Article content continued

“There is a general recognition and agreement with successive commissioners of official languages, who have said that this was not an effective way of encouraging the use of both languages and that it was discriminatory because it was not given to many bilingual public servants because they were not in jobs designated as bilingual positions,” Fraser told MPs at a recent parliamentary committee hearing.

“If that $60 million were redirected to language training or to various other programs, it would be a much more effective promotion of linguistic duality.”

There seems to be a consensus that the bonus has had its day. The $800 bonus, which was a substantial payment back in the 1970s, isn’t enough of a boost to act as an incentive. It also discriminates against those who aren’t in bilingual jobs.

Critics say it is unfair, if not divisive, to pay employees the same $800 regardless of level of proficiency, salary, or how often they use the second language. Others question paying out extra money to bilingual public servants while taxpayers are footing the bill to teach many of them English and French in the first place.

The late Max Yalden was the first language watchdog to criticize the bonus as unnecessary and ineffective. In his 1979 report, he wrote a section on the bonus called Bilingual Bonus: Take the Money and Run.

“True to form it is still with us, like an over-extended houseguest who cannot take a hint. Unloved, but unbudgeable.,” he wrote.