Canadians for Language Fairness

End the unfairness of official bilingualism. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Ronald Coleman's Book A Must Read

If you are interested in what the Charter is doing to make life in Canada even more difficult for the law-abiding taxpayers of this country, link to this CFRA July 15th show.

Rob opened the show with comments on Toronto’s bid for Mayor, Olivia Chow, who wanted a ban on hand guns. This evolved into a very interesting segment on the Charter. A very well-informed caller named Mark called in at about 22 mins. into the show & he impressed me so much with his knowledge about the Charter that I had to call to support him.

The show reminded of a message I'd sent out two years ago which featured the writings of Ret’d Col. Ron Coleman.

He wrote a book on P.E. Trudeau and in it he had a chapter on “Trudeau’s Charter”. Ron has written three books to date (see details below) on Canada & Quebec. The Armed Forces was the first place that Trudeau forced into complying with his agenda and many members of the Armed Forces are victims of this strategy. We have seen many adverse results of this policy where merit has been displaced by proficiency in a minority language and we have seen many examples where less-than-the-best qualified people have been put in command.

Ron’s writings will help educate those of us who are not acquainted with the history of this social engineering policy that is working against the interests of most Canadians. As more and more Canadians are affected by this failed policy, it is incumbent on us to continue our mission of educating them.

In 2012, I got a call from an employee of an airline who was very worried about Graham Fraser’s many attempts to force more Canadians to become proficient in French. She and all of us know that this is just a ploy to force the employment of French-speakers and force job-losses for more unilingual English-speakers. She said that she dared not complain because she might lose her job - she consulted her union as to what could be done but the union was very unhelpful. A long-time employee who had done her job well had to worry about taking time off (unpaid of course) to attend French lessons, knowing that at the end, she won’t be French “enough” because no one can become proficient in another, seldom heard or used language, in one year!!! Outrageous!!!

On that issue, I am glad to have good news to report. I received this message just a few weeks ago:

Finally some good news! In the second half of 2013 Air Canada conducted an extensive language survey, as required by the Treasury Board of Canada. The survey was done electronically at the time of passenger check-in and captured 70% of all Air Canada passengers. The results show that the demand on 30 out of the 78 bilingual routes operated by Jazz has dropped below the 5% significant threshold, and will therefore be removed from the list of bilingual routes (of course mostly in the west ). Effective June 01, 2014, there will be no routes designated French in the YYC or YVR bases. Since their bilingual obligations have changed dramatically Jazz will be reviewing the French training program. This should get me off the hook for taking French in the fall. Oh Happy Day!! And now too, our seniority will be as it should. This is such a relief for so many of us.


We need more people to get mad and fight against this abominable policy - don’t wait till it affects you directly to do something because, by then, it’ll be too late!!!

Kim McConnell

p.s. Please take the time to read “Trudeau’s Charter” by Ron Coleman as it contains information that is still relevant today. Ron mentioned the Magda Carta. Libertarian Party member, Andrew Philip, recorded Prof. John Robson in an address in 2011. Prof. Robson also believes firmly that our 1982 Constitution is a mess and advocates that it has to be changed.


Trudeau’s Charter - by Ron Coleman (emphasis are mine and these additions are from Keith)

Historically Canadian rights and freedoms have evolved in an ebb and flow depending on who was politically in charge at the time. They have emerged from five main sources, Native, English, French, American, and eventually Canadian. I am most concerned with the latest creation that essentially withdrew more than it gave and what and who it was given to. Trudeau deceived Canadians and advanced socialism in this country while inserting options that grossly favoured Quebec. Canadians, and particularly Canadian Premiers, were duped, once again, by Trudeau and Lévesque into thinking that Quebec was wronged when the opposite was true.

North American first rights emerged from the Iroquois League comprised initially of five tribes, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca Nations. Each tribe has its own tribal laws, a situation that continues today. Next came the Europeans whose rights trace back to the Magna Carta in England of 1215, which largely guaranteed property rights and freedoms of the individual against the Lords, Nobles, Earls, etc., and the crown. In America, the Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (1787) which were adopted in 1791. They served to protect natural rights of liberty and property as well as guaranteeing certain personal freedoms. In France the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of man and of the Citizen, influenced by the American Declaration of Independence, mainly granted the freedom of expression, thought, association, liberty, security and the protection of private property. The British North America Act followed shortly by the Quebec Act and Indian Act established the rights and freedoms until the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed on 10 December 1948 and guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Discrimination was prevented on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. Article 17 specifically states that “everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” There are a total of 30 articles dealing with other specific rights in the document. The Canadian Bill of Rights was assented to on 08 October, 1960 and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. Individuals had the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property. Other rights were also granted with respect to equality before the law, religion, speech, assembly and association, and freedom of the press. Finally, in Canada, the Constitution Act of 1982, contained Part 1, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 2, Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, Part 3, Equalization and Regional Disparities, Part 4, Constitutional Conference, and Part 5, Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada.

Trudeau took it upon himself to repatriate the Constitution from the UK and include the Charter. There was no requirement to do so nor any demands from the people to do so. Moreover, since there was no amending formula all he had to do was ask the mother Parliament in the UK to send it along. Hence, he did not need the Premier’s permission or assent and he hardly bothered to get it. Yes, there were some negotiations but that was just for show. The key point is that the people didn’t get a chance to see what he had planned. It would appear that since the Premiers had no approving authority then they didn’t bother to study or reflect on it to most Canadian’s detriment. Either the Premiers were not smart enough to see the deception or colluded in it. In any event, we the people were ignored and it is supposedly our constitution. Just in passing, don’t you think it would have been appropriate that in instituting an amending formula they might have followed it?  In any event, only Trudeau, Chrétien, Ouellet, and the Queen signed it which negates the often raised issue of Quebec not signing; there was no signing by the Premiers; nor did Trudeau need their approval. In short, Trudeau’s method was downright undemocratic and heavy handed similar to his overreaction to the FLQ. Nonetheless, since its introduction Quebec has steadfastly adhered to its provisions except for language training. Indeed, they have yet to refuse an equalization payment so by convention they are in.

It is also interesting to note that Quebec, the province (and culture) that benefit the most from this repatriated constitution is the province that is -- to this day -- the most adamant that they are not bound by it despite the acceptance of the equalization payments as they traditionally (as with the concept of whether they haev a right to separate or not) make their own rules as they believe they are indeed a sovereign nation already.

The Charter elevated the status of Quebec in many ways and removed certain rights that had hitherto been enjoyed by Canadians. He bullied the Premiers and failed to get the authority of the people in a referendum largely because he feared that the people would reject it. Moreover, he did not get the approval of all Premiers, notably Quebec’s, although that would not prevent him from proceeding nor Quebec from complying in the following years. Indeed, one Premier at the time, Sterling Lyon of Manitoba, said in retrospect essentially, that if he had known the consequences the Charter would have on Canada he would have not supported it. I believe that other Premiers would likely feel the same but would fear to utter it. In short, Trudeau simply ignored all resistance and with his majority government, largely supported by Quebec and Ontario ministers, carried on. This dictatorial act changed the very spirit of Canada and trampled on certain rights that were previously enjoyed by Canadians.

And this, is the biggest problem facing us now.  The entrenchment is so deep that there is fear to mention anything after the fact.  There are plenty of examples (both political and personal) of what can happen if one does mention anything.

So what changed and why?  First, the charter is full of vague language which must be interpreted by someone and that has fallen to the courts. For example, in the very first paragraph, the term “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”! The document is riddled with such language as will be demonstrated when each item is discussed. Nevertheless, such language allows for residual legislation and laws to be developed by bureaucracies and the legal system which may never have been contemplated by the government(s) at the time they were contemplating it. For example, B & B!

Yes and, as we all are so painfully aware.  Those "laws" and "residual legislation" are now being decided by mostly a body of people with French background as those are the only people (because of the stringent bilingual requirements forced upon this system) who qualify to have those positions.

What a long sighted plan Trudeau had.  Chess aficionados must be envious, and Trudeau himself must be laughing in his grave at how well things are turning out.

Para 2 states that “everyone has the following freedoms:’ and then lists them. Did they really mean everyone or did they mean every Canadian? Subsequently in a legal case brought by a non citizen, this “everyone” also seen in para 7, 8, 9, and 10 was judged to mean everyone. When the presiding judge asked that specific question of the Dept. of Justice lawyer he responded in the affirmative. Hence, anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil has the rights guaranteed by the charter. It is difficult to see that this was the intention and if it wasn’t then it should be changed.

The real question now is, where were all the intelligent "English background" constitutional lawyers at that time who could have / should have stepped forward to warn Canadians of all this vague language that even i can now see as being totally opposite of that which one should see in a legal document of that supposed stature.

Affirmative action programs were introduced insofar as socially or economically disadvantaged individuals based on the rate of employment or more correctly unemployment compared to the overall rate of unemployment in Canada. Affirmative action programs benefit a certain group of people and by doing so is discriminatory. In short, if I assist Peter it is to the detriment of Paul.

Affirmative action programs were introduced insofar as socially or economically disadvantaged individuals based on the rate of employment or more correctly unemployment compared to the overall rate of unemployment in Canada. Affirmative action programs benefit a certain group of people and by doing so is discriminatory. In short, if I assist Peter it is to the detriment of Paul.

Indeed, under equality rights in para 15, we are not allowed to discriminate under certain circumstances such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Yet subsection (2) allows government(s) to do so. So discrimination is now a Canadian value depending on a government’s decision. Moreover, Trudeau left language out of the mix intentionally although it is covered under the UN Charter (see copy below), so that French and Francophones could benefit under the language laws, and they have dramatically and continue to today. This meant that discrimination was OK on the basis of language and made the “Official Languages Act” an open season for discrimination within the Public Service, Military and RCMP. It continues today even though the government of the day insists that merit is the governing principle. Nonsense!

They're trying despite the immense pressure against them.

At least we now have a supreme court judge that is unilingual English, an Auditor general that is unilingual English, the term "Royal" re added to the forces BRAND (which annoys the French immensely), shop building contracts that were given to mostly 8 English provinces and companies, French themed art work replaced in many government buildings with art more representative of the British or English side of things.

You can bet that no Liberal, NDP or other parties would have done such things.  Though small on the grand scale, they are SOMETHING.

The use of French and the provision of services in French has flourished under the Language provisions of the Charter whereby the bureaucracy has determined what the vague terms “significant demand” and “due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.” Indeed the government even subsidizes groups that want services even though their numbers are miniscule. As you might expect, significant demand has been liberally interpreted to the advantage of Francophones.

Once again i am compelled to say...

What a long sighted plan Trudeau had.  Chess aficionados must be envious, and Trudeau himself must be laughing in his grave at how well things are turning out.

Under the provisions for minority language educational rights both languages are protected and instruction is provided where numbers are “sufficient to warrant” them. Hence, across Canada both languages of instruction are generally provided except in Quebec. There instruction in English is severely restricted despite the Charter. This is due to the “notwithstanding” clause in para 33 (1), which Trudeau wanted to ensure that Quebec could opt out of any legislation that they did not want to support. It is like the “get out of jail and pick up $200 card in monopoly.  Therefore, once again Canadians are discriminated against on the basis of language in Quebec but nowhere else.

PLUS, even those areas that are mandated to provide language rights for people in the province of Quebec ie: health services and federal government bureaus including the courts are provided in a "lip service" fashion that is laughable.  Imagine the verdict from a court where an English speaker is demanding the court (which already views the English as a nuisance) provide their trial in English and being adamant about that, yeah right !!

Importantly however, the federal government transfers monies to the Provinces for education, among other things, but Quebec has not been penalized for not providing English language training as required by the Charter. That provision comes under para 40.

Trudeau also introduced “multiculturalism” into the Charter even though Canada consists of three cultures historically, Native, French, and English. This has led the way to support the idea that Canada is more of a mosaic than a melting pot as is the case in the U.S. Trudeau was extremely anti-US and took every opportunity to slight that nation. Today this issue, multiculturalism is the subject of much debate as other cultures migrate to Canada and expect to get support for their groups from government(s). The current government has even gone so far as to describe Quebec as “a nation within a unified Canada.” And so it goes on! My personal view is that if we ever expect to unify this country we should do so by reinforcing our Canadian nature, not our hyphenated Canadianism which is currently the fad. We had trouble describing Canadianism before the charter and now it is near impossible.

So sadly true.

In para 35.1 (2) Trudeau enshrined equalization into the constitution in order to ensure that Quebec and the Maritimes would always be able to extract taxes from the citizens of other provinces to those who were less fortunate or ambitious and hopefully vote liberal, and they have. You will remember that Quebec, the Maritimes, and Newfoundland and Labrador, were heavy liberal supporters in the federal parliament. Indeed, Quebec ministers controlled the federal government along with Trudeau. Quebec, for example, had always been a have-not province and currently takes approximately half of the equalization pot this year estimated to be $14.8 billion. Yet, Quebec provides some services at much lower costs than other provinces. Additionally, some of her resources, hydro electric, are provided at reduced rates for Quebecers while not having to claim this in the equalization formula. However, the wording is so vague that it may not stand up under a court challenge or when the negotiations on it resume in 2014. Clearly, it is a matter of subsidizing failure on the part of most have-not provinces by suggesting that provincial welfare will improve their economic performance! It hasn’t happened!  One exception, NL has dug its way out of the welfare rut but mainly due to its oil production. Indeed, equalization, according to the Fraser Institute, a non-political think tank, embodies four negative realities: first, have-not provinces enjoy more generous public services than haves; second, it is a transfer of wealth from high-cost provinces to low-cost ones; third, it weakens the economies of have-not provinces; and, it is not likely enforceable in court. This is due to the vague language such as “committed to the principle”, and “reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.”

If one looks at the map it is quite clear how the push towards total Frenchification of Canada is happening.  the "CHUNK" of land east from Montreal is pegged for the first assimilation which is happening right now.  The Montreal area is practically done and the New Brunswick area is practically done with it's version of bill 101 called Z-22.  Then it's just a matter of squeezing everything from both sides.

Likely why it is beneficial to have the biggest concentration of funds going to this part of Canada.

The most important change in the Constitution was the removal of property rights even though they are included in all the other documents listed and have been a mainstay since the Magna Carta.  As a socialist, Trudeau seemed to favour communism, since his trips abroad to Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union received the most fanfare and media hype. Also, his formal education was under noted socialist and communist professors at various elite schools here and abroad. Naturally, he removed property rights since in his view the individual came after the state, not before. This change now allows the state or Province to appropriate land or other properties without consideration of the individual. For example, in Ontario you could have your land appropriated for a windmill or solar array without recourse. If you have minerals, oil, natural gas or any other commodity in or under your land it will be appropriated. Furthermore, you may not be compensated. Martin balanced the budget back in 1994 in part by stealing 31 billion from the surplus of PS, RCMP, and military pension plan. He also stole 51 billion from the EI surplus. The fact that the public really believes he was a financial wizard belies the reality that he was nothing but creative and used the lack of property rights to make the case. The pension surplus is still in the courts but will be lost just as the WW I case of pensioner payments was lost in the courts and for the same reason.

Take the case of Vancouver that appropriated a CPR right of way in order to create a park without compensating the company. This “theft by regulation” is dealt with in a book by Mark Milke entitled “Barbarians at the Garden City.  Trudeau claimed that he could not get the approval of the return of the Constitution and the Charter by NDP Premiers unless he removed property rights from the document. No doubt that those Premiers wanted this but Trudeau was disingenuous about the whole matter. He could not have cared less what the NDP Premiers wanted but since it fit perfectly with his socialist principles he acquiesced.

Finally, we come to the amending formula which essentially gives Ontario and Quebec a veto. This is because you must have approval of two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50% of the population. You can do the sums but without one or both of these provinces virtually no amendment would have a chance. Moreover, even if an amendment were passed the legislative assembly of any Province could thwart it if a mere majority of its members expressed dissent. In that case the amendment would not apply to that Province. Once again, a built-in escape mechanism for Quebec, or any other Province for that matter, except we all know who dissents in this country.

Since Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution two attempts have been made to amend it and both in Quebec’s favour. Instead of attempting to correct the obvious flaws it was more of an ego trip. One might also suspect that it was PM Mulroney’s attempt to eclipse Trudeau by improving the status of Quebec. You can look into both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord to see the changes proposed but unlike Trudeau, Mulroney could not ignore the amending formula. In the first instance an MPP in Manitoba, Elijah Harper denied unanimous approval which was required and Premier Clyde Wells refused to bring the matter to a vote letting the time lapse thereby denying approval. In the second case a referendum was held and six of ten Provinces rejected it along with one Territory; Quebec who stood to gain the most was one of the rejecting Provinces and their turnout was a whopping 83% the highest of all jurisdictions. Trudeau, more worried about his legacy was vehemently opposed to both attempts to amend his constitution and flooded the media with dissenting columns and interviews. There can be little doubt that he influenced the vote. It should be noted however, that all federal political parties, except Reform, were in support of the Accord which demonstrates how out of touch MPs were and are with their constituents or how little trust the people should have in their political elite. In any event, on both these occasions the people won.

These quoted voting numbers and the pronounced FACT that MP's are out of touch (as are many Canadians) provides a scary insight into whether Canada will finally wake up and decide that Quebec (the province) is acting too much like a separate country (their own immigration policy, policing, courts, and 26 worldwide embassies to boot) no longer deserves the funds (transfer payments) that they receive from the ROC as if they are a province and realize it is time to hold a vote to let them become what they ultimately want anyways - a separate country.  Let us hope that people are not too enamored with the old warn out idea that Canada is better off with the province of Quebec as part of Canada when in fact the French powers that be are only a drain that already believe and act like they are independent only with OUR MONEY as an extra bonus.

In conclusion, we should hope that the next attempt, and there needs to be one to right the wrongs therein, puts approval back in the hands of the people since it is far too important a matter to leave in the hands of politicians; look what happened the last time only politicians were involved. Trudeau is gone but his charter continues to enslave us to the egregious benefit of Quebec and provincial welfare. Ron Coleman, Col (retired)

Kim’s comments: P.E. Trudeau may be gone but his off-spring, Justin Trudeau, has vowed to carry on his father’s legacy and unfortunately, there are enough uninformed Canadians of the Socialist persuasion who are still enamoured of the Charter and who would fight tooth & nail to preserve it. Also unfortunately for us, the 1982 Constitution gave the courts the last say on how the Charter is to be interpreted. We have seen from the various cases where the courts have played havoc with our traditional Canadian values - more on that in a later message.


Resumé - Ron Coleman, Col, RCAF/CF (Ret) CD2, BComm Col (ret)

Ron Coleman joined the RCAF in 1963 after graduating from Grade 13 in Iroquois, ON.

He received his pilot wings in Apr 1965 at Gimli, MB, and returned there to instruct on T-33s after Flight Instructor School in Portage-la-Prarie, MB. He was instructing at 19 and at 21 received his A1 instructors category (highest category awarded and to very few). In 1968 he attended the Sabre Transition Unit in Chatham, NB and later moved to Cold Lake, AB, for the CF-104 R training.  He married his first and current wife, Linda, in Feb 69 and moved to Lahr, West Germany on 439 Sqn.

As part of the Trudeau cuts in 1970 Ron moved to Laredo, TX, USA to instruct on the T-37. He was awarded his Master of Instructor category in the USAF. Three years later he was transferred to NDHQ where he spent two years working in the “Conditions of Service” Directorate.  In 1975 he was transferred to UNTSO in Damascus as a military observer.

Upon return to Canada, Ron went through the CF101 OTU in Bagotville, PQ, and then on to 409 Sqn in Comox, BC. While there he flew Hawk One in the Airshow circuit in 1978 as #4 and the next year led the team. In 1979 he was selected to attend Royal Military College under the University Training Plan Officer plan to complete his university degree. During his summers there he worked in Goose Bay as the operations officer for the German flying program.  Upon graduation he attended French training (1 yr) and then CFCSC in Toronto.

In 1983 he was assigned to 880 Sqn in Summerside, PEI, on the Tracker aircraft.  In 1985 he left the Regular Force and joined the Air Reserve in order to Command 420 Sqn, also at Summerside. After two years in which he brought the squadron to full operational status he moved to Ottawa in the Air Reserve Directorate as deputy where he was the project director for the KC-130 aircraft. Shortly thereafter he took up employment with the Transportation Safety Board. He worked there for the following ten years as and investigator and manager primarily in the international operations area.  While living in Ottawa he attended night school at Carleton U working on a Master’s Degree in Public Administration.

While employed with the TSB he worked in NDHQ as a reservist as the Air Reserve Group Flight Safety Officer, also in the Directorate Reserves as the Air Reserve Desk Officer, and later as the Deputy Air Reserve Commander.  He retired from the TSB in 1998 and the military in 1999. Since then he has been writing (3 books and two more in the works), working with the Air Force Association of Canada Wing in Smiths Falls where he is currently President, and trying to work his golf handicap into the single figures.  He and Linda live on Bass Lake, near Rideau Ferry. They have two sons and two grandchildren. He is a member of the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame. He has recently agreed to serve as the financial advisor to the President of the Air Force Association of Canada.


Canada is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 2 - UN Charter

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty

The Canadian Charter 15. (1)

  • Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

Note: “language” is missing from the Canadian Charter


The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.

This website has been visited 268760 times.