Speech pattern and typographical variations across Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Angus Reid is a polling firm. How do they argue against qualifications? Something has taken a weird turn in this thread.

Angus Reid is a dude. He founded the polling firm that still has his name on it but at this point is either retired from it or sold it off to someone else. I don't think he's involved any more but he is still a "figure" in Canadian public opinion research. His opinions on this are not those of the polling firm but yes lots of people do pay attention to what he says.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Indeed. As they are, no?

Well, they should be justifiable (demonstrated not to be arbitrary or based on stereotypes) when they have the effect of excluding certain groups from that position.

Of course, no one is arguing that all job requirements should be eliminated in the name of fairness. That's just a classic "absurd lio slippery slope/strawman".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Qualifications should be specific for the job at hand.

For example, I'm sure for your theoretical quadruple bypass, that you would prefer your cardiovascular surgeon to have his FRCS(C) designation, with his training having taken place at a world renown teaching hospital (Johns Hopkins?), and at least 10 years of post fellowship experience. On the other hand, I doubt it would matter a hoot to you whether or not said specialist cardiovascular surgeon was bilingual or not. In fact, if he was unilingual Russian, you might be OK with that too.........

All correct.

But managing Canadian federal public servants who are entitled to and produce work in French (in addition to English) is however a job where the French language is not a superfluous requirement IMO.

Unless people want to argue that francophones who work for the federal government should not be able to use their language other than in informal more social settings only.

The proverbial scientist who works only with bugs all day and who gets forced to learn French by the evil bureaucracy does not really exist. Unless that scientist's job involves liaising frequently with bug experts at a world-class institution somewhere in Quebec, that federal employee can likely stay as unilingual anglophone as they want for their entire career.

But yes, once that bug expert scientist starts aspiring to become a manager or higher, including managing francophone bug experts that his department needs precisely to liaise with that world-class bug place in Quebec, then yeah he's gonna need some French.

[Pavlov]

Just for the record, I take no issue with the requirement for bilingualism in senior administrative positions in government (or appointment to the Supreme Court).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Angus Reid is a dude. He founded the polling firm that still has his name on it but at this point is either retired from it or sold it off to someone else. I don't think he's involved any more but he is still a "figure" in Canadian public opinion research. His opinions on this are not those of the polling firm but yes lots of people do pay attention to what he says.

OK, totally off topic but I have to interject with the Winnipeg content here.

Angus Reid's public opinion research empire began with a single office above this 7-Eleven on Academy Road in Winnipeg...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Well, they should be justifiable (demonstrated not to be arbitrary or based on stereotypes) when they have the effect of excluding certain groups from that position.

Of course, no one is arguing that all job requirements should be eliminated in the name of fairness. That's just a classic "absurd lio slippery slope/strawman".

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Just for the record, I take no issue with the requirement for bilingualism in senior administrative positions in government (or appointment to the Supreme Court).

How do you reconcile these two posts? In the second one, you admit I'm correct (that "top govt jobs" in Poland having a Polish Fluency requirement is perfectly normal) yet at the same time, you suggest that it's "absurd" to take a position against the person who wants to abolish the aforementioned Pavlov-approved/lio45-approved job requirements because they are discriminatory, as they do restrict access to these "top jobs".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

How do you reconcile these two posts? In the second one, you admit I'm correct (that "top govt jobs" in Poland having a Polish Fluency requirement is perfectly normal) yet at the same time, you suggest that it's "absurd" to take a position against the person who wants to abolish the aforementioned Pavlov-approved/lio45-approved job requirements because they are discriminatory, as they do restrict access to these "top jobs".

I was responding to this post:

Originally Posted by lio45

That I forecast that a society that chooses to eliminate all qualification requirements "because they're discriminatory" will likely soon go to shit.

An average Joe from a working class family has little chance of successfully becoming the one surgeon that will get to handle kwoldtimer's quadruple heart bypass, but we can change that if you want and give the scalpel to a random person if you prefer but I have the feeling you'd rather live in a discriminatory society, all things considered.

That is all a nonsense strawman because no one has proposed such a thing.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Qualifications should be specific for the job at hand.

For example, I'm sure for your theoretical quadruple bypass, that you would prefer your cardiovascular surgeon to have his FRCS(C) designation, with his training having taken place at a world renown teaching hospital (Johns Hopkins?), and at least 10 years of post fellowship experience. On the other hand, I doubt it would matter a hoot to you whether or not said specialist cardiovascular surgeon was bilingual or not. In fact, if he was unilingual Russian, you might be OK with that too.........

An unilingual Russian can be a great cardiovascular surgeon anywhere in the world (provided all his assistants are Russians too...), but he can only be a successful and functional top government official in Russia (or Belarus, Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan).

BTW, my disagreement with Angus Reid was perfectly reasonable; the way he phrased his objection to bilingualism WAS absurd. The valid way to disagree or not with job requirements is not "they prevent unqualified people from accessing these jobs", it's "when you pause and think about it, you realize that that requirement is actually not really needed and is just some relic of the past".

The reason an unilingual Québécois can't access top federal jobs in this country isn't "because the system is mean and likes to be discriminatory", it's "because that person just isn't qualified for that job". And if Western skulls are too thick to be permeable to French, well, that's strictly their problem.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I was responding to this post:



That is all a nonsense strawman because no one has proposed such a thing.

As explained above, it's not a strawman, it is actually the flawed angle that Angus Reid chose to use.

Had he instead tried a different approach (say, "absolutely all Canadians understand English nowadays, so there's no reason anymore for that arbitrary requirement of fluency in the other official language, all it does is reduce the pool of candidates for no reason"), then there would have been no need for my objection to his "this requirement should be eliminated because it currently prevents unqualified candidates from accessing certain jobs, and that's discriminatory" logic.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

As explained above, it's not a strawman, it is actually the flawed angle that Angus Reid chose to use.

Had he instead tried a different approach (say, "absolutely all Canadians understand English nowadays, so there's no reason anymore for that arbitrary requirement of fluency in the other official language, all it does is reduce the pool of candidates for no reason"), then there would have been no need for my objection to his "this requirement should be eliminated because it currently prevents unqualified candidates from accessing certain jobs, and that's discriminatory" logic.

From the article:

Though statutorily, the list of mandatory bilingual positions in the Canadian federal government is fairly short, Canada’s 50-year-old Official Languages Act nevertheless declares that French and English “are the languages of work in all federal institutions,” and obliges dual fluency for any job in which bilingualism is “objectively required to perform the functions” of the position.

In practice, this clause — the Section 91 rule, in Ottawa-speak — has been ever-more liberally interpreted in order to justify ever-more bilingual hires. Ottawa’s most recently issued “Directive on Official Languages for People Management” now demands that those inThough statutorily, the list of mandatory bilingual positions in the Canadian federal government is fairly short, Canada’s 50-year-old Official Languages Act nevertheless declares that French and English “are the languages of work in all federal institutions,” and obliges dual fluency for any job in which bilingualism is “objectively required to perform the functions” of the position.

In practice, this clause — the Section 91 rule, in Ottawa-speak — has been ever-more liberally interpreted in order to justify ever-more bilingual hires. Ottawa’s most recently issued “Directive on Official Languages for People Management” now demands that those in most executive, managerial or deputy-head-type positions be able to perform complicated tasks in both French and English.

The author's complaint is, I think, that the federal government is requiring bilingualism in positions where it is not in fact "objectively required to perform the functions of the position" (so as to now include "most executive, managerial or deputy-head-type positions"). On re-reading it, I suppose it could have been clearer in that regard.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

The reason an unilingual Québécois can't access top federal jobs in this country isn't "because the system is mean and likes to be discriminatory", it's "because that person just isn't qualified for that job". And if Western skulls are too thick to be permeable to French, well, that's strictly their problem.

This is something Mr. JJ McCullough complained about in the Canada-themed videos. Being perfectly bilingual is really hard so instead of it being a kind of skill to be learned these requirements just end up creating a privileged class of bilingual-by-default folks like say Justin Trudeau who are the natural leaders of Canada. He also argues that this is basically a fake requirement.

Problems with this line of reasoning:

- JT and recent PMs have not been anywhere near perfectly bilingual (something JJ may have trouble assessing since he admits he has limited to no French skills). Stephen Harper's French was bad. The civil servant French requirements are modest.

- When we are talking about elite roles these should be people who are very capable anyway, so picking up a skill should be easier than average. I am skeptical of the phenomenon of the brilliant neurosurgeon who struggles with grade 3 French.

- French is the native language of 20% of inhabitants of Canada while English is in the 75% range. While it might not seem like French is common in Canada to somebody in Vancouver, it is a reality of national demographics and federal politics.

- Canada has ubiquitous French immersion programs.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

From the article:



The author's complaint is, I think, that the federal government is requiring bilingualism in positions where it is not in fact "objectively required to perform the functions of the position" (so as to now include "most executive, managerial or deputy-head-type positions"). On re-reading it, I suppose it could have been clearer in that regard.

Basically, any position where you manage other people will have a bilingual requirement of some sort.

Yes, these tend to be the higher-paid positions.

McCullough and (seemingly) Reid seem to take issue with that, and see it as unfair and discriminatory to anglophones who allegedly top out in positions below the management threshold.

Ironically, while Canada's francophones are somewhat over-represented in the overall federal public service (holding around 29% of all positions), they are slightly under-represented in those senior management positions where bilingualism requirements allegedly favour them. The figure IIRC is around or just under 20% of federal senior public servants who are francophones.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Basically, any position where you manage other people will have a bilingual requirement of some sort.

Yes, these tend to be the higher-paid positions.

McCullough and (seemingly) Reid seem to take issue with that, and see it as unfair and discriminatory to anglophones who allegedly top out in positions below the management threshold.

Right, and I agree that it makes sense that senior administrative and managerial positions in the federal public service require at least functional bilingualism (I think I already posted to that effect). I think the author of the article is totally incorrect that this is some systemic problem (especially one worthy of a hand-wringing article in the Washington Post).

[JHikka]

I understand why we have bilingualism requirements in the federal public service and higher offices but I also understand why anyone west of Ottawa would take issue with them. French is a 1-3% spoken language in provinces west of ON.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I understand why we have bilingualism requirements in the federal public service and higher offices but I also understand why anyone west of Ottawa would take issue with them. French is a 1-3% spoken language in provinces west of ON.

Do we actually have a lot of federal civil servant jobs here in BC that require French? Or is it more that there's a sense that when you hit some level in your career you are offered progression through a move to Ottawa that requires French?

My experience is that a lot of official French stuff here in BC is suspicious. I sometimes see misspellings and bad grammar on written signs, hear people who say stuff in French at the airport that is complete gibberish, etc. I am skeptical that I would actually be able to talk to a federal civil servant in Vancouver in French, but I've never tried.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

Do we actually have a lot of federal civil servant jobs here in BC that require French? Or is it more that there's a sense that when you hit some level in your career you are offered progression through a move to Ottawa that requires French?

More the latter, like someone being denied a move from a PS job in BC to Ottawa because they lack a language they've never had to use in their life prior to that job application. Or judges, higher office, whatever.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

More the latter, like someone being denied a move from a PS job in BC to Ottawa because they lack a language they've never had to use in their life prior to that job application. Or judges, higher office, whatever.

This is a very different kind of complaint. They are not complaining about a job in a unilingual English environment with a fake French requirement, they are complaining that some other work environment that is more bilingual and that they would like to be promoted into requires French. Ottawa has to adapt to BC in this case apparently.

It's not as though these requirements are new or surprising. Wasn't official bilingualism introduced in the late 1960's? Nobody can credibly say today that they started their federal civil servant career back before they knew that French exams might be a requirement for some promotions.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is a very different kind of complaint. They are not complaining about a job in a unilingual English environment with a fake French requirement, they are complaining that some other work environment that is more bilingual and that they would like to be promoted into requires French.

It's not as though these requirements are new or surprising. Wasn't the official bilingualism introduced in the late 1960's? Nobody can credibly say today that they started their federal civil servant career back before they knew that French might be a requirement for some promotions.

Oh I agree, i'm just pointing out that I understand if someone would be annoyed or flustered with the requirements based on French's lack of national reach. French isn't increasing proportionally in Canada, though, so this discussion is going to become more serious in the coming decades as French's prevalence in this country continues to decline.

For your former point, our only officially bilingual province has plenty of bilingual requirements in non-bilingual areas which affects many.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I understand why we have bilingualism requirements in the federal public service and higher offices but I also understand why anyone west of Ottawa would take issue with them. French is a 1-3% spoken language in provinces west of ON.

While the area is definitely smaller than the "West", this comment often ignores the fact that there is also a rather large part of the country where the only real exposure to English is pop music songs on the radio.

[someone123]

BTW it's not true that French is 1-3% in the West. Maybe for mother tongue but here in BC about 7% declare that they know French while in Manitoba it's nearly 9% (with a tiny sliver declaring French only, a demographic that is near-nonexistent here in BC).

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...9&CFORMAT=html

About 10% of students here are in French immersion. They don't all start when they are 5 so the percent who eventually end up in immersion is a little higher than that.

This is our "low water mark" of French in Canada, with the other extreme being the second-largest province in the country where most speak French as a mother tongue.