e.htm

I must give credit to the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages of the H of C in existence at that time. It is this Committee that developed Section 91 for inclusion into the revised Act of 1988. It was clearly intended to offer some protection for anglophones who disagreed with deputy head/managerial decisions.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@capricorn:

Anglophones who want a career in the public service constantly face this disadvantage. As a group, they are particularly affected in the national capital region since this is where the majority of bilingual jobs are found.

Are they really of grade A merit if they can't read the job desription and only later on find out that they're missing the language skills?

Providing a systemic advantage to francophones and having too many jobs designated bilingual does not place both language groups on equal footing.

I beg to differ. Classifying a job as bilingual does not stop Anglophones from applying. If they have the language skills, they can benefit from bilingual positions.

[capricorn]

@capricorn:

Anglophones who want a career in the public service constantly face this disadvantage. As a group, they are particularly affected in the national capital region since this is where the majority of bilingual jobs are found.

Are they really of grade A merit if they can't read the job desription and only later on find out that they're missing the language skills?

Providing a systemic advantage to francophones and having too many jobs designated bilingual does not place both language groups on equal footing.

I beg to differ. Classifying a job as bilingual does not stop Anglophones from applying. If they have the language skills, they can benefit from bilingual positions.

Normally, language requirements are identified in advertisements of positions to be filled. In cases where the position requires a knowledge of French, anglophones who are not bilingual or who do not wish to become bilingual simply do not apply. Then, why would they bother to access or read the job description? This does not reflect on their merit in terms of whether they are qualified to the job.

In my previous posts, I never addressed the question of bilingual anglophones applying for bilingual jobs. It's a given that if the job interests them, they will apply. So I don't see how you can differ on something that I never raised.

[Pat Coghlan]

I beg to differ. Classifying a job as bilingual does not stop Anglophones from applying. If they have the language skills, they can benefit from bilingual positions.

And exactly how are anglophones supposed to keep their language skills when 80% of them never use the second language after returning to work???

Also, if they never have to use the second language, why was their position classified bilingual in the first place?

You're defending a practice (2nd language required for a job) which, in reality, does not reflect what actually happens in the workplace - especially in Quebec.

I'd like to hear your opinion regarding whether a manager should have to certify in writing that a second language will be required at least 10% of the time before he/she is allowed to classify it as bilingual. Would you be in favour of this requirement?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@capricorn:

In my previous posts, I never addressed the question of bilingual anglophones applying for bilingual jobs. It's a given that if the job interests them, they will apply. So I don't see how you can differ on something that I never raised.

I'm aware, but my point was that the language requirement does not descriminate against Anglophones, because Anglophones can also be qualified and obtain employment, despite language requirements.

@Pat Coghlan:

Also, if they never have to use the second language, why was their position classified bilingual in the first place?

...

I'd like to hear your opinion regarding whether a manager should have to certify in writing that a second language will be required at least 10% of the time before he/she is allowed to classify it as bilingual. Would you be in favour of this requirement?

I still don't see how a position could be classified bilingual if the 2nd language is never used. Your 10% proposal is indeed humble (which is even more humble than your previous proposal of 1 out of 8 hours; which is 12.5%). The 2nd language would have to be used at least to a certain extent in order to justify classifying the job as bilingual, including dealing with other employees who have the right to report in their prefered domestic language, but I wouldn't limit it to a daily basis (that 10% could be evaluated on weekly or monthly or even quarterly intervals). It would be reasonable at any rate. Standards are usually beneficial, but I have yet to see how such a system could be implemented "idiot-proof" (if a manager wants to classify a position as bilingual, he/she could probable make sure that +10% of the work is done in the 2nd language). At any rate, the standard you propose is reasonable, and I would not complain if it were implemented (but the results would intrigue my curiosity).

I honnestly don't see the problem with bilingualism in Ottawa impacting society in terms of numbers. I mean, sure plenty of people are spiteful because of the language issue, yet Ottawa still maintains impressively low unemployment rates (where the federal government is the biggest employer and has most of its labor located). If it were really an issue, Ottawa would have a higher unemployment rate than Montréal and Toronto, where people can easily find work in the private sector.

IMHO the actual issue (refering to lately, not what happened centuries ago) is quite exagerated.

Actually, it just occured to me that bilingual policies might actually be making Ottawa a more productive city. Because so many people don't get the promotions they would like in their main activity due to refusing to learn a 2nd language, they look for other ways of making a nickel and dime on the side, meaning an increase in hours worked, meaning Ottawa can benefit from a greater local economy. I don't know if monolingual Anglophones in Ottawa average more labor hours than other Canucks, but I'd be curious to see if such an effect has actually occured.

[Pat Coghlan]

I still don't see how a position could be classified bilingual if the 2nd language is never used.

Very simple. The (usually francophone) manager changes the classification and sends it off to the classification folks, subject to little - if any - scrutiny.

I also mentioned that about 80% of the people I've polled haven't used a word of their second language since going back to work, so clearly there's some basis for questioning the number of jobs being classified as bilingual.

I honnestly don't see the problem with bilingualism in Ottawa impacting society in terms of numbers. I mean, sure plenty of people are spiteful because of the language issue, yet Ottawa still maintains impressively low unemployment rates (where the federal government is the biggest employer and has most of its labor located). If it were really an issue, Ottawa would have a higher unemployment rate than Montréal and Toronto, where people can easily find work in the private sector.

Good jobs in the private sector are getting harder and harder to find, which leaves the government as one of the best employers in Ottawa. A large number of jobs are being unnecessarily classified as bilingual. We are sending people 2 years away from retirement on language training for 2 years! Language training is also used as a place to send malcontents that don't get along with anyone.

Yes, there is a problem with the way we've implemented bilingualism.

Actually, it just occured to me that bilingual policies might actually be making Ottawa a more productive city. Because so many people don't get the promotions they would like in their main activity due to refusing to learn a 2nd language, they look for other ways of making a nickel and dime on the side, meaning an increase in hours worked, meaning Ottawa can benefit from a greater local economy. I don't know if monolingual Anglophones in Ottawa average more labor hours than other Canucks, but I'd be curious to see if such an effect has actually occured.

Productive means more results with less labour. Clearly, if 80% of candidates aren't making use of the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their language training, this isn't being very productive (ditto for sending people on language training right before they retire).

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I also mentioned that about 80% of the people I've polled haven't used a word of their second language since going back to work, so clearly there's some basis for questioning the number of jobs being classified as bilingual.

I'd imagine... I just find it strange that these managers wouldn't even bother to make it seem like the 2nd language were needed (as in supply work to these newly bilingual gov't employees in their 2nd language once in a while).

Good jobs in the private sector are getting harder and harder to find, which leaves the government as one of the best employers in Ottawa. A large number of jobs are being unnecessarily classified as bilingual. We are sending people 2 years away from retirement on language training for 2 years! Language training is also used as a place to send malcontents that don't get along with anyone.

Yes, there is a problem with the way we've implemented bilingualism.

Are you serious? Man, what's the point? It would make more sense to send people under 45 to do language training, and consider the 45+ to be the legacy who could go without language training... once the legacy staff retires, the feds could have bilingual staff throughout the 613/819... but there's no real point in supplying language training to the nearly-retired... not only are they close to retirement but they learn slower.

Productive means more results with less labour. Clearly, if 80% of candidates aren't making use of the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their language training, this isn't being very productive (ditto for sending people on language training right before they retire).

Yes and no... productivity can be measured by the amount of results for the given amount of labor. Assuming that an Ottawan can be roughly as productive in every hour working, then if they work more hours (likely in more than one job), then they provide a greater contribution to the local economy. I know it's more of a curve (one reaches a point where they become less and less productive per hour worked, but even then the total results over the course of a day increases when hours worked increase). In other words, if monolinguals are taking on second jobs because their first job won't allow their career advancement as long as they're monolingual, then they make a greater contribution to the local economy.

[Pat Coghlan]

Are you serious? Man, what's the point? It would make more sense to send people under 45 to do language training, and consider the 45+ to be the legacy who could go without language training... once the legacy staff retires, the feds could have bilingual staff throughout the 613/819... but there's no real point in supplying language training to the nearly-retired... not only are they close to retirement but they learn slower.

The feds already have bilingual staff throughout the NCR.

The question is, at what point is the government saturated with bilingual staff. We already have far too many positions classified as bilingual, judging by the number of people that actually use their second language in the performance of their work.

So, we either face facts and stop all this wasteful training and cut back on the bilingual requirement, or you fill the federal government with francophone employees, since the anglophones can easily live and work in Ottawa entirely in English.

Of course, the answer is quite relevant to this thread. The same decisions need to be evaluated for the other levels of government. If bilingualism isn't really working in the federal workplace, it would be a big mistake to extend it to the other levels of government.

[capricorn]

Francophones are over-represented in the City's bureaucracy. Ideally, the government workforce should reflect the population of the two language groups in the community. That's the delicate balance the feds were never able to achieve.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@capricorn:

How would you suggest implementing such a balance given the OLA?

A possible parameter would be to put language or regional quotas.

-Regional quotas would result in filling those offices with Franco-Ontarians to compensate for the number of Québecers, having Franco-Ontarians represent the RoC;

-Language quotas would result in flooding federal offices with Anglo-Québecers because they are the single largest froup of bilingual Anglophones, meaning income is paid to Québecers, who are paying taxes to a socialist provincial gov't.

I'm kind of curious which of these would be worse for Leafless (a government staffed with a real minority, even within its own locale; or staffed with those less likely to advance bilingualism yet pay into socialism and the advancement of the QC).

To be honnest, I don't even see why this is an issue. I mean, in terms of Québec vs. the RoC in federal offices, it's rather the QC vs. ON (federal employees working in the NRC pretty much have to claim residency in one of the two provinces), meaning if the feds choose to employ Westerners or Maritimers, it's still income tax going to ON or QC, and there's no point decentralizing the federal gov't further than it is already. The other thing is that we're not even refering to politicians, but rather people who have to crunch data for the good of our country. I don't think it matters if my public servants are residents or originating from Québec, Ontariario or elsewhere... as long as they're Canadian and meet all job requirements, I see no real issue with where they're from. Given the constraints, the federal gov't probably couldn't improve the situation by adding more constraints. It's kinda too late to abolish bilingualism; the only way to release labor from language requirements is by privatizing.

Again I am still convinced that if it were a real problem, our local unemployment rate would be much higher. As Leafless said, no one is forced to learn a second language, and if someone can do everything in their locale without a second language, then there are less incentives to learn it. However, anyone wanting to work a position that is likely to be bilingual by the time they apply should essentially make sure their language skills are up to par.

[capricorn]

K.R.,

If I had the answer to that question, I would be a candidate for the Order of Canada.

Section 39 of Part VI of the Official Languages Act on participation of both languages groups says:

Commitment to equal opportunities and equitable participation

39. 1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that

a. English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions; and

b. the composition of the work-force of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both the official language communities of Canada, taking into account the characteristics of individual institutions, including their mandates, the public they serve and their location.

Therefore, according to the representation of language groups in Canada, that means that approximately 75% of the public service should be English-speaking and 25% French-speaking. Francophones have now surpassed 25% representation. It stands at about 28%. This presents a problem for the federal government. The challenge now is to find equilibrium and keep those numbers static. This is why staffing policies are so important. It is through staffing and the proper language designation of positions that this equilibrium can be reached and maintained.

There are many sub-factors involved, such as population by language within metropolitan areas to measure the need for bilingual positions, that adds complexity to the entire language program. One almost needs a degree to make sense of it.

Suffice it to say that the City of Ottawa will have that exact same challenge. That is establishing equilibrium between the two language groups within its bureaucracy along population lines and maintaining those numbers in the long term. This is where English-speaking Ottawans will have to be vigilant.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@capricorn:

The humility is appreciated.

Francophones only represent 28% of federal positions?! That's hardly disproportional (an advancement of 3% is no where neer "flooding federal offices").

That part of the OLA is worded reasonably I'd say. It gives Francophones, Anglophones and everyone else "equal chances". Putting up quotas to regulate the proportions would inevitably (unless you can prove otherwise) be explicit discrimination, considering the current system is based on equal chances.

Why do we even need to engineer/maintain a certain proportion of people of a given language in public institutions' offices?! If Francophones are flooding gov't offices because Anglophones are not qualified due to a lack of language skills, then the only way the government can change this without inciting discrimination is by heavily promoting learning French and offering huge bursaries to those who do.

Honnestly though, if it's 3% higher than the true population proportion, the sample of gov't employees is not that skewed.

[Pat Coghlan]

That part of the OLA is worded reasonably I'd say. It gives Francophones, Anglophones and everyone else "equal chances". Putting up quotas to regulate the proportions would inevitably (unless you can prove otherwise) be explicit discrimination, considering the current system is based on equal chances.

Quotas would place an upper limit on the number of positions that can be designated bilingual.

Sure, anybody can apply for a bilingual position if they have the language skills, but how many anglophones living in Ottawa have the (official) language skills for bilingual positions? Ditto for francophones living in Montreal or Quebec City.

Keep in mind that 80% of the ones that are designated bilingual don't actually require the employee to use the skills on the job significantly (10%), if at all.

Quotas would ensure that 50% or more of the positions aren't classified bilingual over time.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Pat Coghlan:

Quotas would ensure that 50% or more of the positions aren't classified bilingual over time.

But how would you word such quotas to not go against the OLA and the constitution?

I honnestly don't see the real problem in having a group of Canadians over-represented in Federal offices. It's not like in Rwanda where it was an insane difference, spuring racism and genocide between the two dominant tribes. Even if everyone in federal offices were either Francophone, Anglophone, etc. it wouldn't result in genocide, it just might increase spite a little. Government services would still be dominantly available in the locale's dominant language, so it wouldn't be a real issue.

If it is an issue, however (and I don't see why, please let me know if there's any reason for believing this to be an issue), then what should be done is enforce another multi-million dollar accountability legislation overseeing every decision for classifying a job as bilingual. I don't know how you would possibly word such "quotas" to regulate bilingual job classification... I can only see an accountability program possibly succeeding this objective. A quota would be to directly influence how many Anglophones and how many Francophones OR how many Québecers and how many Canucks from the RoC are to be hired, whether a position requires bilingualism or not.

If the federal gov't only consisted of almost exclusively one of the two language groups of Canucks, then the province(s) of the other language group would probably insist on a more decentralized gov't meaning more power to the provinces.

[Pat Coghlan]

But how would you word such quotas to not go against the OLA and the constitution?

I honnestly don't see the real problem in having a group of Canadians over-represented in Federal offices. It's not like in Rwanda where it was an insane difference, spuring racism and genocide between the two dominant tribes. Even if everyone in federal offices were either Francophone, Anglophone, etc. it wouldn't result in genocide, it just might increase spite a little. Government services would still be dominantly available in the locale's dominant language, so it wouldn't be a real issue.

If it is an issue, however (and I don't see why, please let me know if there's any reason for believing this to be an issue), then what should be done is enforce another multi-million dollar accountability legislation overseeing every decision for classifying a job as bilingual. I don't know how you would possibly word such "quotas" to regulate bilingual job classification... I can only see an accountability program possibly succeeding this objective. A quota would be to directly influence how many Anglophones and how many Francophones OR how many Québecers and how many Canucks from the RoC are to be hired, whether a position requires bilingualism or not.

There are some people that would have no problem if every government job was classified as bilingual, and some the complete opposite (all jobs in a region unilingual).

Personally, in view of the fact that 80% of people in bilingual positions rarely use the second language, I'd opt for either much stricter criteria for classifying jobs as bilingual, or quotas. Either would ensure that we don't end up with something like 50%+ of all jobs being declared bilingual.

Even better, we should just do what Quebec does at the federal, provincial and municipal level re: language of work and percentage of jobs classified as bilingual. Or, is there a problem with following Quebec's example???

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Pat Coghlan:

There are some people that would have no problem if every government job was classified as bilingual, and some the complete opposite (all jobs in a region unilingual).

Sometimes the personal opinion of some on arbitrary aspects of the government system which has little or no effect in people's everyday life isn't worth debating in parliament. If a group of Canadians is overly represented in parliament and no one is suffering from it, then it really isn't an issue.

I'd opt for either much stricter criteria for classifying jobs as bilingual, or quotas.

An accountability program for the language classification of gov't positions could be a good idea, but then it's legislation and implementation costs should be considered (although I agreed with the contents of Harper's accountability program, I did find it a tad expensive, and I don't know if Canadian society will really benefit... it's hard to say). As for quotas, please inform me of a possible "quota" which would be effective, yet non-discriminating and doesn't go against the OLA nor the constitution. The idea of regulating the proportion of Canadian representation in gov't offices still seems completely trivial to me, but if it's important to you, and you think quotas would be a good idea, please propose a "quota" that could actually pass... otherwise it's no more than a (probably impossible) dream.

Or, is there a problem with following Quebec's example???

Indeed there is. It would be unfortunate if the feds/the RoC sinks down to Québec's level (well, depending on the issue, but for limiting the use of official languages as opposed to expanding their use is not an example that I want to follow).

[jbg]

Even better, we should just do what Quebec does at the federal, provincial and municipal level re: language of work and percentage of jobs classified as bilingual. Or, is there a problem with following Quebec's example???

And what is Quebec's example?

[Pat Coghlan]

Indeed there is. It would be unfortunate if the feds/the RoC sinks down to Québec's level (well, depending on the issue, but for limiting the use of official languages as opposed to expanding their use is not an example that I want to follow).

Well, unfortunately Quebec is doing the best that it can re: removing English from just about everywhere except certain parts of the private sector. In RoC, French is pretty much non-existent in the private sector for practical reasons, but it is being imposed on more and more public sector jobs (the same thing is NOT happening with English in public sector jobs in Quebec).

You can't have a highly bilingual public sector in RoC, when it's pretty much a unilingual French public sector in Quebec, outside of Gatineau.

The whole program needs an overhaul. If Quebec is going to continue down the current road (and they will) then it's idiotic to make bilingualism a criteria for an increasing number of public sector jobs in RoC, especially when 80% of the time the second language is never used. The only thing this achieves is ensuring a healthy supply of jobs for francophones in RoC. I can only assume that you support this program for the same reason.

[Pat Coghlan]

Even better, we should just do what Quebec does at the federal, provincial and municipal level re: language of work and percentage of jobs classified as bilingual. Or, is there a problem with following Quebec's example???

And what is Quebec's example?

Adopting French as the language of work throughout the private and public sectors.

Much less emphasis on classifying public sector jobs as bilingual, with lower standards and less policing. Many federal jobs that are classified bilingual are staffed by people who've never even been tested. This is from someone I know who used to work for Official Languages in Montreal.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

You can't have a highly bilingual public sector in RoC, when it's pretty much a unilingual French public sector in Quebec, outside of Gatineau.

That's because virtually all of Québec's federal work in the QC is in Gatineau. I'd imagine it would be the same would go for federal work in the RoC outside the NCR... few jobs would be classified as bilingual.

The only thing this achieves is ensuring a healthy supply of jobs for francophones in RoC. I can only assume that you support this program for the same reason.

I actually don't care if a group of Canadians is over-represented in federal offices... I see this as completely arbitrary, and it's not affecting Canadians' day-to-day life. It's the same way I see minority representation in the American gov't... Black and Hispanic people are still under-represented (despite Bush has a more multi-cultural gov't than Clinton did), yet this isn't an issue for me. It seems to only be an issue for those who make it an issue.

I favor advancing bilingualism because Canada is a country of two languages and because the federal government does not pertain to any province, it should as an entity reflect the the fact that we have two languages by being skilled in both languages. It's mostly a patriotism issue for me, but if you can convince me of an actual problem pertaining to Francophones' over-representation in federal offices and bilingual policies in general in Ottawans' every day life, maybe I may reconsider.

[Riverwind]

It's mostly a patriotism issue for me, but if you can convince me of an actual problem pertaining to Francophones' over-representation in federal offices and bilingual policies in general in Ottawans' every day life, maybe I may reconsider.

1) The tests required prove fluency in french are stricter than they need to be given the objective of having a bilingual public service. This has the effect of excluding a large number of otherwise competent individuals from the public service.

2) Excluding a large number of qualified based on a criteria that has no impact on a person's ability to do the job will result in public service filled with less qualified people. This will impact the average person because teh cost of providing services will be higher and the services will be poorer.