Conference kaosws::canada

    Derek:
    
    What was the stated reason for the survey (I presume it was an official
    Digital company survey, required and not voluntary)?
    
    I can speculate that under Quebec's language law, all companies having
    offices (over a certain number of employees) must have a francization
    certificate.  Perhaps this survey is towards this end.
    
    Do you have any concrete evidence that your job requirements will
    change to include communications in french, or that your career
    path/options have suddenly changed because of language proficiency in
    future jobs?
    
    Pieter
    

     The following is the cover letter that came with the survey. In that
    there is a multi-year plan to comply with the language requirements of
    the Quebec government, I have to assume this information is not just
    for the sake of gathering information. I also must assume that in a
    situation where Digital is not in complience, I am at risk. (I doubt
    they would move tha CTH back to Kanata to asccomodate me)
    
     
    >   Do you have any concrete evidence that your job requirements will
    >   change to include communications in french, or that your career
    >   path/options have suddenly changed because of language proficiency in
    >   future jobs?
    
     The fact that the government is counting French heads is proof enough
    of the potential abuse. And besides, it does not matter if I need to
    use French in my job, the problem is that I am in Quebec, and don't
    speak French. The janitor in our building need not speak French, or for
    that matter, could be mute, but will still be included in the stats.
    
     It is just another example of the US vrs. THEM attitude that permiates
    Quebec. What would be my risk if the Government decided to prosecute
    Digital for non-complience? (alot more than a Francophone) In this case
    I would be being persecuted for my culture. This persecution has the
    full strength of the law behind it. A fine racist ideal if I ever saw
    one (ever hear of the "laws" in South Africa)
    
     Answer me this: What is the purpose of the "francization certificate", 
    and good luck making it not sound racist.
    
    							Derek 
    
                             LINGUISTIC EVALUATION
      
      You may be aware that as an employer in the Province of Quebec, 
      Digital is required to implement a Francization Program.  This is a 
      multi-year plan that allows us to comply with the language 
      requirements of the Quebec Government. 
      
      One of the steps in the process is a Linguistic Analysis which 
      determines the current Language Proficiency of the people who work 
      in CTH.  The results of this analysis are summarized and form the 
      basis of our discussions with the Quebec Government.  
      
      When the first Language Proficiency Questionnaire was circulated, 
      there were a few individuals who did not complete a Questionnaire 
      ie. tranfers, new-hires, absentees, etc.
      
      In order to complete our analysis, we are asking you to take a few 
      minutes to complete the Questionnaire attached and return it to 
      SOMEONE  no later than February 12,'93.  Please remember that 
      this information is retained by Digital and your result are kept 
      strictly confidential.
      
      If you have any questions or concerns with regards to the process 
      or Francization in general, please don't hesitate to call SOMEONE 
      or myself.
      
      Thanks and regards,
      
      ANAME
    
    

    Derek:
    
    The cover letter does not paint a complete picture - it does not state
    how Digital is using the stats in their discussions with the Quebec
    government.  It also does not state what other company stats, or info
    they present along with the individual stats.
    
    I don't speak for anyone, but having said that:
    
    1. The purpose of francization certificate is to show that a company
       operates in french (to whatever degree).  Operation in french has
       significance in two respects:
    
        o ability of francophones to work inside the company
        o ability of the company to provide services to the public
    
    2. Lets separate out the issue of "is french required for a given job"
       from the issue of "Should Digital have to answer to any govt on
       the issue of language in the company".  You have to address the
       second issue, it is larger, and it goes to the heart of the Quebec
       government's language law.  It is attempting to bolster the language
       within the province, by ensuring that business operates (in the
       respects noted above) in french.  
    
    3. The way I see it, racism would be if you were discriminated against
       by Digital on the basis of your race, heritage, etc.  This would
       also apply if Quebec forced Digital to do it.  However, the survey
       didn't ask about your race, national background, skin colour, etc.
       It merely asked about your proficiency in the french language.  A
       WASP **can** be proficient in french.  (By the same token a person
       of norman extraction can be poor in french, say in manitoba...)
       So you have a lot to prove in order to connect the survey to
       racism, or the idea of francization, in my opinion...
    
    
    Pieter
    

Re: .2

Race n.   1. group of persons or animals or plants connected by a common
             descent, posterity of (person); house, family, tribe, or
             nation regarded as of common stock; distinct ethnical stock ...
          2. descent, kindred, ...
          3. class of persons etc. with some common feature (the race of
             poets, dandies, etc.)


I do believe that racism can applied in a broader scope than pure
genealogy, but then I am not a lawyer.
         

    About 5 years ago, I answered a survey given out by Digital inquiring
    about nationalities and races.  The Federal government wanted
    statistics on Digital's initiative in hiring different nationalities
    and races.
    
    There was no reference to language, but one had to check off whether
    one was Canadian, Italian, Greek, Chinese, etc.  One of my co-workers
    was born in Lebanon, and he fitted into the category of "visible
    minority".
    
    The Federal government also wanted to know the mix between men and
    women.
    
    I guess this means that, according to Derek's reasoning and assumptions,
    the Federal government has institutionalized racism and sexism.
    
    Normand     

    One should not confuse the admirable goals of affirmative action (which
    is an attempt to correct apparent racism) with the goals of the Quebec
    government and it's Frenchifying program.
    
    The first is designed to promote the hiring "disadvantaged" persons of any
    race, religion, sex....(**minorities** in general).
    
    The second is designed to promote the hiring of the **majority**. If the
    Quebec Gov instituted quotas on the number of ENGLISH people, then there
    would be a comparison.
    
     These two activities are exactly the oppisite of each other. One
    counters racism, the other perpetuates it.
    
    							Derek
    
      

    > One should not confuse the admirable goals of affirmative action (which
    > is an attempt to correct apparent racism) with the goals of the Quebec
    > government and it's Frenchifying program.
    
    Oh, I understand.  When the Feds produce statistics on nationalities,
    races, and sexes, then it's "affirmative action".
    
    When Quebec produces statistics on the language spoken at work, then it's
    racism.
    
    BTW, "affirmative action" has been one of this federal government's
          worst failures.
    
    > The first is designed to promote the hiring "disadvantaged" persons of any
    > race, religion, sex....(**minorities** in general).
    
    I see.
    
    > The second is designed to promote the hiring of the **majority**. If the
    > Quebec Gov instituted quotas on the number of ENGLISH people, then there
    > would be a comparison.
    
    Perhaps the second is simply to congratulate/recognize those companies
    who traditionally have worked in English, but who have promoted the French
    language in the workplace... the working language of the majority of
    Digital's employees and customers in this province.
    
    Normand
    
      

    The difference is that Quebec is "protecting" the majority, the purpose
    of afirmative action is to promote the hiring of minorities. If the
    concepts of MINORITY and MAJORITY are not clear, I suggest a
    dictionary.
    
    >Perhaps the second is simply to congratulate/recognize those companies
    >who traditionally have worked in English, but who have promoted the French
    >language in the workplace.
    
    And I suppose the police in Quebec set up radar traps to pull over the
    people driving the speed limit and congratulate them. The purpose of
    the Frenchifying program is clear, MAKE FRENCH THE WORKING LANGUAGE IN
    QUEBEC. At it's heart is racism, because it disadvantages minorities. 
    
    							Derek

Is putting minorities at a disadvantage, by whatever means, actually racism ?

I understand what you're driving at which is why I started the earlier note
questioning whether Nationalism is inherently racist.  In making this 
suggestion, you are implying that it is.  I leave it to you to show that it is
(and complex anecdotal evidence won't cut it, because then we'll be into a
circular argument).

Stuart

    Well Stuart, you win a prize. I am wrong. The problem is one of
    PREJUDICE (Detriment caused to a person by the unfavorable conviction of
    others, to bias, preconceived preference). Whereas RACISM is "the
    notion one's own ethnic stock is superior".
    I suggest in modern usage the two terms are closely related, if not
    interchangeable. As in "preconceived preference for one's own ethnic
    stock"
    There can be no argument that the "program" is prejudicial, which is a
    neighbor to racist.
    
    
    							DErek

    But they are not saying that their ethnic stock is better ... they
    just prefer people who live and work in the province to speak French
    and have enacted some policies to enforce that.
    
    There may well be some Francophone elitists who are racist, however
    I think you've taken too much of a leap to say that prejudice and
    racist are equivalent.
    
    Some francophones are prejudiced against non-francophones because of
    a fear for the survival of their culture and language ... others are
    prejudiced because it simply is not their native tongue, in much the
    same way most anglos are.  These are not racist ideals.
    
    If you think that the two terms are synonymous, then you shouldn't
    mind the term being levelled at you too, because as Anglos, we are
    definitely prejudiced on the whole to our own.
    
    Stuart

    Is a racist not prejudiced? This is splitting hairs. Discrimination
    based on anything is not acceptable.
    
    							Derek.

    Indeed a racist is prejudiced ... but not all prejudice is racist
    and that is the bottom line.  It may seem like splitting hairs, but
    calling people racist is a pretty serious allegation.  Calling them
    discriminatory is as well, but carries far fewer overtones.
    
    Stuart
    

    But Normand, the APPEARANCES are that Anglophones are not welcome in
    Quebec ... that this apparently extensive use of English should be
    reduced to preserve the French language and culture of Quebec, so that
    the Quebcois would not be influenced from "within" ... it being bad
    enough that they must be so influenced from without.  Now I did say 
    APPEARANCES are that way ... from anglophones inside and outside of
    Quebec.  Now the question is, how much reality is there in those
    appearances ?
    
    An example ...
    
    As a non-Canadian Anglophone, I was not able to move to Quebec when
    the CSC moved here because I could not get my children educated in
    English.  For one of my children, this was very important, because
    she is struggling in school in her native tongue.  To move her to a
    school where she had to learn in French would have been a disaster.
    Yes, I know this law is under review again, but then it has been
    under review many times, and it still hasn't changed.
    
    There are lots of other examples ... sign laws ... French in business
    laws ... and so on that reinforce those appearances.  For some people
    those appearances are so strong, that they would swear that Quebec
    political policy is exclusionary.  Now you can cite examples of
    flourishing English culture in Quebec ... but these are existing and
    not new.  If they didn't currently exist, would they be promoted today?
    Some would have their doubts ... I certainly do.
    
    So, this note is NOT nonsense ... it expresses some very real concerns
    and when looked at in a very broad way, you see what are very strong
    discriminatory practices.  I certainly wouldn't call them racist
    practices ... but I can certainly see why they think so.
    
    Stuart
    

    Normand,
    
    One further thing ... to bring up the Native plight is only to throw
    up a smokescreen.  It is a common practice for people who are
    attempting to defend their own civil rights problems to show that
    somebody else is worse off.  It's almost like an admission that there
    really is a problem!
    
    Let's not get into the subject of the natives in this note please.
    If anyone wants to discuss native civil rights, please start a new
    note.
    
    Stuart

    RE: .18
    
    I agree on most of your points, except health care.  In any other
    province, I can get a blood test same day in a clinic, but unless I'm
    willing to pay a "user fee", here in the Hull, I have to book an
    appointment at the CHRO (hospital) and wait 6-8 weeks.  The time delay
    is even worse for CAT scans, mammograms, etc.  Having lived in 5
    different provinces, my experience is Quebec's system is the slowest
    and worst.
    
    Otto.

    No, not a private clinic, but the public one in Aylmer (that's where I
    live).  I just find it so strange, since across the river in Ottawa
    it's no problem, and hasn't been in other cities and towns across
    Canada.  I also am speaking from my mother's experience, she was
    diagnosed in the mid-seventies as being one of the 10 worst cases of MS
    in Quebec, and has had to suffer from what I consider second rate
    medical care ever since, in Hull, Montreal, and Cowansville (the last
    is understandable).
    
    Otto.

I tend to agree with Norman on the health care issue.

Usually when there are problems they are localized, doesn't matter where you
live in Quebec or any other province.

I have had bad experiences at the Ottawa General as much as my wife had good
ones at CHRO in Hull when she gave birth.  The reverse is also true.  My inlaws
who are elderly constantly complain about the length of time it takes to get
anything done in the Niagara/Toronto region.

I can't say that one system is any better than the other.  They're probably
the same and usually dependent on who you deal with, who your doctor is, what
your problem is, where you live, etc...

In any case, I don't think we're a bit off topic here and the health care issues
could probably better be discussed in another note.

/Mario