Canadians for Language Fairness
P.O. Box 40111
Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet
2515 Bank Street.
Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8
What do you know about the Official Languages Act?
The Official Languages Act (OLA), passed in 1969, is a Federal law which is enforced at the federal level and one other province i.e. New Brunswick. The province of Quebec has passed several anti-English laws (Bills 22, 178 & 101) that effectively make French their only official language. The provinces of Nova Scotia passed the French Language Services Act (2004) as did the province of Ontario (1986), and the province of Prince Edward Island (2013). Limited service in French is offered in each municipality in each of these provinces in varying degrees.
What's wrong with that?
Elevating a minority language to equal status with the majority language is creating an over-emphasis on the minority language, especially when that minority language is concentrated only in the Eastern provinces of Canada, namely, QC & NB. Further using that minority language as the criteria for employment at the federal level and increasingly at the provincial level is creating a work-force which over-represents the French-speakers. French-speakers are the ones most likely to be bilingual as they grow up speaking the language. Non-French speakers do not grow up speaking French and learning it at school does not make them fluent, especially as the educated French is very different from the colloquial French.
The 2011 Census showed that "self-assessed" bilingual Canadians make up 17.5% of Canada's population, the figure of those who can pass the language test is only about 12%. The Treasury Board (2014) showed that 31.9 % of the total Federal Public Service are Francophones in a country that is made up of only 21.3% mother-tongue French-speakers (2011 census). This over-representation of French-speakers in our public service concerns us greatly.
The limited supply of bilingual Canadians & the over-emphasis on a minority language as a criteria for employment has resulted in a lowering of academic & professional standards in our governments. Many high-level positions are filled by people with just secondary school certificates or equivalent.
As French is spoken widely only in Eastern Canada, this has led to Western Canadians being left out of the picture. The division and disunity brought about will eventually destroy Canada.
This is why you should be concerned.
30 April 2018
Published April 5, 2008 Updated
March 27, 2017
Every country has its fixations. Where else but in Canada could a straightforward debate about the who and when of French immersion in the third-smallest province send the whole country's official languages intelligentsia into a fit of doomsdayism? Watching the very real passion with which parents have reacted to New Brunswick's decision to end early immersion, it is hard not to think of what U.S. s-x columnist Dan Savage said recently about his own nation's debilitating obsession. Not, race. The other one: religion. "Australia got the convicts. Canada got the French. We got the Puritans."
Mr. Savage evidently meant it as a compliment - to Canada and Australia. And though we should definitely take it as one, the "French fact" has - from Durham to Dumont - warped our national psyche, fed our collective neuroses and nearly torn us asunder. Four centuries after Champlain's arrival, we are no nearer, inside or outside Quebec, to reconciling ourselves to his linguistic legacy.
For English Canadians, the question is this: Do they really care enough about the other official language to learn it, not just for the purposes of properly pronouncing foie gras and salade niçoise on a holiday in Paris, but to understand, appreciate and grow closer to French-Canadian reality? The evidence is fairly conclusive that they don't. Despite the billions spent since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969, the already derisory rates of bilingualism are falling in English Canada. Parents may pine for French immersion classes, but mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with bridging the solitudes.
To read the rest, please link to: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/bilingualism-a-failed-policy/article18447844/
An on-line consultation by the OL office. Comments are accepted until the end of May. We need to try and have our side heard. Many English-speaking Canadians have given up on the battle to be heard – this is a mistake because it will be interpreted as “Silence is Approval”. Please make your opinion heard.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Gatineau, April 19, 2018 – As the 50th anniversary of Canada’s Official Languages Act draws near, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is inviting Canadians to share their opinions on very specific aspects of the Act through on‑line public consultations....
I requested that those who did submit comments to the OCOL Survey send us a copy of their comments. These comments have been submitted to date:
Responses to 2018 OCOL Survey
From P. M.
Kim, your answers were excellent, as were the answers of D.P. and C.M. My own answers were pretty rough, as I don't have much time, but you're welcome to share them (with my initials) if you think it might inspire more participation. My answers are below.
If you had to select from the list below, which themes are the most important to you in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act?
The OLA was a mistake. If Quebec had separated decades ago, we wouldn't have our present language problems now. We would be able to speak our own languages, whether French or English. People would have time to learn more useful second languages such as Chinese and Spanish.
Access to justice:
Yes, Anglophones and Francophones should have access to justice, but we do have translators for that. Requiring the Supreme Court judges to be bilingual inevitably means that some of the best judges will be excluded from the Supreme Court. This is an example of how enforcing bilingualism tends to foster mediocrity.
Vitality of English minorities:
Anglophones are treated poorly in Quebec. Quebec disregards official bilingualism. So bilingualism should not be forced on the rest of Canada.
Any other comments?
It's harder to pass the French proficiency tests than the English proficiency tests. This is not fair. We need an open and public inquiry into these tests.
Also, it's not fair that Quebec is officially unilingual, while official bilingualism is forced on the rest of Canada. Official bilingualism is a colossal waste of money. And it's divisive. Everyone would be happier if Quebec separated. Francophones deserve their own country. Likewise, Anglophones deserve their own Anglophone country. Charles de Gaulle was right after all. So vive le Quebec libre!
From P. A.
I wish I had done the cut and paste thing. I made the points that outside PQ, NB and some places in Eastern Ontario the use of French had likely diminished in significance and in fact that in some significant communities in the country it was spoken by a very small percentage of the population and Mandarin or Arabic were likely far more prevalent: that it was hard to take official bilingualism seriously when PQ opts out and severely restricts the use of English, an official language; that it was oppression of the majority when so many positions in the federal public service are designated bilingual, giving French speakers a huge advantage overvaluing the significance of French in most of the country and ignoring “where numbers warrant”; and, that to think of requiring supreme court justices to be bilingual English/French in a time when so many expert translation facilities are available and the Mandarin and Arabic speakers and our indigenous people are ignored is absolutely ludicrous. Anyway, I got up quite a head of steam and quite pissed off by the time I finished. I think this captures most of it.
My answer to the survey was none of the above are important to me.
From K. K.
Hi Kim, I just filled it in. I said none of the topics interested or were important to me. I said in comments entirely too much taxpayer money has been spent on French since 1969. We are a nation of many languages and the constant, common go-to-language is English. We aren’t and never will be a bilingual English French country.
I also put my age as 25-54 as these were brought up in the thick of French immersion and hopefully are learning the truth by now.
I think we will always be a multi-lingual country of English and whatever other language. How do they get away with saying the French helped develop this country? They didn’t do a damn thing. They first came over to obtain goods to send back to the King of France. They lost the final battle of 1759 and came under British rule. Did they help build the railway, settle the west, develop commerce???? No they just hung out in Quebec and made pea soup. I would like someone to tell me what they did to build this country, I am serious.
From M. G.
"Far too much weight is placed on increasing French language use in the rest of Canada (outside of Quebec) and far too little protection of the English language within Quebec. The artificial inflation of the importance of the French language in day-to-day life in modern Canada is ridiculous and is hurting the country and the economy. The fact that all of these mandates, laws, and efforts are in place do nothing more than demonstrate the reality that the French language is not an integral part of life for the majority of Canadians. If it were, we would not require all these measures to ensure its inclusion. While it is an important part of Canada's heritage, that doesn't mean we should hurt the country to try and preserve it. Slavery was also part of Canada's heritage in New France and Acadia. Stealing land from Native Americans was part of our heritage. British rule was part of our heritage. There is such a thing as progression and change and it is better embraced than defended against. Please stop working against Canada and progression as it will only ever hold us back.
That being said, any area that is populated by more than 50% French-speaking people (mother tongue) should have equal representation in local government offices. No laws are needed for this as elected officials in such areas should be responsible for making those decisions. As we live in a democracy, the majority can elect who they feel best represents each populated area and will ensure that their needs are met.
If you visit someone's home and they prefer you don't wear your shoes in their house, you take them off. If you don't agree with the rules of their house, you leave. What you don't do is tell them that you are going to wear your shoes in their house and they must learn to deal with it.
Similarly, if someone that only speaks English decides to move to an entirely French town, they should not expect everyone to adopt English for their sake. Why is this different with French? If a French person chooses to move to Red Deer, they should either learn English or deal with it. Making the entire city adapt for the benefit of a small minority would be ludricous. What makes us think that this is any more appropriate on a country-wide scale?
So many people should be fired for their roles in this scandal. It is absolutely absurd!!"
Kim, I’ve posted this notice of the survey on every group site I belong to as well as my own timeline. I’ve prefaced the posting with my own comments which read:
“Well, well, after 50 years the office of the Official language commissioner has decided to ask for our opinion. Please-please-please give it to them. It seems they feel it's time to "modernize" the official languages act and we all know what that means! Speak up and voice your opinion, it may be the last chance you'll ever have. The link is at the end of the article, saying "the floor is yours".”
The response has been exceptionally good with many shares and many responding with the word, “Done!” on each site. I’m sure there are many others who have responded to the survey who have done so without saying anything on FB, preferring to remain anonymous. I’m hoping for the ‘snowball effect’, that others will continue. I’ll do the same again in a few weeks as the deadline approaches.
For what it’s worth, maybe as a suggestion, a lot of the groups are closed….not available to the general public. I’ve suggested to each and every one of them that it’s no good posting vital information to a closed group. I’ve encouraged people to stop only ‘preaching to the choir’ and share those important posts on their own timeline, thus making the information available to hundreds more outside the group.
P.S. I’ve been getting ‘shared’ notifications all evening from people I’ve never heard of. It’s working, I hope and pray it will be enough!
Kim, you wouldn’t believe the response from this! People are writing back by the hundreds, and are passing it along. Writing the MPs is good and hopefully everyone will do that too, but honestly, most MPs don’t care and will only follow the party line. Believe me, the language commissioner is getting an earful!!
Okay Kim, I answered the survey. I love, but do not share your optimism that English speakers answering can make a difference. Here is my 2 cents worth.
On the themes, I only checked the "Other" box and then entered:
"When government tries to legislate altruistic goals such as equality, the result is inevitably tyranny. This has indeed been the result of the OLA. It sought to give the French majority greater voice. Not only did it achieve this, it subjugated the English majority. The Act should be abolished and replaced with Federal regulations to assure any unilingual English or French citizens access to justice and essential services in their language."
In the next box:
"All of the themes are bureaucratic, "big brother" rhetoric. It's time for Canadians to become respectful of one another. This will never happen as long as all-knowing autocratic politicians dictate behaviour."
In "other comments":
"Wake up and smell the coffee. Canada is a predominantly English country with one province that is French. While Quebec is downright oppressive on the English minority, the RoC is more than accommodating with their French minorities. Moreover, it is the British Parliamentary traditions and system and our common law that has protected the rights of the French, and ironically, empowered them at the expense of the English through the OLA. The ultimate act of oppression is to have a bureaucrat known as the Official Languages Commissioner. This is a travesty and a manifestation of tyranny."
The only satisfaction I can take from completing this survey, is not letting down CLF, and knowing it will thoroughly piss off the bureaucrats reading the results. It's a "pissin' in the wind" exercise and even if 100,000 Canadians responded similarly, it would only serve to cause 100,000 Canadians to be labeled as bigots by the survey evaluators. Nothing is going to change until Canadians learn that better government is LESS government.
Basically I said that while there is a huge push on bilingualism so that Francophones can work in the language of their choice Anglophones are being denied that very right. Why should we speak French when English is the language WE want to work in. I also asked what happens when French is no longer the second most spoken language in Canada ( which may already be the case seeing as other languages are immigrating in droves )...will the bilingual designation be changed to reflect the changing population.
That pretty well sums up what I said.
There is no justification or requirement for Supreme Court Justices to be bilingual. There is no justification for Supreme Court Justices to be Francophone Quebecois as will most likely be the case. The superb translation services available do not contravene anyone's Charter or official languages or Human Rights. There are also very good translation software on the market that work very well.
Duality of services in economically depressed economic jurisdictions is wrong as it amounts to segregation and discrimination, specifically policies regarding bussing and school districts operating side by side, one in English and one in French. There should be an equality between per student spending in these jurisdictions and it should remain economically viable without incurring deficit budgetary spending. There is nothing wrong with shared bussing or office space - especially considering the ecological impact of two half filled offices or busses driving the same route.
Outside of Quebec should no longer be considered an area to improve bilingualism or French as a first spoken language as the efforts so far have only incurred more debt and higher taxes in an uncertain economical era. Especially since Quebec has gone unilingual French. It has been proven that there has been an overall decrease in the use of French, statistically speaking. The importation of French as first or second language immigrants and refugees should be terminated. We are importing largely unskilled, uneducated people who are very nice but we have not put any onus on them to get skills training, equivalent of our basic high school. So we end up with a higher on-job injury rate as they value a polite “Yes” rather than realizing they should have said “No, please show me how to do this safely”.
Languages used should be reflective of demand for service. So many times print media is produced in both languages but entire pallets of francophone version booklets sit unused until they're discarded. This is a horrible waste of money.
New technologies is fairly self explanatory. All individuals don't have to be bilingual as long as there's technology available to support services to minority language members of the public.
Repealing language requirements for work and supervision follows. The public service is already disproportionately over-representative of the francophone community. The executive positions even more so. Amendments to the act risk exacerbating the situation and aggravating the members of the public effectively being discriminated against. The requirement is not necessary if managers were to control hiring so that new hires matched the language of use of the office. Only the public should have the right to demand service in a particular language.
While people claim Canada is officially bilingual, the reality is that Quebec is French, New Brunswick is bilingual, and the rest of Canada is defacto English. Just as this dispersion is called bilingual, so too should the supreme court be recognised as bilingual so long as it contains members who can service both English and French. Not all members have to individually be bilingual.
With today’s technology of instant translation for many languages, enforced bilingualism in Canada is no longer needed. The only way to get Canadians onside is to show them the cost of maintaining two official languages in Canada. The cost adds up to several billion dollars a year and I think most Canadians, given the choice, would rather see their tax dollars spent on things everyone can benefit from and not something only a small group benefits from. Remind people that Trudeau has pledged $ 2.7 billion to enforce more bilingualism from Ottawa west on a population that is busy trying to survive and get ahead with little to no time or interest in studying a language they will seldom use. Time is better spent learning a trade or profession. Canadian governments and national political parties refuse to recognize that one cannot export and impose a minority language and culture on the broader population when they see no real need or benefit for it. If Canadians were made aware of the cost and then given the democratic right to choose, I think the policy of bilingualism would be a thing of the past, especially since Quebec legislated themselves unilingual French. All we are doing is spending a lot of tax dollars with no real benefit. This policy has outlived its time.
The French position of converting all Canada to French language is absurd. PM Pierre Trudeau used to say why separate when you can have the whole country thru language control. Amazing.
Apart from costing $2 billion/yr. it really is Canadian-style apartheid. None of my children could run for PM. Discrimination in the most obvious way.
While you might not like the comparison, our situation is like “Hilary- get over it, you lost”. Likewise the French angle – “ you lost the war, get over it”..
Leave it in Quebec and let the rest of us live in the 21 century. He, little Pierre (Justin) said after all it’s 2018- enough.
I don’t think the language Commissioner will be happy with me or what I had to say. I told him the English-speaking Canadians are fed up of being treated like second or third class citizen. I also told him that his ALL FOR FRENCH OR FRANCOPHONE AGENDA IS EXTREMELY DISCRIMINITORY. Maybe if enough people fill it out the survey, he might start to get the message that we are fed up and that it’s time for “ Real Change” where all Canadians are fairly treated.
I can understand the animosity of the French speaking New Brunswicker as they were 50 years ago; they were poor, uneducated and could not speak English and found it very difficult to find work because of this. There was no work in NB except Forestry, Fishery, Mining and Shipbuilding and most of these companies were owned by English speaking people. I also know that there were some who did well and still do.
What I have seen since is an attempt by Quebec to, not just correct a problem, but to violently attempt to take over Canadian politics e.g. the FLQ in the sixties. A problem taken from a criminal act to a political coup by Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party.
As far as NB being a “bilingual” province. It has a 27% French population but, unlike the English speaking 70%, there is big money from Quebec pressing this decision. A decision that was decided by a corrupt government with NO say by the people of NB.
It seems impossible to believe that with the massive debt this province has accumulated (as well as our country), we see a language (French) being promoted at an enormous cost.
I started to become interested in politics in 2006 and went to a meeting of the ****** Party in my riding. I gave a considerable donation to that party. It did not take long to find out I was not in the clique and although they had my name & address etc. I was never informed of another meeting BUT they keep calling me for money. And they want $50 for a membership. That gave me the feeling I was one of the forgotten Canadians, unless of course at election time.
Now, I will always vote. Only this time I don’t know yet which party to vote for.
There are ways to cut spending and costs. Including not funding French language promotion, gold plated parliamentary pensions and the CBC. I have nothing against the French - it’s the politicians ruining this nation.
I have as much right to only speak English as the Quebec French to only speak French but everything has changed. Now Quebec is trying to assimilate the rest of Canada into the French language. And they’re doing it, and they’ve done it, because of our pious weak kneed English politicians.
No Honourable member of the Federal or Provincial Government has the right to complain about the cost of healthcare as they do because they put language before any and all matters affecting our country.
People are sick and disgusted with our elected members. Their objectives are selfish and they are arrogant. We have a much larger swamp to drain in Canada than the Americans have.
I don’t believe the OLC gives a hoot about Canadians. It’s about Quebec, it’s about corruption, it’s about oppression, it’s about money and it’s unconstitutional.
This never should have happened. Get rid of the OLC!
Comment from A.S
It simply staggers the mind the extent to which the French "cancer" has metastasized in Ontario! How was this been allowed to happen? And where will be the end of this? Even on a more practical level, it is simply financially unsustainable having two parallel sets of services.
This is so much different from how America accommodates the language issue! The Americans will offer assistance in Spanish, even in print, to newcomers unable to communicate in English. In short, the language issue stays at the "informal" level and is provided as a courtesy and as a service to help people get on their feet and become integrated. In Ontario (as well as the rest of Canada) the language issue is treated much differently, not as a courtesy but as full-blown programs and enshrined in various Statutes and Regulations. The American system encourages integration while the Canadian system encourages segregation.
Of course, segregation is what the French activists want in Canada to help them "combat assimilation." No such language programs ever existed for any other immigrant group new to Canada. Yet the Italians, fully integrated in Canadian society, still have their own community "hubs" such as homes for seniors and other services in Italian, including TV programs and legal services. Do you even hear the Italian community in Ontario (Toronto is the largest Italian city outside Italy) scream for more and more services in Italian? No. Only the hapless and "helpless" francophone so-called community, always dependent on government assistance and a free cheque. But then, unlike the Italian community, the French are operating from an agenda - an agenda that drives toward the eventual "frenchification" and takeover of all of Canada.
French zealotry will not end until it has ascended to the level of complete control over all aspects of Canadian society and having thus created a new and aloof aristocracy that will then take its rightful place - a process that is underway - as the true and only ruler-ship of Canada with the rest of the citizen body relegated to second class status, i.e., barred from access to that privileged aristocracy. (We see this happening already with that racist selection process of Official Bilingualism.) And all of this is being actively propelled and with the consent of a delusional officer class in our weak and feeble democratic institutions - all of which are (still) English speaking.
Do you get the picture?
A politician needs help to create a “win-win” situations to get elected so they need to know what is already out there. ( I am not naive, I know it is usually a “lose-win” situation, once elected)
Ontario is not officially bilingual, although we do have a Francophone Affairs ministry, a French Language Services Commissioner and office, 37 French language coordinators and other administration assisting our ministries and agencies, and of course, 26 designated areas (Markham July 2018) to provide French language service. Some 217 designated agencies to provide services in French under regulation. We have French language coordinators for each of the 14 Local Healthcare Integration Networks (LHIN). Two school boards directly for Francophones for just under 100,000 students compared to the 2 English boards (much immersion included) with closer to 1 million.
Canada is becoming a multilingual country, so be pragmatic and serve need, not currently entitlement, with regard to only making positions require more than one language if they are serving need, where the vast majority of requiring more than one language now are serving wasteful entitlement.
No need to require Supervisors and fellow employees to speak English in "bilingual" Montreal when any Anglophone employed and living there has to speak French, same with requiring working in French in bilingual designated areas where English is the majority.
90% of Supreme Court business is in English, where if it was 90% French, you would not foolishly have functional, much less Official bilingualism there
Most translation tools like Google Translate, while not exact, can provide what bilingualism is needed in most jobs, thus not requiring bilingualism from staff.
Serve the people, not the special interest/privilege language activists or politicians and parties trying to get the vote because they idiotically think these people who put language ahead of ability or are bigots who don't want to speak to anyone who can't speak their mother tongue, represent a typical person from that group
The Act has become a tool to serve not, the people, but special interest groups many of whom contain bigoted Language Supremacists, who think anyone who cannot speak both French and English is inferior to an Officially Bilingual Person, who sadly current/last Commissioner Graham Fraser and his predecessor clearly is and was given actions and comments while employed in this job.
There is another month to submit your opinions so that we can at least say that we tried!! The politicians should also get a copy of these opinions – most of them think that Canadians are in agreement with this policy because their voters don’t bother making an issue of it. They also realize that the French have taken full advantage of the chance given by P.E. Trudeau in the 1982 Constitution for the French to take revenge on the English for the loss of what the Quebecois consider their territory. This is the only way they can take it back – by making the French language the tool to transfer power & control from English-speakers to French-speakers. The transfer of power is well on – most of Eastern Canada is already under their control. The West may have a chance but only if they understand the issue & fight back.
06 May 2018
We’ve been trying to draw attention to the survey, launched by the new federal Language Commissioner (Raymond Théberge) to “renew the Official Languages Act so that it reflects today’s reality”. If the OCOL really wants the language policy to reflect reality, he should shut down that office because it has failed totally in its primary agenda of uniting the country. Canada today is more divided than at any other time in its history & much of that division is this effort at Forced Bilingualism. The ludicrous effort to make a minority language, spoken in a very limited part of the country, EQUAL to the majority language has failed TOTALLY. So many columnist have been brave enough to write on this failure.
The two most recent articles are linked below.
On May 4th, an article from the National Post by Julie Oliver (reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen) drew our attention to the outrageous expense of private French lessons given to an NRC executive over 16 months at a cost of over $90K:
Following that article, Kelly Egan wrote in the Ottawa Sun:
The story of Ian Potter will surprise no one in the federal public service, where the blessings of official bilingualism have stalled many a career, tormented many a soul, fed many an absurdity.
To grow up in a government town is to have heard it all: anglos (mostly) sent for months of daily language training, kept awake at night by the prospect of failing, only to take on jobs where they hardly use the newfound French; being bypassed in competitions by the bilingually less competent; intensive language instruction as careers and brains are winding down.
Yeah, j’accuse alright. This is every day in the cubicled banlieues of official Ottawa or — be precise now! — “the National Capital Region.”
Potter was the vice-president at the National Research Council who spent the last 16 months in one-on-one French language training — in his hometown of Edmonton, no less — only to resign after at least $90,000 was spent on instruction. And the thing is, he broke no particular rule.
This is just how we roule.
Rules? For the love of God, we have rules. I was noodling around the website of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Because Canadians have a legal right to be served in the official language of their choice (at federal institutions), there is the tricky question of whether dat guy is English or French or neither.
So we have this entry, about how to make an “active offer” to a client, say at a counter:
“I make sure I greet clients in person in both official languages at all times.
1. I provide a short greeting that is the same in both languages. This is an appropriate way to show that service is available in English and French, without exception. For example:
o (in Quebec) Bonjour! Hello!
o (elsewhere in Canada) Hello! Bonjour!
(in Quebec) Bienvenue! Welcome!
o (elsewhere in Canada) Welcome! Bienvenue!
2. I pause to let the client respond.
3. I continue to provide service in the official language of the client’s choice.”
There are also tips to managers on how to conduct an effective bilingual meeting. This one leaped out at me:
Please read the rest of the article from the Ottawa Sun (link above)
Canadians have been very upset with this policy that has been so badly managed – a policy that has cost billions since its inception, with NO benefit for Canadians other than for the less-than 20% mother-tongue French speakers from Quebec. Is the country any more united (that was the primary reason for P.E. Trudeau making it part of the very flawed 1982 Constitution)? The clear answer is NO!!! Unfortunately for most Canadians, P.E.T’s Constitution has given the French-speakers protection for their language & culture & the courts have made it impossible for the protected status to be challenged. Fortunately for us, we still have brave columnists like Kelly Egan to shine the occasional bright light on the policy that has caused so much frustration to the English-speaking majority. Here are some comments received from our readers:
This is probably just another example of how our taxes are being squandered – unnecessary language training (private lessons at $455/day) for an executive who the NRC management must have known was leaving anyway. Was he entitled to that paid “time off” (16 months at full pay)? This is clearly something that should be investigated & the guilty person charged for mismanagement or fraud.
“I do not see this as a fraud but as part of the deliberate plan to enforce a talent flight of competent English speaking people in senior positions in the federal government to make room for, what else, a francophone. It is just another example of the true, real world, workings of Official Bilingualism manifested as ethnic cleansing, one job at a time. And how does the country benefit? The loss is not just the money thrown at this language training (which is bad enough) but that of a person fully qualified for his job and now replaced with someone whose top "qualification" is being able to communicate in the Quebec French dialect.”
This is totally normal and has nothing to do with the language training. Look into civil servant severance and you will find your answers. If he served on government for some time it is a week's pay for every year served. Plus return of pension if he elected that option.. or roll into RRSP
My Response: This just shows that our public servants are VERY well paid.
Kim, I’d change that to read “Very senior” public servants are very well compensated… Isn’t it also the very normal waste of tax payer’s dollars that needs to be re-examined under the microscope of efficiency and not the entitlement that successive Liberal governments brag about? Who was the bozo who led the pack on the so-called “entitlement” initiative. Others in the Liberal camp seem to feel likewise.
There is no real honest-to-goodness reason why taxpayers should be on the hook for such wasteful practices. Those who set the regulations and those who follow wasteful practices must be held accountable. There has to be a return on investment to justify any expenditure, has there not? Or is our federal government and the servants thereof beyond the requirement to justify expenditures as it relates to return on investment?
Whoever suggested this has nothing to do with language training, well, they better give their head a shake. The reality is, if Potter wasn’t on language training, the issue would not have arisen. In other words, Potter would have been doing his job, perhaps with a language deficiency. Indeed, the exact words “very poor value for money to spend this much money on language training” are part of the report.
I rest my case, over to you!!!
Response: Actually, Neil, I agree with you. I think the Canadian Public Service is wasteful & useless – mainly because the principle of MERIT has been displaced by the use of French as the yardstick of proficiency. A very good example is the Phoenix Pay System - it is such a mess that it has cost us (the taxpayers) over $1B & the solution is still not in sight. There is very low morale among the public servants – they are being paid big bucks for very little return on investment.
It was Jean Chretien who said: “we are entitled to our entitlement”
Would you support something like what the Alberta Separatist movement is trying to do? If you have not heard about this, please link to: https://albertafreedomalliance.ca/
New responses to the OCOL survey:
Just to let you know I submitted my comments and opinion this morning. You can imagine how I responded to the questions and expressed my opinion.
This is undoubtedly just a survey to appease the English and get more ideas to promote French. Why should we expect otherwise from a French dominated legal and government controlled system.
Am I the only one who thinks English comments such as those above will simply receive the "delete", "delete", "delete" treatment while every perceived slight in French will be addressed and become law?
Response: No, you are not the only one who thinks that. The fact is that there are not enough of us for our views to be considered “relevant”.
I did fill out the on-line response for the Official Languages commissioner. One of my comments was there are so many other languages spoken in Canada and it is totally unfair that all the tax dollars is spent to benefit only 2 languages. And then, the majority of that is spent to benefit the French language. For example, it is ridiculous for south Asians living in a predominately Asian town to walk into a government office and be approached in the French language. This is insane. This was one of my experiences while out in BC visiting friends out there.
OCOL Feedback: This tragic fraud of French being "equal" to English - is apartheid based upon hate! You know that the numbers were NEVER there! Wilfred Laurier in 1903 said it was impractical - yet PET wanted to take-over Canada or to destroy it! You Quebecois are the most brainwashed people - ever. Your leaders play you like a violin - sanctioning linguistic cleansing and hate crimes (You drove 800K English-speakers from Quebec). Malicious Apartheid called progress and equality! History is watching you! You are the proverbial "Brownshirts" who's blind-conditioned hate of Anglos is being used to exterminate us all. You "burnt-your-ships-long-ago"! You've genocided millions of white English-speaking citizens - that you relegated to second class status and applied administrative genocide with the "need" for "Bilingualism"! The rope awaits you! You never had a legal leg-to-stand-on - and you all knew it - and knew that if you all bullied as one, lied as one, stole as one - PET goal of the take-over or destruction/genocide - would naturally happen in your "Quiet revolution" hate crimes. You have no excuses and you know it! You are all related Metis with so low a self esteem - you dedicate your lives to destroying the best country in the world and annihilating innocent people - your countrymen - because you hate yourselves even more! You will "win" your just rewards - count-on-it!
No, I didn't save it. But basically I said English for west and French for Quebec was satisfactory for me. I also told them that I was opposed to the Frenchification of the West where English is the primary language.
Response: Excellent – that is the only solution!! Let Quebec be as French as they wish as long they will keep their hands off the Rest (Most) of Canada. We don’t need them to continue living off us!! The current situation of a welfare state being able to call the shots for the country is totally unacceptable!!
As a unilingual English public servant who has seen his/her career capped due to language I have plenty to say; however, we public servants are constantly reminded not to criticize government policy while employed. I have seen so many other indiscretions that would get one fired in the private sector go un-noticed, but criticizing government would be something that is taken very seriously.
I can tell you that language, race and gender come before qualifications within the public service.
Once I am officially retired there is much I have to say about this matter and others.
The current Kanada is no longer my Canada which I was born in. Unfortunately I have to say that I wish I had moved to the USA right after graduating from business school many decades ago.
Response: Yes, I do understand the precarious position of the public servants. The Fear Factor is the issue & the reason why the Silent Majority will stay silent & the French will dominate.
You know Kim I was thinking we should organize to try and divest proportional funding like the French do. Being 80% of the population, we would get more subsidy than the French. The government would not want to pay it. Use that as leverage to eliminate or at least reduce public spending on so called French services.
Response: Govt. funding is only given to minorities so the English-speakers will get some funding in Quebec but nothing like what the French-speakers outside Quebec will get. We, the majority, will NEVER get funding to fight back.
As Bob H. wrote below – the Anglos in Quebec are not getting the same deal as the Francos outside Quebec. However, the Anglos have allowed themselves to be treated so badly for so long, they are grateful for small mercies. What a shame!
Did you see in yesterday's Quebec budget that they are tossing a bone to the Anglo community after decades of neglect - see http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-budget-24-5-million-for-anglo-secretariat
I expect that this will result in the Francos in Ontario asking for even more. But, hold on a minute:
1) In Quebec, this money that will be doled out over 5 years is going to the Secretariat of Anglophone Affairs created in November 2017, not a full blown Ministry like in Ontario which is going to cost a lot more just to operate.
2) the Secretariat of Anglophone Affairs in Quebec falls under Kathleen Weil who is the Minister responsible for Access to Information and the Reform of Democratic Institutions and Minister responsible for Relations with English-Speaking Quebecers - but her offices in Quebec City and Montreal are both given as "Secrétariat à l'accès à l'information et à la réforme des institutions démocratiques" so I expect that this is her main focus, not relations with English-speaking Quebecers. But in Ontario, we are getting a new stand-alone Franco ministry and a Minister with no other duties except to cater to the Francos.
3) Quebec's English speaking population is 12% of the total population, whereas Ontario's French speakers amount to 4%.
4) Quebec has a balanced budget with a surplus so can well afford this whereas Ontario is deficit spending by $8 billion so cannot afford anything more and should be cutting back
Need I say more?
17 September 2017
Those of our readers who have followed our efforts to tell Canadians about why we oppose the Official Languages Act will be very familiar with the valiant attempts by Ret'd Lt. Commander, C.A.F., J.V. Andrew, to alert Canadians to the diabolical efforts to Frenchify Canada. J.V. Andrew wrote the book, "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow" in 1977, followed by "Back-door Bilingualism in 1979 & "Enough" in 1988. Jock, like many of Canada's military leaders, saw very early on what P.E. Trudeau was doing when he included the OLA in the 1982 Constitution.
He decided to make his predictions about the eventual result of the OLA in his writings. We decided to make an audio version of his 3rd book, "Enough". The book was divided into three audio files, each about an hour long, all available at this link:
Reading the written word is not the same as hearing it read by someone, especially someone who has a good, well-modulated voice. Somehow, the effect is more powerful.
Mr. Andrew was given a very hard time for having written those books, all criticizing the OLA for pushing the French agenda onto an unsuspecting English-speaking country. Has his predictions come true? Are the French given far more power than they should have in their bid to force the acceptance of the equality of the minority French-speakers with the majority English-speakers? Has Canada spent too much money in this effort to force French on Canada, especially when the effort has failed? After nearly half a century, the number of bilingual (English/French) Canadians has not increased substantially. This has not stopped them from making bigger & bigger demands for more money to be spent & more laws to be made for using more force.
PM Lester Pearson introduced the initiative of bilingualizing the F.P.S. in 1966 in an effort to unify the country. Has that ploy worked - are we more united? P.E. Trudeau passed the official Languages Act in 1969 & made it part of the 1982 Constitution. Since then, the OLA has been increasingly strengthened.
The Armed Forces was Trudeau's first target.
Official Languages - Bilingual Officer Corp in the military started in 1988
Regular Force Bilingual Officer Corps
On June 28, 1988, the Armed Forces Council adopted the concept of a Regular force "Bilingual Officer Corps." With a target date of January 1, 1998, promotion to the rank of Lieutenant- Colonel/Commander would be restricted to those officers who are bilingual. It was agreed that a Bilingual Officer Corps was necessary, since senior officers needed to be ready, on request, to command troops from both language groups. The need for bilingual officers therefore enhances the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. In June 1995, the Armed Forces Council adopted an expanded definition or concept of the Corps to include bilingual competency for all officer ranks.
In its early years, the primary focus of the Directorate of Official Languages was implementing and enforcing the Official Languages Act. Today, official languages have become entrenched throughout the public service, including the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. The directorate now focuses on providing guidance and support to managers and commanding officers to help them fulfill their official languages obligations and commitments.
By 2008, 73.1% of the Officers were bilingual. Anyone with more current figures? I imagine that ALL officers are now bilingual (mostly French).
Readers who are interested in the CBC report on the 2016 census:
Bilingualism at its highest level
The share of Canadians who speak English at home increased to 74.7 per cent in 2016 from 74 per cent in 2011, while those who speak French fell to 23.3 per cent from 23.8 per cent.
But the number of Canadians who are bilingual increased to 18 per cent, the highest level of bilingualism on record
In 1961, just 12.2 per cent of Canadians reported being bilingual.
Fully two-thirds of the growth in bilingualism since the 2011 census was due to Quebec, where a majority of bilingual Canadians live.
J.J. McCullough wrote a very revealing article in the Huffington Post, 2014:
"Let Them Learn French": Canada's Bilingual Elite Hold All the Power
"This is an awful lot of power to concentrate in just 17 per cent of the population. If you heard of some third world dump where a linguistic minority of less than 20 per cent held a permanent, legally-protected monopoly on all of the country's top jobs, you'd probably think it wasn't much of a democracy.
You'd be right. Discriminatory, arbitrary barriers to full civic participation remain a blight no matter where they're practiced, and we undermine any pretence of being a truly egalitarian nation when we seek to normalize or rationalize them. Yet a lot of Canadians seem distressingly eager to do so.
After nearly 50 years, the proportion of Canadians able to function in English & French is 18%. The high rate of immigration has brought other languages into play (Chinese, Tagalog, Arabic, etc.). Most immigrants prefer English & even though French is forced on Canadians by various means, French-speakers are not growing fast enough to satisfy the French extremists' demand for equality.
What follows is a translated article from the French media. Readers in Western Canada, please note - they are putting the pressure on for more French coming your way!! They've got control of Eastern & Central Canada - now they're coming after you & if Bill-209 is successful, the number of French-speakers will be artificially increased to enable them to do so!!
OTTAWA - A delegation of French-speaking youth activists from the French-Canadian Youth Federation (FJCF), invited to submit their ideas, proposed a number of recommendations on Friday, September 8 to modernize the Official Languages Act (OLA).
BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg | @BVachet
During a round table that often resembled a survey of the Francophonie outside Quebec viewed by Francophone youths rather than a consultation to review the OLA, participants did not hesitate to draw a sometimes bleak picture of French in a minority setting.
"In Saskatchewan, we can not flourish in French! French is seen as a headache and not as an asset, "illustrated the Fransaskoise, Gabriela Quintanilla.
" Saskatchewan is probably reading the Official Languages Act, when we are here talking about modernizing it! - Gabrielle Quintanilla
The same is true in British Columbia, where, according to Louis Roux, Franco-Colombians often find it difficult to identify with the Francophone community and where the provincial government lacks leadership, the province being the only one have neither a policy nor a French Language Services Act.
"It's not just a law to say where you can speak in French, it takes places to do it," says Seth Fraser of Nova Scotia.
"The problem is that the culture in Canada should already be bilingual and include French. If we are really Canadian, we should be bilingual! I would like to see that in 100 years, we stop talking about French and English, but we are talking about a true bilingual Canada, "said Julien Gaudet, director of the Youth Association fransaskoise (AJF).
Lack of access to post-secondary education programs in French, places to speak French and share French culture, linguistic insecurity, lack of connection with immersion students, insufficient funding for youth organizations ... So many issues raised that a modernization of the OLA will undoubtedly be difficult to resolve.
But for the president of the Franco-Ontarian Youth Federation (FESFO), Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, it was necessary to raise these points.
"The main goal today is to bring the general reality experienced by young people across the country directly to the ears of senators who are busy modernizing the Fa. It will then be up to them to put our remarks into action in a new piece of legislation. The fact that the Act was designed almost 50 years ago has an impact on its effectiveness. She does not answer, for example, digital needs that youth reality of 21 th century. I think there is potential for this new piece of legislation to define the linguistic duality of the country and the linguistic and cultural richness of Canada. "
Learning French required?
The FJCF has several ideas for modernizing the OLA.
"The notion of the quality of French in the services offered to the population must be introduced in the Act, but also the concept of" important demands "that justifies where services are offered. The definition of what constitutes a francophone should also be revised to make it more inclusive and provide for preliminary consultations with respect to Part IV of the Act, Communications with and Services to the Public ". enumerated Gillian Theoret, treasurer of the spokesperson agency for young francophones in minority communities.
The Vice-President of the FJCF, Sophie Brassard, also calls on the federal government to raise awareness and promote French and linguistic duality through a national campaign.
Other, more ambitious ideas have been put forward, such as making French language courses compulsory for all young Canadians, or giving more teeth to the OLA so that it is finally respected.
"When the federal government gives money, the services that flow from it should necessarily be bilingual," Gaudet said.
For Mhanna-Sandoval, a new OLA should also take First Nations languages into account.
Chaired by Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier, this meeting was part of the national consultations conducted by the Senate Committee on Official Languages to modernize the Official Languages Act, as we approach the 50 th anniversary of the Act in 2019 .
Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier. (Photo Credit: Senate of Canada)
At the end of the round table, the Acadian senator was not surprised by the comments made by the young people.
"I did not have huge surprises, but I saw young articulate, lucid and for some, extremely committed to this desire that the Fa has more bite, that it has more impact in life of Canadians and that the federal government plays a leadership role so that all Canadians see official languages as our common history. "
For her part, the Franco-Ontarian senator particularly appreciated the proposal to make learning French compulsory across Canada.
"This is an interesting proposition, because it could set us apart from American culture and give Canada a unique character with respect to its linguistic diversity. It would be quite realistic to see children learning both languages from an early age. But afterwards, we must also think about how they will use it and not lose the use of it by growing up. "
In addition to the youth, the Senate committee planned to consult with official language minority communities, witnesses to the evolution of the Official Languages Act, the justice sector and federal institutions.
Comment from a Concerned Citizen
In response to this we need to understand something very basic about the Canadian "mentality." Canadians are in many ways Americans in lifestyle with similar lives of prosperity and access to a wide variety of goods and services. However, Canada has also been subject to some very traditionally un-Canadian leadership such as that of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau (PET) who brought Canada into the high-taxed welfare state syndrome that he learned while a student at Harvard, the London School of Economics and at the Paris Sorbonne - all known for their Marxist-driven ideologies. As such Canada began a march toward diverging paths from those in America. And to somehow justify all of this as anti-American sentiment was brought upon our land to help create a distinctiveness that was hitherto not easily visible or otherwise recognizable. In short, a great deal of what now consists of the "Canadian identity" is little more than an anti-American sentiment. Canada needs somehow to justify its very heavy top-down statism by elevating itself as somehow more morally superior than its American neighbor. And there are numerous examples that have been used to reinforce this sentimentality not the least was Trudeau's sweet embrace of the communist mass-murderer Fidel Castro and exemplified when he (Trudeau) and his young wife, the former Margaret Sinclair, attended a mass rally in Havana where Margaret would sport a bra-less, nipple-protruding white T-shirt, wildly cheering on her man, Castro. Indeed, Canadian "leadership" was significantly different from America's.
And one of the main proponents of that anti-American sentiment is driven by Canada's own fake-news media that relentlessly denigrates just about anything and everything American. Indeed, it is now almost impossible to find a Canadian news outlet that reports fair and balanced news about anything American. (There are "elements" in the American embassy in Ottawa that will agree that Canada is sometimes (sssssh!) referred to as the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Canada..." ...ssssh...hush.......)
And much of this is now coming to a head with the current Trump administration. Do not believe for a minute that what is written here is not known and accepted in Washington with greater detail and clarity than can be described here. The opening salvos have already been fired with the Canadian soft-wood lumber exports to the USA now taxed at more than 30% and more to come. A new American ambassador to Canada is on his way and NAFTA has been re-opened and the Americans will no longer tolerate that smug, self-righteous anti-American attitude that has so profitably benefited Canada that has never had to pay its full share for its own defenses and pays less than it should in support of the NATO alliance. It has lived handsomely as an "ally" of America and the very generous trade surpluses that has sustained all kinds of "social" programs characteristic of the unsustainable welfare state syndrome. The late Canadian philosopher George Parkin Grant in his Lament for a Nation clearly articulated Canada's position vis-a-vis America where he painted Canada as little more than the spoiled stepson of a rich father - a stepson never really held accountable. But that accountability is now almost upon us and our failed and failing leadership class will be wondering where the money will come from to sustain the utopian illusions of the welfare state where everyone is entitled to a government cheque. Anticipate much more of the fake news Canadian media denigrating America at the upcoming re-negotiations of NAFTA where Canada is virtually powerless to stop the America-first juggernaut. Contrary to hyperventilating governmental authorities that the two economies are completely integrated, there is little the Americans need from Canada that they can't produce themselves - including energy - and at lower costs. The only question remaining is if Canada will continue to pretend it still has the moral high ground or come down to earth and accept the real world for what it is. Reality can sometimes be regained with a good spanking.
24 March 2018
The irony of the situation, exposed by Kelly MacParland’s article below, is worth our attention. Quebec, the perpetual “have-not” province (raking in $12B – 2018 estimate) from the Equalization Payments Program, part of the “Welfare State” philosophy entrenched in P.E. Trudeau’s flawed 1982 Constitution, is climbing out of its hellish economic situation while Ontario, once touted as the richest province in Canada, is facing a greater economic future than ever. Ontario is racing towards bankruptcy with a debt of $312B & a deficit this year of $8B. Why should that concern us?
As an organization that is focussed on the unfairness of the Official Languages Act (1969 Federal legislation - also part of the flawed 1982 Constitution), which has worked consistently to promote the minority French-speakers at the expense of the majority English-speakers, how does the situation affect our attempts to be heard? Well, for a start, a large number of Canadians seem to believe that Canada is an officially bilingual country; an egregious error that we have consistently attempted to refute. Even our politicians (federal, provincial & municipal) don’t seem to understand that language legislation is the purview of the provinces – how else can anyone explain that Quebec is officially unilingual French and New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province, having passed its own laws stating so in 1969? Suffice it to say that the other provinces are, by default, NOT officially bilingual. Ontario has passed various versions of the French Language Services Act (1986) which, through the years have been given more money & more power in the attempt to elevate the status of the 3.69% (2016 census) mother-tongue French-speakers. Proof of both claims can be supplied to anyone interested.
So, has the years of receiving Equalization Payments from the other provinces (including Ontario) be the main reason why Quebec’s economy is doing so well? Details for Federal Transfers to all provinces are available here:
From 2007 - 2017, the total federal transfers to Quebec (Health, Social & Equalization) total $21,402,000,000 ($21.4 Billion); for the same period, the total federal transfers to Ontario (Health, Social & Equalization) totalling $21,303,000,000 ($21.3 Billion). The difference is that Equalization payments to ON only started in 2009:
Having to supply government services to the public in both English & French is expensive (an expense that Quebec does not have to shoulder). The French Language Services Act cost the Ontario government $27,036,630 in 2013 & in 2015-16, the estimate was $39,419,300. The Ontario PC Party has never shown any interest in this topic, despite our efforts to enlighten them to this file. Whether it’s the fear of being called “racist” or “anti-French” or just the fear of such a powerful group, fully funded & with so much organized support, we leave to your imagination. Patrick Brown is fully bilingual & supports the French cause so we’re glad he’s out as the leader of the ON PCs. What about Doug Ford, the new PC Party leader? He says that Ontario is in dire economic straits – has he got the courage to say “NO” to the powerful French lobby when they come calling for more money? Does such a small minority have the right to demand more, just on the basis of the fear of assimilation?
We are not just concerned from the money angle – we are concerned that making more government services bilingual (and not just where numbers warrant) will mean that French becomes the criteria for employment & not MERIT, which should be the way our very well-paid public servants are selected. It places the French-speakers (who are usually also fluent in English) on a higher employability scale. It also puts pressure on parents to send their children to French Immersion schools where the emphasis put on learning French takes time away from learning English, Maths, Science & other more valuable skills. Some kids can handle this but most kids cannot as shown by studies done in NB where F.I. has been a failure. Dr. J.D Willms (University of NB) has an interesting report; Jane Sherrard is very concerned about the English schools in NB & I’ve collected a number of articles on the failure of French Immersion schools to graduate properly educated students, in either English or French. Ask for these items if you are concerned.
We are gathering statistics to help us show Canadians that the public service is over-populated by French-speakers. Any public servant who can provide us with a break-down of your department’s employees (the % of employees who are French by mother-tongue), please forward them to:
Canadians for Language Fairness
P.O. Box 40111
Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet
2515 Bank Street.
Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8
21 October 2017
John Ivison's article about the Federal bureaucracy's attempt to make French an increasingly important part of Canada's government expresses what a large number of Canadians think but dare not say. That's how bad the situation is - talk to any Federal public servant & you'll hear the frustrations that are expressed by many but are kept silent from fear of repercussions. It is a topic which has been avoided by most politicians & journalists because it has resulted from P.E. Trudeau's 1982 Constitution & the entrenched elements in it like the Charter & the Human Rights code which have given extraordinary powers to minority interests. The courts are obliged to follow the dictates of the 1982 Constitution which ties the hands of ALL politicians. We can only hope that a free press might show Canadians that this policy has gone too far. Such truism, as expressed by John Ivison, have been obvious to anyone paying any attention to this issue.
Some high-lights from the article:
1. "nearly five decades after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the public service is not bilingual enough"
2. " many public servants working in bilingual regions do not feel comfortable using their language of choice at work"
3. "The solution".... "is to raise the linguistic requirements for those in supervisory roles"
4. " The complaint is that even when French is used, it is symbolic"
5. "public service that is already over-represented in executive positions by French speakers"
6. " Raising the linguistic bar is likely to exacerbate the dominance of French speakers in the upper echelons of the public service"
7. " outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, just eight per cent of Canadians are bilingual"
8 " If the Liberals adopt a policy that makes the federal public service even less representative of the Canadian public than it is already, they will stoke the impression that the West, in particular, is being frozen out.
Responses to the high-lighted items:
1. To the French zealots, nothing short of total capitulation is enough. Just look at what they've done to the English-speakers in Quebec - are they satisfied with that victory?
2. French is a language forced on the majority by a linguistic, aggressive minority & as such, it will always be "symbolic" - unless the whole public service is run by the Quebecois.
3. The obvious over-representation of the French should NOT go un-noticed & it isn't. Such a relief to see it in print by a well-known journalist.
4. Western Alienation is already happening - let's not under-estimate the anger growing out west against a Federal government that is so dominated by the interests of Quebec.
5. There seems to be NO limit to the amount of money the French extremists are willing to throw at this policy
The linguistic bar has been raised many times & each move has resulted in increased power given to French speakers & the province of Quebec as that is the bastion of French power. I will refer to some of these bars - you can send me any that I've missed:
A. The caveat of "where numbers warrant" was never defined which left the French bureaucracy total freedom to define it. This link: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92-48/page-1.html shows that provinces with 5% of the population speaking French must provide French Languages Service and Ontario is coming under that level soon. Of course this won't happen unless the govt. accepts the redefinition of a Francophone from "mother-tongue" to "anyone who speaks French" as is being proposed by Bill S-209. The 2016 census notes that under the 1st definition, Ontario has 490,715 (3.69%) Francophones; under the 2nd definition, the number rises to 597,070 (4.45%).
B. Using Orders in Council (which are not debated by Parliament), the Privy Council through the machination of Lucienne Robillard, among other Francophone elites, brought in the "Right To Work in the language of choice" & "Right to be supervised in the language of choice". Anyone with any power of observation will agree that both instruments have increased the demands for more Francophones (mostly Quebecois).
C. The $800 bilingual bonus was initially to encourage unilingual English-speakers to become bilingual. Most of the Federal positions where this bonus apply are now designated bilingual so the applicants would have already passed the language tests so the bonus is an additional reward which should be unnecessary. Instead of chasing after small businesses to squeeze more taxes out of them to fund extravagant govt. services, maybe we should think of taking away these "extras" from public servants who are already paid at least 30% more than employees in the private sector for similar jobs.
Just in case you\re not yet convinced that Canada is now firmly in the hands of the French-speakers, here is more bad news for English-speaking Canada:
OTTAWA - NDP MP François Choquette's bill to make bilingualism mandatory for Supreme Court of Canada judges has resumed on Thursday, October 19. His chances of succeeding, however, are very slim.
BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg | @BVachet
On the government side, as well as on the Conservative side, we praise the will behind Mr. Choquette's bill, but we do not seem to want to support it.
"This is an important bill that reflects the values we all share in the House of Commons, but the focus is misplaced. It would be more useful to strengthen the bilingual capacity of the superior courts, because that would increase the pool of bilingual judges, "said Ville-Marie-Le-Sud-Île-des-Sœurs, Quebec MP for the province, Marc Miller.
An opinion seconded by his colleague David Lametti, reiterating the arguments put forward by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his August 2016 opinion letter in which he ensured that, from now on, appointed judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would be bilingual .
"The law is not always the most effective at solving a problem and I think that in this case it is neither desirable nor necessary. We have put in place a new appointment process that makes bilingualism a primary criterion and has already been proven by Judge Malcom Rowe. "
Michael Albert, Conservative MP for St. Albert-Edmonton, believes that Mr. Choquette's bill addresses a problem that does not exist.
"The Supreme Court of Canada already provides services and communications in both official languages. Since its creation, there has not been a single case of error because of a problem of interpretation. Moreover, if it happened, there would be possible remedies. "
" This bill is well-intentioned, but it will create problems, including reducing the pool of good candidates. Language skills should not take precedence over skills, knowledge and experience in law . "- Conservative MP Michael Cooper
Currently, there are eight out of nine bilingual judges in the Supreme Court of Canada. Only Judge Michael Moldaver uses simultaneous translation services.
Guy Caron quips
The official languages critic, François Choquette, has taken up the torch of his predecessor Yvon Godin who, on three occasions, proposed such a bill . In 2008, 2010 and 2014, his proposal was defeated, despite the common front of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party of Canada (PLC).
"Do principles change when you're in government?", Quipped NDP House leader Guy Caron. "It is not enough to say that we will appoint bilingual judges, we need to enshrine this principle, because otherwise we have no guarantee. Bilingualism is not an asset, but a fundamental skill. "
NDP members have repeatedly cited the testimony of lawyers, including linguistic rights specialist Michel Doucet, who shared their sometimes unfortunate experiences when they pleaded in French at the Supreme Court of Canada .
"If the Liberal government is committed to appointing bilingual judges, why not enshrine this objective in the law?" Questioned New Democrat Erin Weir. "It would send a very clear message to the Canadian judicial community."
The NDP tried to convince the few members present to support the bill at second reading so that the Justice and Human Rights Committee could study and improve it.
Official Languages Spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, François Choquette. Image credit: Archives
"There are improvements to be made, including the issue of access to the Supreme Court of Canada for Aboriginal judges. We are open to amendments and that is why it is important to have a second reading, "explains Mr. Choquette.
The example of Alexandrine Latendresse
At the end of the debate, the NDP member remained optimistic, while the vote of the bill at second reading will take place Wednesday, October 25.
"I am not discouraged because I know it is a legitimate right for all Canadians to have access to the highest court in the country in the official language of their choice. The Liberals are starting to get bogged down in their arguments when they say that a law is not necessary and that we have to give ourselves a small margin to appoint perhaps unilingual judges! "
2013. Choquette relies on the example of Alexandrine Latendresse's bill on the bilingualism of certain agents of parliament, adopted in 2013.
"I hope many Liberals and Conservatives will vote in favor of this bill. Many tell me that they are ready to support it. Will they do it? It remains to be seen ... We managed to get Alexandrine Latendresse's bill passed, the next step would be the bilingual judges at the Supreme Court of Canada. "
13 April 2018
April 11, 2018
With just about everyone being so confused about the City Of Ottawa’s Language policy (from the pronouncements of the new Language Commissioner - Raymond Théberge, to just about every French language activist in existence), we had to get Mayor Watson to clarify the situation. So we wrote to Mayor Watson & all the Councillors on April 8th & Mayor Watson replied the very next day.
According to our best brain in the BoD – “In a word, YES, the status quo prevails - for now. No changes needed as the previous By-law, 2001-170, fulfills all the requirements stipulated in the Bill 177. The City of Ottawa is NOT official bilingual”
Everyone can keep a copy of Mayor Watson’s response & if ever they hear of another person saying that “Ottawa is Officially Bilingual”, feel free to send them Mayor Watson’s response.
April 8, 2018
Dear Mayor & City Councillors
City of Ottawa
We would like the City Council to clarify the status of the City Of Ottawa as per its language status. We understand the following:
Bill 177 acknowledges that Ottawa has a bilingual policy (as per by-law 2001-170 & the City of Ottawa Act 199) but this does not make Ottawa “Officially Bilingual”. The City Of Ottawa Council is still in control of how bilingual it will be – NOT the courts. Once the City is declared “Officially Bilingual”, the courts will take control & dictate to the City how bilingual the city’s administration has to be. Am I wrong in this assumption?
CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1999
The Schedule amends the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. It recognizes Ottawa’s bilingual character. It requires Ottawa to make a by-law for bilingual administration and services. It clarifies that an existing Ottawa by-law respecting bilingualism is such a by-law.
To clarify this situation once & for all, will the City Council let the citizens know the answer to this question:
“Is the City of Ottawa Officially Bilingual”?
From: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) [mailto:Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca]
Sent: April 9, 2018 4:44 PM
To: 'Kim McConnell'
Cc: Monette, Bob; Mitic, Jody; Harder, Jan; Wilkinson, Marianne; El-Chantiry, Eli; Qadri, Shad; Taylor, Mark; Chiarelli, Rick; Chernushenko, David; Ward 9; Deans, Diane; Tierney, Timothy; Fleury, Mathieu; Nussbaum, Tobi; McKenney, Catherine; Leiper, Jeff; Brockington, Riley; Cloutier, Jean; Blais, Stephen; Darouze, George; Moffatt, Scott; Qaqish, Michael; Hubley, Allan; Egli, Keith
Subject: RE: Is the City of Ottawa "Officially Bilingual"
Dear Ms. McConnell,
Thank you for your email seeking clarification on the bilingual character of the City of Ottawa.
On December 14, 2017 Bill 177, the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017, received Royal Assent after being adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This was an omnibus bill that amended a variety of statutes, including the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. The amendments were intended to recognize, within provincial legislation, Ottawa’s bilingual character, and require the City to pass a by-law providing that the administration of the municipality shall be conducted in both English and French and that all or specified municipal services to the public shall be made available in both languages, in accordance with Subsection 14(1) of the French Language Services Act.
In keeping with this, the Bill 177 amendments acknowledged that the City’s existing Bilingualism By-law (No. 2001-170), originally passed in May 2001, already fulfills the City’s statutory obligation to adopt a by-law, and they also explicitly recognize City Council’s discretion to determine the “scope and content” of that by-law.
Though the City’s bilingual character is now officially recognized in the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, the recent changes did not expand the City’s obligations in terms of the provision of French-language services, beyond the requirement of having a By-law under Subsection 14(1) of the French Language Services Act or beyond those obligations that already existed under the Bilingualism By-law (No. 2001-170).
As a result of these changes, Section 11.1 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, now reads as follows:
11.1 (1) The city’s bilingual character is recognized.
By-law respecting use of English and French languages
(2) The city shall pass a by-law under subsection 14 (1) of the French Language Services Act.
Same, board of health
(3) The by-law applies with respect to the administration of the board of health and the provision of services by the board.
Scope and content of by-law
(4) The scope and content of the by-law shall be as determined by the City.
(5) For greater certainty, City of Ottawa By-law No. 2001-170 (Bilingualism) meets the requirement of subsection (2).
The City is proud to support the diversity of its residents, including its active Francophone community, which greatly contributes to growing our city. Our bilingual character is one of Ottawa’s strengths and the City of Ottawa will continue to provide quality programs and services to its residents and employees in both English and French.
City of Ottawa
Comment from Al S.:
The great tragedy here is that it is never explained that there is a huge difference between bilingualism and official bilingualism.
Being bilingual or even multilingual is always desirable insofar as it allows communication in more than one language. No one will argue with that.
Official bilingualism however means that now the government is involved where government at any level can compel bilingualism on the population. And in Canada's case, that means being compelled (forced) to know both "official" languages, English and French, if, for example, you want to qualify for a certain range of jobs or a promotion - usually in a government bureaucracy.
But that still does not explain the whole story - otherwise why does the Nation of Quebec not have official bilingualism as a law or policy?
Under official bilingualism, to be considered for a job or a promotion, a person would need to prove he/she is proficient in both languages. This language proficiency test is then "loaded" (skewed) in favour of the demographic that is perceived to be needing some "help" in passing this test. And that demographic is always, in English Canada, the Franco community.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, only those born under the Fleur-de-Lis manage to pass the Quebec French dialect knowledge test leaving those not so born at a distinct disadvantage.
As is amply evident in the federal civil service and increasingly so in the Ontario civil service (not to overlook various municipalities that have bought into this "theme") increasingly the Franco individuals get the jobs and the English speakers do not, no matter how well otherwise they may be qualified.
In short, we have to see Official Bilingualism for what it is: a government enforced program of enforced racism.
It is an all-out tribal warfare pitting one language group against another with a badly corrupted Canadian "Constitution" providing "legality" of this skewing in favour of one tribe over another.
Official Bilingualism is the manifestation of manufactured and contrived grievances that somehow Canada was stolen from the Franco/Acadian community following its loss on the battlefield of the Plains of Abraham in 1759.
Not able to compete in the sea of English North America and severely hobbled with its insistence of clinging to that failed French (Napoleonic) Civil Code, the Canadian Francos managed over time to obtain a national leadership that shared these contrived grievances - that hatred - of the minority tribe and that "leadership" would level the playing field for them.
But more than merely leveling the playing field Official Bilingualism was meant to go beyond that and also ethnically cleanse all English speakers in all levels of government in all positions of influence and control - especially control of the public purse. All it would take is government enforcement and highly biased language tests all conducted seamlessly and "under the radar."
We have to see Official Bilingualism for what it truly is in Canada: it is a revenge-filled, hateful and racist Statute designed to completely overturn - take away - the rightful ownership of this great country and put it in the hands of those whose long history is a demonstrated stream of failure.
Wherever the French have gone throughout the world colonizing this and then that country or region they have failed with the follow-up miseries still in evidence today.
But that won’t stop them from now colonizing Canada.
After all the Constitution is on their side.
How can they fail?
Cohen: Why does Canada just accept incompetence?
Published on: April 3, 2018 | Last Updated: April 3, 2018 12:05 PM EDT
Less than a month ago, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario chose its new leader. The process was cloudy and chaotic. In a word, it was a fiasco.
At different stages in the electronic balloting, the two leading candidates – Doug Ford and Christine Elliott – cast doubt on the legitimacy of the contest. Before he was declared the winner, Ford had warned of irregularities, seeking an extension of the vote. According to the National Post, he called the process “corrupt, unfair and biased.”
When his victory was announced, though, Ford’s concerns vanished (much like those of Donald Trump, who questioned the integrity of the 2016 election until it made him president).
Elliott, having lost despite winning more votes than Ford – blame her party’s peculiar version of the electoral college – protested. In the complex voting system based on geography, her representatives “identified entire towns voting in the wrong riding.”
The point here isn’t who won. It is that no one seems terribly upset about this shambles – the latest example of Canada’s institutional ineptitude.
We cannot seem to get things right these days. Once we saw things as a matter of confidence. Now we ask if things are a matter of competence.
Justin Trudeau’s visit to India was a disaster because his staff ignored advice on when to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and how to balance his time. They did not foresee the optics of Canada’s prime minister wearing more national outfits than a runway model. This followed a bad trip to China. A question: Who’s responsible?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, his wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, left, their daughter Ella Grace, second left, and son Xavier greet in Indian style during their visit to Golden Temple, in Amritsar, India, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2018. Public Relations Office Govt. Of Punjab via AP
The federal government cannot fix the beleaguered Phoenix system (inherited from the Conservatives) to pay its employees. It could not organize the security for celebrations in Ottawa on July 1; thousands were caught in long lines, in the rain, unable to get on Parliament Hill.
It could not unveil the National Holocaust Monument without controversy. It could not build the unfinished Collections Conservation Centre next to the Canada Science and Technology Museum without huge cost overruns. It cannot fill many senior administrative and judicial positions.
We continue to have a crumbling 24 Sussex Drive because no one will make a decision. It will take 10 years or so to renovate Centre Block, forcing Parliament to move. Why do other countries finish big projects faster?
The Conservatives made little progress on pipelines and it is likely the Liberals won’t either, despite their efforts. More broadly, funds for infrastructure projects are slow to reach their destination.
The City of Ottawa, run by the most overrated mayor in Canada, cannot build things on time. It was hilariously late on the pedestrian bridge over the Airport Parkway and it is late on the light-rail system, for which it will not penalize the contractor. Wait for the new central library – mistakenly planned for LeBreton Flats rather than downtown – to come in smaller, later and costlier than promised.
As for LeBreton Flats, don’t be surprised if its development is as disappointing as Lansdowne Park, the once-in-a century opportunity the city squandered by putting up a shopping mall.
Noticed Ottawa’s potholes this spring? Yes, we have winter. But why does this city have roads like a developing country? Inferior materials? Crooked contractors? Hopeless municipal staff?
Incompetence, incompetence. Is it more common now than before? Perhaps. True, governments do not get credit for things that work – utilities that supply power and water, medical care that heals, pensions that are paid on time. These, governments do well.
It is also true that governments receive no applause for what we don’t see – such as Trudeau’s quiet, able management of the bilateral relationship with the mercurial Donald Trump as NAFTA is renegotiated. Canada is a case study in focus and self-discipline.
When we see excellence in quality in business, we know it. There is a reason that Mercedes Benz, EQ3, Apple, Enterprise Car Rental and L.L. Bean succeed; they have exacting standards of service that they apply relentlessly.
Yet too many today have no standards at all. We accept the results with polite resignation.
Andrew Cohen is a journalist, professor and author of Two Days in June: John F. Kennedy and the 48 Hours That Made History.
Bilingualism to blame for incompetent government
Re: Why do we just accept incompetence? April 4
The answer to Andrew Cohen’s question is because we are used to it in Ottawa. When the most important qualification for anything in the National Capital Region is bilingualism, we have become complacent with the lack of excellence.
Tina Phillips, Ottawa
Bilingualism has nothing to do with competence
Re: Bilingualism to blame for incompetence, April 5
I beg to differ with a recent letter writer’s comment that the reason for our government’s incompetence is as follows: “When the most important qualification for anything in the National Capital Region is bilingualism, we have become complacent with the lack of excellence.”
In my 42 years of service within the federal government, I saw incompetence, mediocrity and excellence. None of these had to do with bilingualism. It was, and continues to be, each individual’s work ethic which show whether one is satisfied with oneself – and others – working at an incompetent or mediocre level.
A.A. Roberts, Ottawa
WHICH OPINION IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH?
Patriot Pride Canada Wide - Cut the Cord
SPOOFING: THE NEW SCAM!
Video about this new scare is available upon request
"Where numbers warrant" will be met by boosting the numbers artificially. You'll note that the English-speakers in Quebec will still have to live under the French-language zealots who want the French language dominant in Quebec.
Folks, Bill S-205 died on order table when Harper govt fell. It was tabled again as Bill S-209 in December 2015 when Trudeau came to power. It aims to amend Part IV (Service to the Public) of the OLA, changing the definition of "francophone" a la Ontario FLSA.
Issues related to implementing the Official Languages Act
Commissioner lends his support to Bill S-205
In April 2015, the Commissioner of Official Languages presented his position in support of Bill S-205, which aimed to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act. In his briefFootnote 11 to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, the Commissioner gave three reasons why Part IV needs to be updated.
First, he noted that the criteria set out in section 32(2) of the Act to assess potential demand for services in the minority language are not inclusive, because they do not take into account all of the people who use the minority language in the public or private sphere. For example, the current criteria as they are applied exclude people whose first official language spoken is not the language of the minority but who:
speak the minority language at home (as can be the case for francophiles, anglophiles and newcomers);
speak the minority language in the workplace; or
receive their education in the minority language.
Second, he pointed out that significant demand is defined in relation to the proportion of the minority population (i.e., the 5% rule). However, the chief factor to be considered in determining significant demand in a region served by federal offices should be the presence of an official language community that shows signs of vitality. (It means presence of even one French school, according to their previous discussions - E.B.).
Third, he stressed that Bill S-205 is important because it codifies the principle of substantive equality by explicitly imposing on federal institutions the duty to provide service of equal quality in both official languages and to consult with the English and French linguistic minority population concerning the quality of those communications and services.
The Bill died on the order table after the federal election was called in August 2015 and was tabled again in December 2015 as Bill S-209. The Commissioner reiterated that this bill makes an undoubtedly significant contribution to fulfilling the purpose of Part IV of the Act and helps official language communities to strengthen their identity, to develop and to thrive.
Analysis needed of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the vitality of official language communities
In 2013, the Société franco-manitobaine made public a complaint that had been filed with the Office of the Commissioner concerning the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.Footnote 12 The complaint alleged that the method used to determine the first official language spoken in order to establish what constitutes significant demand does not take into account large segments of the population that speak the minority language and would want or be likely to use it in federal offices.
The objective of the investigation was to determine the nature of the obligations incumbent upon the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat under Part VII of the Act in the context of the Official Languages Regulations Re-Application Exercise. The exercise seeks to review and update federal institutions’ language obligations every 10 years using census data: in this case, data from the 2011 Census.
In the spring of 2015, the Commissioner released his final investigation report to the parties involved. The Commissioner concluded that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had to identify the impact of the results of the re-application exercise on the vitality of official language communities that would no longer be receiving bilingual services because of changes in the linguistic designation of some federal offices. The Commissioner also concluded that the institution should present options to the President of the Treasury Board to mitigate the negative impact of these results.
Because the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had stated that it did not intend to conduct an analysis on the impact of the results, the Commissioner concluded that it had not met its obligations under Part VII of the Act and that the complaint was founded.
The Commissioner therefore recommended that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat undertake a thorough review of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the development and vitality of the official language communities affected by the results of the re-application exercise. He also recommended that the findings of the analysis be shared with the President of the Treasury Board, along with opinions and advice on solutions to be considered in order to mitigate any potential negative impact of the Regulations.
A follow-up is under way to determine whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will be taking the appropriate steps to implement the Commissioner’s recommendations.
Société franco-manitobaine takes case to court
In February 2015, the Société franco-manitobaine applied for a court remedy in Federal Court under Part X of the Act. The Société petitioned the Federal Court to find that parts of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations are inconsistent with section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and with several provisions of the Act) and to order the government to amend the Regulations. The Société maintained that:
the Regulations contain an unduly restrictive definition of the word “Francophone,” i.e., they do not make allowances for the recent expansion of the Francophone space to include mixed families, newcomers, people who are bilingual and people who are able to converse in French;
the use of formal numerical thresholds is inconsistent with the objectives of the Act; and
the Regulations were adopted without consulting the French-speaking minority, and they have not undergone any significant review or consultation since they came into force in 1992.
The objective of Senator Maria Chaput’s Bill S-209 was to correct the very shortcomings cited by the Société franco-manitobaine in its court remedy. The Commissioner strongly urges the government to update Part IV of the Act and to review the criteria for defining significant demand.
The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends:
that Parliament make Bill S-209 a priority so that the parliamentary committees examining it are able to conduct a diligent review; and
that, by March 31, 2017, the Treasury Board undertake an evaluation, in consultation with official language communities, of the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and directives for implementing Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
27 August 2017
A reader sent me a link on the Senate's Committee on Official Languages with the comment that the Return on Investment (ROI) of spending on the Official Languages Act is not likely to be worth the effort
The French have never been interested in the ROI of the OLA - they are only interested in the advancement & empowerment of French-speakers, specifically of the Quebecois variety. The non-Quebecois in Quebec are not considered of any importance & a series of articles from the Gazette reports that Bill 101 has successfully killed off English language schools. Even the English-language organization (CVESPA) is dead, due to apathy on the part of English-speakers themselves. Those who didn't follow the 600,000 who left after Bill 101 have decided to put up with the situation; others have assimilated. They're not well looked after but then, who cares? They used to be a vibrant group but for most of them, it was too difficult to stay & fight the anti-English atmosphere so they left - what else could they do?
I've attached the link to the article about the 40th anniversary of Bill 101 & if you have time to read the supporting articles, you'll find that the French have won in Quebec totally. The non-French are struggling in NB - how can we help them? How can we stop them from taking over in Ontario? NO political party dares to challenge the French power in ON or indeed, in any part of Canada.
Subject: Return on investment
Does not look like a worthy return on investment (ROI) An entire Senate Official Languages Committee session provides a report with 17 recommendations and start a study to modernize the official languages act, which turns 50 next year.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has the mandate to study all matters relating to official languages generally. It examines questions pertaining to the Official Languages Act (OLA) and pays particular attention to the federal government’s role and its commitment to advancing English and French in Canadian society and to enhancing the vitality of the official language minority communities.
During this parliamentary session, the committee published one report and began a new study.
In the fall of 2016, as part of their study of the challenges surrounding access to francophone schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia, committee members conducted a fact-finding mission and held public hearings in Vancouver and Victoria. They met with teachers, parents and students, as well as numerous associations and organizations. In addition, they visited francophone and French immersion schools.
After hearing additional witnesses in Ottawa, the committee tabled its report, Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-Language Learning in British Columbia, in May 2017.
In this report, the committee made 17 recommendations to the federal government to enable it to live up to its official languages commitments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.
With this report, the committee resoundingly reaffirmed its commitment to promoting Canada’s two official languages, which are at the heart of the Canadian identity.
Last fall, the federal government announced that it would be conducting a review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. However, the government chose to focus solely on the provision of services in both official languages, and will not be reviewing other important parts of the Act.
Considering that 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it is an opportune time for the Official Languages Committee to engage Canadians on ways to bring this legislation into the 21st century.
Accordingly, in the spring of 2017 the Senate Committee on Official Languages began an in-depth study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The Committee is conducting a five-part study and expects to present a series of interim reports on its progress. Senators intend to hear testimony from the following groups:
Committee members have begun engaging with the target group for the first part of the study: individuals aged 14 to 25, more specifically, high school students, post-secondary students and young people heading into the workforce. The committee would like to learn more about how the Act can help better promote and advance opportunities in both official languages.
The French take-over is almost complete because the OLA has created a very pro-French employment situation in the Federal govt. They are over-represented in almost all Federal Ministries & Departments & English-speakers are only taken on when they cannot find bilingual French-speakers of similar qualification to fill a position.
Much to the dismay of the pro-French elite (which include all politicians & Francophiles), the number of French-speakers is still not growing fast enough & they are desperate to do something about that.
The message circulated on August 25th contained information about Sen. Chaput's private member's bill - Bill S-209 that will attempt to inflate the French-speakers' number. We're mounting a petition against the effort to falsify statistics & we need your help. Please email me for a hard copy of that petition & I will mail you a copy along with an appeal to CPC Leader Andrew Scheer alerting him to that bill.
If you did not receive the last message, I will repeat it below:
August 25, 2017
Those who attended our Farewell Party for Jurgen Vollrath had a good afternoon. The weather cooperated & there was plenty of food to munch on while we listened to our MC (Ron Barr) roast Jurgen, our guest of honour. Jurgen has been a host of the DCN show called "Against the Grain", available at this link: http://www.dunet.ca/pastshows.html which gives links to all of Jurgen's past shows.
Jurgen has always been a supporter of the fight for the rights of English speakers. He led an organization called CESCO (Coalition of English-speaking Canadian Org.). At the DCN, he gave the language issue three separate shows:
On July 28th, he interviewed Beth Trudeau, Spokesperson of CLF (Canadians for Language). Callers from NB - Joan Seeley, Sharon Buchanan.
On August 4th, he took calls on the last show & we heard from Claire Dykeman & Sharon Buchanan of NB.
On August 18th, Jurgen had a very informative conversation with Kris Austin, leader of the PANB (People's Alliance of NB).
If you get periods of silence, don't worry - just keep tuned in & the show will continue. You'll find it worth your while because Jurgen is a very well-informed person on this issue & he's very emotional & expresses his thoughts well. He really gets fired up but never loses control of his information. When he moves to Alberta & gets his show there, we hope that all the Westerners will tune in & support his attempt to spread the language battle out there.
CLF gave Jurgen an award for being a "Brave Warrior" & we had a great time listening to Ron Barr of the Ontario Truckers Asso. roasting Jurgen.
We gave awards to Howard Galganov - for being a Free Speech Patriot; Jean-Serge Brisson & Tom Black for speaking up in our support.
We also heard from Al Speyer who had a report on the financial disaster that has resulted from the Grant School being turned into a Francophone Centre; Bob Yaciuk, leader of the Ontario Trillium Party; Jack MacLaren who left the Ontario PC Party to represent the Trillium Party; Elsa Scheider whose website is very much against the Muslim invasion Her poem "It's not alright" is quite cute. Lynn Jenkins appealed for more attention to be paid to the Gaelic language, once a language spoken by the majority of the early British immigrants.
My focus is on Bill S-209. If you remember, this is a private member's bill which Senator Chaput is pushing through the Senate. This was brought to our attention by one of our readers & I think that this bill should be brought to the attention of more people. We wrote a letter to Andrew Scheer, leader of CPC, to alert him to this bill & to appeal to him to NOT support its passage if it should gets through the Senate & gets to the House of Common.
I asked one of our better informed readers (a refugee from Quebec) to help me write up a petition. The petition is attached - please help us by circulating it to your family & friends.
I was pleasantly surprised to get a response from the leader of the CPC - Andrew Scheer. If you remember, we wrote to him to tell him about Bill S-209 on July 20th. Although his letter didn't say very much, I was pleased that he read that he is now aware of the attempt by Senator Chaput to change the Federal government definition of a Francophone.
August 24, 2017
Canadians for Language Fairness
Dear Ms. McConnell:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding Bill S-209, An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act (communications wit6h and services to the public). We appreciated having the opportunity to review your constructive input on this legislation.
We have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to the Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie, Sylvie Boucher, for her review and consideration.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
cc Sylvie Boucher, M.P., Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie
I received an alert from one of our readers that the insanity that is now spreading in the US regarding historical revisionism is now in Canada. Our education system is being inundated with teachers who want to change our history. The target is Sir John A. MacDonald:
It figures the individual spear heading a motion for the Peel teacher union is a French Canadian!! Misère Felipe Pareja
That debate hit the floor of a meeting by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario days ago, ending with a resolution to urge school boards across the province to consider removing the name of Canada's first prime minister — Sir John A. Macdonald — from public schools.
Felipe Pareja, a French teacher in Peel region just west of Toronto, is behind the motion.
Pareja says the decision was by no means unanimous, but that it passed by a substantial margin.
So not only are we going to confuse our children about which gender they belong to, which wash-room they should use, we are now going to confuse them about which part of our history is legitimate. I suppose Felipe Pareja wants Canadians to revolt against the British conquerors that defeated the French & turned Canada into the successful country it became.
Unfortunately, after the Liberals took control & used all the tricks in the book to vilify the British, the slow erosion of our British legacy (a substantial part of which is the powerful English language) & the concepts of Freedom embodied in the Magna Carta are now being turned towards more Socialism & the concept of Globalism. The ideas that we should erase all borders & let the whole world become ONE entity, ruled by the United Nations, may be a concept that is gaining strength. The Liberal Party are supporters of this idea - that is why we are welcoming everybody who wants to come into Canada. Someone sent me a message saying that a Canadian pensioner gets $12,144/yr; an immigrant/refugee gets $28,290/yr. How long this largesse from the Canadian taxpayer will last, I have no idea. Most of these immigrants are not well educated in either English or French & will be social liabilities for years to come. The Haitians will be welcomed because they will enlarge the French-speakers & increase the demand for French-language services.
There are so many battles to fight that it is difficult to decide which ones to fight first. The Charlotteville tragedy should not be directed at the people who wanted to protest the destruction of their historical monuments; they should be totally placed at the feet of the counter protestors who represented many groups (all of them Trump haters). Fortunately for those of us who see the situation only too clearly, we have Allen West to help set the story straight:
Ok folks, here’s what REALLY happened in Charlottesville – and what everyone is missing
This past weekend I was honored to be in a most picturesque place with some great and hospitable folks ib Prescott (Yavapai County) Arizona. I was there to address the Republican Women of Prescott, the nation’s largest Republican women’s club, on their 75th anniversary. The scenery there was just breathtaking and there was just a sense of solemnness that we all need experience from time to time. How great a contrast it was from what was happening across the country in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Let me begin by saying, I deplore any form of supremacist view — white, black, Hispanic, Islamic. I will be the first to openly state and embrace, a sense of American exceptionalism and supremacy that is rooted in our founding principles and values. Any and all else that is contradictory is to be condemned. What I have witnessed post the events of Saturday 12 August is the typical Rahm Emanuel mentality and political posturing: “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Therefore, I seek to assess what really happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.
First, may God rest the soul of 32-year-old Heather Heyer who tragically lost her life. My sincere condolences to her, her family, and those others who were injured. I fully support seeking the death penalty for 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio who committed this horrific act of violence. But, how did we get to this place?
This all began because someone decided, as other elected officials have across the country, to cave in to partisan political pressures and seek to erase American history. History is not there for us to love or hate, but for us to learn from and seek to not repeat its mistakes.
If there are those who truly believe we protect ourselves by trying to revise history due to false emotions, then we miss out on who we are as a nation, and our evolution. The statues of long since deceased leaders of the Confederate Army do not stand to remind anyone of oppression. And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues.
I certainly did not appreciate former President Barack Obama taking a photo op in Cuba before the image of Che Guevara, nor do I enjoy seeing anyone wearing said image on t-shirts here in America…but I do not go into some whimsical state of “oppression.”
And so it is that we do possess in this Constitutional Republic a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It would appear that said group who didn’t wish to see the statue of Virginian, General Robert E. Lee, who was a commissioned U.S. Army officer, graduate of West Point, and served the nation in the Mexican War, taken down did apply for a permit to hold a rally. We can dislike these individuals, but they took proper measures to secure permission to express their First Amendment right.
Contrary to their position, the word went out for a counter-protest to occur which included groups from a different side of the political spectrum, who have also been very guilty of hateful rhetoric and violence. What should have happened is that these two groups should have been kept miles apart. I do not understanding why any local law enforcement agency would allow these two groups close proximity…first lesson learned. And we must also ascertain, did the counter-protest group seek permit or did they just “show up” in order to provoke, and elicit a response they could use “politically?” Yes, motivations are important to understand in this case, if we’re serious about getting to the bottom of what happened in Charlottesville and not just the typical media-driven frenzy.
I find it rather odd that so many are seeking to lay blame on President Trump for what happened in Charlottesville. And there are some voices out there who want to blame all white people, and all Republicans. How odd that when it was the New Black Panther Party outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia in black fatigues and with clubs, nothing was said. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even prosecuted for voter intimidation. And when it was the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore fueled by media false narratives and a presidential administration’s rhetoric, there was no blame laid on Barack Obama. It appears to me that there is a blatant hypocrisy when an individual commits a horrible crime, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, and a collective group of people are to be held accountable.
But, when there’s an Islamic terror attack people say, “we cannot rush to judgment” or “this is not indicative of all Muslims”…to wit I agree, but why not call the enemy for what it is” militant Islamic terrorism or jihadism? Why must some be browbeaten into condemning the actions of a few, yet we have others who have fully admitted their support to groups calling for a “resistance?” And where were the voices to condemn the violence in Washington DC on Inauguration Day, or even at UC-Berkeley…or the violence committed against those who support the current president or hold beliefs aligned with Constitutional conservatism?
If we want to condemn groups such as the neo-Nazis and others, then we must also condemn groups such as BLM and Antifa. And we need to stop the cherrypicking, as they all should be investigated. Let’s end this absurdity of trying to connect the Republican Party with the Ku Klux Klan, since it was a creation of the Democrat Party. And I seem to recall Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, infamously known as a grand wizard of the Klan, lauded over at his memorial by Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was Senator Byrd who was vehemently against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who supported its passage.
James Alex Fields will be punished to the full extent of the law, and I truly believe he should never see the light of day again But if we blindly do not realize there has been an atmosphere of hatred fomented in this nation, we are ignorant. Who even remembers the fella who attempted to gun down several Republican Members of Congress at a baseball practice, severely wounding Rep. Steve Scalise? The mainstream liberal progressive media pushed that aside rather quickly, and let us not forget MSNBC commentator, Joy Reid, who on her Sunday show actually sought to justify Rep. Scalise’s shooting because of his voting record. Now, where was the condemnation there, and why is it that Ms. Reid still has a position and a show on that network?
Fareed Zakaria praised the Central Park play depicting the “Caesar-like” stabbing to death of President Trump — last time I checked he was still on CNN. And how many Democrat elected officials were pressured into making statements of condemnation of one Kathy Griffith who notoriously held up the bloodied severed head resembling President Trump?
There’s plenty of guilt to be passed around here, but the progressive socialist left will sadly exploit this for all they can. They will horribly believe this will provide them some sort of electoral advantage. They fail to realize they’re just as complicit in what happened in Charlottesville. Let me ask that age-old rhetorical question: “if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there, does it make a sound?”
If we were to go back and ponder this incident and just let a small group of disaffected individuals hold a rally to protest the possible taking down of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, and no one had showed up…Instead a call went out and trouble, violence ensued. Or maybe, if we had courageous elected officials who would just say, those statues aren’t offending anyone; they’re part of American history, and they stay. Imagine that, would there even be a story, any rally, and violence?
What happened in Charlottesville must not be allowed to happen again. And that means we need to hold ANY group responsible that promotes violence. “What do we want, dead cops; when do we want them, now”…”Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon”…no more. Our streets aren’t the place for hoods and masks, such as Antifa wears, and their violence and destruction of property. Let’s call them all out, and not have this selective enforcement mentality rooted in partisan political hackery. If we don’t stop the blatant hypocrisy, which is truly the problem, then we’re sitting on a powder keg — which I believe some wish for.
I have an idea. If y’all want to fight, sign up in the U.S. military — if you meet the standards. There are plenty of folks who do indeed hate the United States. Channel your angst against them…not each other.
[Learn more about Allen West’s vision for this nation in his book Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Faith, Family and Freedom]
|421||Survey from OCOL||2018-04-21|
|419||New Action Plan - OCOL||2018-04-01|
|416||Message from NB, AB & ON||2018-02-27|
|415||Political Correctness - the new disease||2018-02-05|
|414||A New Threat To Canada||2018-01-26|
|413||Why are English-speaking Quebecers so badly treated?||2018-01-16|
|412||Duality Policy - what it means||2017-12-29|
|411||Bill 177 Being Mis-represented||2017-12-09|
|410||clf christmas message 2017||2017-12-02|
|408||Omnibus Bill 177||2017-11-24|
|407||More Good News||2017-11-12|
|405||Francophone Affairs - Full fledged ministry||2017-10-05|
|403||Petition to Set Aside Bill S-209||2017-08-26|
|402||Farewell to Jurgen Vollrath 08-19-17||2017-08-26|
|401||Bilingualism not growing in Ottawa||2017-08-05|
|400||Descrimination in Quebec||2017-08-03|
|399||Struggle for Human Rights in Canada By Allan C.||2017-07-26|
|397||Canada rewards Omar Khadr - why?||2017-07-10|
|396||Hurray!! Madeleine Meilleur bows out!!||2017-06-16|
|395||D-Day - A Victory To Remember||2017-06-07|
|394||Opposition to Madeleine Meilleur as Language Commissoner||2017-06-04|
The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.
This website has been visited 250042 times.