Canadians for Language Fairness

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

John Ivison: Canada on path to 'open hostility' between anglophones and francophones, former judge argues

Editorial

Judge's Article or alternate link rebalancing_bilingualism.pdf

Judge's Interview

Read More


548

17 August 2022

Proportion of French Speakers Declines

Widely reported in media outlets, the statistics show that the proportion of French speakers is in decline.

"the percentage of Canadians who speak predominantly French at home fell to 19.2 percent in 2021 from 20 percent in 2016"

This salient headline draws attention and concern from certain audiences. In actual fact, the number of people speaking French at home increased. It just didn't increase as much as other languages. The decline is simply a mathematical consequence. If every group doesn't grow at the exact same percent, then there's going to be a second place. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

"It found more than three in four Canadians report English as their first official language, a figure that’s increased over the five-year period."

This also shouldn't surprise anyone. The wildcard of immigration would logically bring additional people already inclined towards learning the most used language in the world. It shouldn't be anything to get upset about, but the way the statistics are presented, it conveys an impression that we ought to be up in arms. It's an offense to let the proportion of french decline! We are failing in our duty to protect and promote the French language! Let's think about this for a moment... If the proportion of French can not be allowed to decline, then it can only remain constant or increase. Remaining constant would be an impractial exercise in social engineering, and only increasing has the eventual conclusion of being 100% francophone. It might be slow, but it would be an eventual march into a new French empire. It's not a new concept either. Certain audiences would be thrilled at that outcome. To the majority of Canadians, it suggests the eventual elimination of their own language and culture.

If not people born here affecting demographics, that just leaves immigration. In order for the proportions resulting from immigration to have no net effect, we would have to find enough people from the rest of the world intent on keeping French as their first official language. Sorry to say but the global demographics don't make that an easy prospect, and in order to achieve it, we would have to disproportionately favour immigration from particular regions of the world. Don't be surprised if you look into this and find that this bias is actually what's happening. It hardly seems fair to people looking to come here from other parts of the world.

"A recent study by the Institut du Québec found that while non-permanent residents represented nine percent of international immigration to the province from 2012 to 2016, that number had climbed to 64 percent by 2019."

From 9% to 64%. If the statistics are causing people concern, perhaps they should re-think who controls their immigration policy. Alternatively, if these statistics are being significantly skewed by temporary residents, perhaps the statistics ought to be discarded as unreliable noise as it pertains to demographic trends. Nevermind how effective they've been at expelling incentivizing about 300,000 others.

"Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced in 2019 its plan to boost francophone immigration to areas in Canada outside of Quebec. It’s hoping to increase the share of francophone immigrants to 4.4 percent by 2023."

Really? Why? No really. Out with it. Why care so much about this? What moral authority does IRCC have to want to influence the language of people and where they choose to settle. What business is it of theirs what someone does with their life after they come here? That they have this intention suggests a deeper purpose for which the general public deserves to have transparency and oversight. Departments owe their actions to mandates subject to parliamentary and public review. It's predictable that this would come back as "an obligation to protect and promote", blah blah blah. Except this protection isn't applied equally inside Quebec, and that's where they fail their mandate, and that's where they ought to lose the authority to apply it at all.

"The census release comes after Quebec introduced a new language law this year that restricts access to government services in English. In June, Quebec Premier François Legault drew criticism for sounding the alarm over a decline in the number of people who speak French at home."

Interestingly their own media declares exactly the opposite. The numbers are increasing.

Read More


546

21 June 2021

Valuable background on the OLA

Since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we have increasingly gone off the rails of having any semblance of representative government beginning with his 1969 Official Languages Act which he later enshrined in the 1982 Canadian constitution that also included a "Charter" that would define special privileges for special demographics based on ascribed (not earned) criteria.  Pierre began the trend of identity politics based on tribal affiliation (an ascribed criterion) which ran completely against the traditional Canadian constitution that addressed the ideal of equality before the law as a universal goal.  Instead, Pierre set aside the idea of equality for all before the law and turned the tables in favour of equity which meant a deliberate discrimination against a large swath of the Canadian population so that a small (language) minority could realize the same economic outcomes without having an earned merit for it. The institution that makes this discrimination "work" so that it appears as legitimate are the human resources and personnel departments that administer the language proficiency tests to determine who can pass and who fails these language thresholds.  This has worked miraculously well for the francophone population both within and outside Quebec seeking well-paid employment with the federal government insofar as almost all Canadian francophones grow up knowing both English and French. In short, a francophone has an inherent advantage over an English speaking applicant as is amply demonstrated with a growing francophone-dominated federal public service.

However, it has now been more than 52 years since the introduction of the Official Languages Act and its institutional handmaiden, Official Bilingualism, and, although the anticipated results have seen dramatic change in the federal public service, these same results are not deemed enough to satisfy those who cling to the idea of a "victory" for the French/francophone population in Canada who desire nothing short of a complete reversal of the outcome of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham of 1759 where the British forces defeated the French and Canada became an English speaking nation.  The French language "zealots" today want nothing but for Canada to be turned into a new French empire.  And it is this "drive" for French "supremacy" that under-girds the proposed federal Bill C-32 and to a lessor extent, Quebec's Bill 96.  Whereas the Official Languages Act was mostly limited in its application to the federal government and its Senate and House of Commons, Bill C-32 proposes to "modernize" the Act to help increase its reach and application more deeply into Canadian society.  Whereas the Quebec Bill 96 is designed, prima facie, to further "protect" the French language/culture inside Quebec by increasingly limiting access to English-language facilities as well as increasingly aggravating employment opportunities for the 10% of the Quebec population whose mother tongue is English, the federal Bill C-32 is designed to further the cause - beyond the borders of Quebec - of French language use and enforcement as widely as possible throughout the land. 

Given the vast reach of the federal government throughout the nation of Canada and its destructive rampage through Canadian federalism that has now mostly destroyed provincial jurisdictions, Bill C-32 is draconian indeed.  Bill C-32 would now more openly compel provinces (that have become hopelessly dependent on the federal teat) to comply with the provisions of  this proposed Bill.  And not only provincial governments but any commercial enterprise that has any dealings directly or indirectly with the federal government.  As such, Bill C-32, by proposing to "modernize" the Official Languages Act, is also intended to draw increasing powers unto the federal, centralized government whose hand is always on the printing press.  A brief glance at the enforcement provisions of the proposed Bill C-32 should send shivers down the spines of all Canadians who still believe their freedoms and prosperity are guaranteed in law.  Guess again.  The Canadian constitution and its deeply flawed Charter now guarantee that only one of the tribes identified as having an "official language" will win this tribal war of identity politics.  Far from better uniting a nation of Two Solitudes, C-32 will only deepen and exacerbate this divide to the point of an inevitable breakup.

In the words of the late Lord Acton, "Constitutions are written not to enshrine those in power but to prevent that from happening."  But not in Canada.

-Al Speyers


Disclaimer - Views, information or opinions, expressed or implied, are those of the user / writer / individual / contributor and may not necessarily represent views of Canadians for Language Fairness or Directors.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-under-justin-trudeau-official-bilingualism-as-we-know-it-is-over/

Under Justin Trudeau, official bilingualism as we know it is over

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO UPDATED JUNE 19, 2021

611 COMMENTS

SHARE

Is official bilingualism dead?

That “emblem of Canadian identity,” as the Trudeau government says in a white paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act released earlier this year, has been emblazoned on the country since 1969, when the act was first passed by an earlier Trudeau government.

On Tuesday, when the government tabled Bill C-32, its long-promised update to the Official Languages Act, that era appeared to be history.

Where the act was originally about ensuring that Parliament and the federal civil service operated in both official languages, and about protecting linguistic minorities – English in Quebec, French outside Quebec – the new Trudeau government is transforming it into its own version of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, a.k.a. Bill 101.

Under Bill 32, the Official Languages Act would recognize that Bill 101 “provides that French is the official language of Quebec.”

The amended law would require federally chartered businesses in Quebec to either submit to Bill 101 rules on the use of French in workplaces, or to equivalent rules added to the Official Languages Act.

It would require that all Supreme Court nominees be bilingual – a move being done at the same time that the Quebec government, under its proposed language law update, Bill 96, is doing away with the requirement that, for the sake of the constitutional right to have cases heard in either official language, some provincially appointed judges be bilingual.

It would oblige the immigration department to recruit more French-language teachers to meet the demand for French immersion courses across Canada, and for Ottawa to work with provinces to increase the availability of those courses. And it would increase immigration from French-speaking countries into the rest of Canada.

Bill 32 makes reference to supporting Indigenous languages and Quebec’s anglophone minority. But those are not the government’s priorities. Not at all.

“The existence of a francophone majority in Quebec, with a future in which French is assured, is not only a legitimate objective, but also a fundamental premise of the federal official languages regime,” the government says.

Link to the article to read the rest.

CLF BoD

 

Read More


523

21 June 2021

Bill C-32 & Quebec's Bill 96

A very worried reader has sent this to his MPP, MP and Erin O'Toole.

There are so many points in this bill that one letter would be needed for each, but attention spans are short in government - haha.

For example, 2(3) talks of French immigration only.

2(5) will affect private business operating in and with Quebec

To Member of Parliament 

Please add real discussions and debates towards Bill C 32. I am sure your team could actually provide information for a true debate.

I take offense firstly to a legal term, “substantive equality”, in pursuing the dream of equality. After 50 years of the Official Languages Act, and other regulations and policies, we have never approached 20% bilingual, so a more invasive law should not be the way forward. Certainly, not in collaboration with Quebec’s recent Bill 96. 

Forcing interprovincial truck drivers and thousands of others under federal regulation to use French is distressing. Much like current French designations for jobs (let alone top courts), this will further isolate, demoralize and limit both people and hope for a future. 

When we hear "language police" we think of “Pastagate” in Quebec, or not being served 7UP on Air Canada. We do not need language police across Canada waiting for someone to say “bonjour hi”.  An expanded Language Commissioner office with bite will provide many such media field days.

The survey and cross country tour leading up to this Bill provided poor optics for non-French speakers. Limiting attendees to town halls by invitation by a Francophone association, usually dependent on government funding, is a death call to English rights.

I am not going line by line here, but there are so many changes and the wording to effect change, too much change.

Overall, this updating of the OLA is leaning heavily towards promoting French not English.  Please vote NO to this document.


Message to all our readers

Everyone, it is time to contact MP's, MPP's, the media and everyone you know. 

Federal

MP - https://www.ourcommons.ca/en/contact-us

 

Provincial

Ontario - https://www.ola.org/en/get-involved/contact-mpp

Alberta - https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly

Saskatchewan - https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/mlas/mla-contact-information/

BC - https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members

NB - https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/contacts/MLAReport.html

Nova Scotia - https://nslegislature.ca/members/profiles/contact

 

Reason - Bill C 32

https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11420727

House Government Bill

43rd Parliament, 2nd Session

September 23, 2020 - Present

Text of the Bill

Latest Publication

All Published Versions

C-32

Navigate Bills

Previous Bill (sequential)Next Bill (sequential)

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Short Title

An Act for the Substantive Equality of French and English and the Strengthening of the Official Languages Act

Sponsor

Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages

Last Stage Completed

Introduction and First Reading in the House of Commons (2021-06-15)

Progress: Introduction and First Reading in the House of Commons

 

Status of the Bill

Status of the Bill

Additional Information

  • Speaker’s Rulings and Statements
  • Major Speeches at Second Reading
  • Similar Bills Introduced in Previous Sessions
  • Recorded Votes
  • Coming into Force

About this Bill

Show Details   Hide Details

  • House of Commons

Read More


522

5 Ways Bill C-13 Will Harm Canadians

Justin Trudeau is revising the Official Languages Act. His Bill C-13 will enforce bilingualism in some parts of Canada, outside Quebec, starting in 2 years. Fewer job opportunities for unilingual Canadians will be among the adverse consequences. This is the thin edge of the wedge! Submit your COMMENTS to the OLA committee until Aug 31, 2022. Here is a sample comment, for inspiration. Feel free to email this to whoever you like, whether as-is or modified. 

To: The Official Languages Committee

cc: Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Pierre Poilievre, and Leslyn Lewis

Consultations_LO-OL_Consultations@pch.gc.ca; justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca; Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca; pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca; leslyn.lewis@parl.gc.ca;

 

Before you pass Bill C-13, please consider the following five ways in which it will harm Canadians:

 

ONE: Bill C-13 will require Supreme Court nominees to be bilingual. This is a bad idea. Bilingualism is not an essential skill for Supreme Court judges, so it should not be required. After all, court documents can easily be translated. Therefore, a unilingual judge can perform just as well as a bilingual judge. Hence, requiring Supreme Court nominees to be bilingual would serve no useful purpose for Canadians. 

However, this requirement is not just useless; it will also be downright harmful, at times. That is, it will sometimes block the best judges from getting appointed to the Supreme Court, for the sole reason that they are not bilingual. Consequently, less qualified judges will be nominated instead, just because they are bilingual. That will harm all Canadians, without providing any benefit whatsoever. 

Canadians don't care what languages the Supreme Court judges speak; rather, we care whether the judges are capable of making fair, sensible decisions. We want whichever judges are the most competent, moral, and courageous. Whether any particular judge is unilingual or bilingual is irrelevant.  

Therefore, please amend Bill C-13 so that Supreme Court nominees will not be required to be bilingual

 

TWO: Bill C-13 will give tyrannical new powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. In effect, the Commissioner’s office will function as the national language police. Their job will be to bully and intimidate Canadians into compliance. Their punitive micro-management of anglophone Canadians will provoke resentment against francophones nationwide. 

A better approach would be to: 

  • Help anglophones learn French. 
  • Praise and reward people and businesses for using French. 
  • Rely on companies’ own profit motive and goodwill to accommodate the French language needs of their customers and employees. 

Therefore, please amend Bill C-13 to remove the punitive, tyrannical new powers granted to the Commissioner, and instead adopt a more encouraging approach. 

 

THREE: Bill C-13 will enforce French unilingualism within Quebec, while enforcing bilingualism outside of Quebec. This double standard will provoke resentment against francophones, and further divide Canadians against each other. 

 

FOUR: Bill C-13 will initially require as much as $240,000,000 in private compliance costs, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, about $20 million annually will be needed, just to maintain compliance. Taxpayers, investors, and consumers will resent this unnecessary expense.

 

FIVE: For decades now, the federal government has preferred to hire employees who are bilingual, even for jobs where bilingualism is irrelevant. This policy has discriminated against some of the best-qualified Canadians, just because they are not bilingual. This has negatively impacted the quality of government service for all Canadians, regardless of their native language.  

Furthermore, it is difficult for anglophones to learn French well enough to qualify for government jobs. Canadian public schools seem incapable of teaching French well enough. In contrast, francophones tend to be naturally bilingual, because they are surrounded by spoken and written English every day. This has given francophones an advantage when competing for government positions. As a result, most senior federal government jobs are now held by francophones, not necessarily because they are more competent, but because they are bilingual. 

Despite this enormous privilege, some francophones think of themselves as victims of linguistic injustice. One man in particular has repeatedly sued airlines and airports for trivial language infractions that never caused him any real harm. Unfortunately, such spiteful behavior results in increased resentment against all francophones.  

Resentful behavior like this is inspired by Canada’s resentful language laws. Such resentful laws have created the false impression that francophones are oppressed and need to be coddled. Bill C-13 is yet another such resentful language law. Like its predecessors, it will inevitably cause more harm than good. 

 

In summary, Bill C-13 is divisive, expensive, and counterproductive. It will provoke resentment against francophones nationwide. Yet this bill offers no significant benefits. Therefore, Bill C-13 should be scrapped. 

Thank you.

 

Relevant links:

The email address for the Official Languages Committee, until Aug 31, 2022:

Consultations_LO-OL_Consultations@pch.gc.ca

The Committee's web page, which contains a link to a biased questionnaire that you can submit, but only until Aug 31:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/consultation-official-languages-2022.html

 

Editorials:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/new-federal-language-laws-could-cost-240m-in-compliance-costs-pbo-report 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/official-languages-violations-st-johns-edmonton-airport-1.6432342 

https://montrealgazette.com/news/national/law-to-protect-french-in-canada-aims-for-more-francophone-immigrants 

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-federal-official-languages-bill-is-cause-for-alarm 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-the-official-languages-act-is-now-the-bill-101-of-canada/ 

In case you can't access the above editorial, the archive is here: https://archive.ph/Xcv3L 

 

Read More


547

09 September 2021

Bill C-32 - To modernize the OLA

An excellent article by Lee Harding of the Epoch Times

https://www.theepochtimes.com/where-the-constitution-fits-in-amid-pandemic-mandates_3970204.html?utm_campaign=socialshare_email 

CANADA

Where the Constitution Fits In Amid Pandemic Mandates

By Lee Harding

September 2, 2021 Updated: September 2, 2021

News Analysis

The restrictions on worship and assembly during the pandemic, followed more recently by the potential denial of employment for unvaccinated people, have left some Canadians wondering how such things could take place given Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It’s in those moments where the individual is standing up against the state, and is against the mob … where a constitutional guarantee is so important, because it’s supposed to protect the individual in those circumstances,” Derek James, an Alberta lawyer who has worked on constitutional issues, said in an interview.

Ironically, the Charter’s guarantee of such rights in Section 1 also includes the loophole that can suspend them. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” it reads.

The “fundamental freedoms” outlined in Section 2 of the Charter include “(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” Yet, public health orders, the censorship of doctors and media that contest the COVID-19 narrative, and increasing coercion to receive a COVID-19 vaccine suggest that these freedoms are not so fundamental to those in authority.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has tried to challenge the constitutionality of these public health orders but has had limited success. In one example, following a legal challenge by the Justice Centre, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck down that province’s ban on outdoor protests, yet refused to do the same on the prohibition of in-person religious gatherings.

Rights and ‘Modern Liberal’ Values

Author and academic William Gairdner dedicated a chapter of his book “The Trouble With Canada … Still” to explaining why then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 Charter of Rights ran contrary to the common-law tradition that Canada inherited. Gairdner told The Epoch Times that this facilitated a “juridical war for control over the moral and ideological nature of our union.”

“You can say the country … got converted, mostly by judges of the same persuasion: very progressive, very modern liberal as opposed to classical liberal,” said Gairdner, who is also an Epoch Times contributor.

“So they have remade the country, and that’s what Pierre Trudeau wanted. He thought that the law should come from intelligent judges who understand the legal principles, and not from common law and the doings of the ordinary people who go to court to insist on their rights.”

In Gairdner’s view, Pierre Trudeau even defied provincial jurisdictions outlined in Canada’s constitutional federalism by using federal taxation levers to coerce provinces into federally dictated policies.

“Medical care is supposed to be a provincial right—it still says so in our BNA [British North America] Act. But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came along and the federal government got interested in equalizing social benefits and medical benefits for every Canadian,” he said.

For the rest of this article, link to:  https://www.theepochtimes.com/where-the-constitution-fits-in-amid-pandemic-mandates_3970204.html?utm_campaign=socialshare_email 


Comments from A. Speyers:

Great article regarding Pierre Trudeau's 1982 Constitution by Lee Harding in his September 2/21 piece in the Epoch Times.  But note that, although we like to believe we are "born free" this 1982 Constitution/Charter does not recognize that inherent human freedom in Canada - unlike the American Constitution.  In Canada human freedom is a "gift" (if you could call it that) granted from the State and is not absolutely guaranteed as we now are experiencing with massive state interference in our lives on the premise there is a pathogen "out there" that can presumably hurt people. 

And neither does this 1982 Charter "of rights and freedoms" guarantee the sanctity of private property which is suppose to be a cornerstone feature of free markets with its access to capital.  If full and free access to one's property is not guaranteed on what basis would anyone invest if access can be denied on a governmental whim? Or, worse, property, in whatever form deemed accessible, can be arbitrarily confiscated, such as bank accounts?  (The federal Expropriations Act already has these unfettered powers). That threat has already been made by Mr Justin who said that mRNA un-vaxxed people could see their bank accounts frozen.  Ah, now we are beginning to see more of the real face of tyranny coming into focus.

Note as well that Pierre Trudeau was handed a "gift" when he set about creating a new Constitution for Canada soon after he took office in 1968.  He (Pierre) had foisted the first ever Official Languages Act (OLA) on Canada in 1969 with the full knowledge that if it was ever challenged on constitutional grounds, it would likely have been struck down by the Supreme Court.  And so, to "get around" that possible statutory defeat, he set about to change the constitution itself by enshrining the most significant elements of the OLA in the constitution thereby making it "bulletproof" to potential future challenges.  The "gift" of course was that the Canadian constitution was (then) held in safekeeping by the British House of Lords and Privy Council and that efforts had to be made to "bring the constitution home" where it "rightfully" belonged.  And that was the great gift handed to Pierre:  under the guise of "bringing the constitution home" he completely changed the former (Diefenbaker) Common Law constitution into what we now have today.  Who could possibly be against bringing home Canada's constitution?  Pierre Trudeau played on Canadian pride of country and extolled such great accomplishments as Canada's important role in several major conflicts from the Boer War, both World Wars, as well as the Korean War.  No seemed to notice that the real, traditional Canadian constitution never came home. Instead, a new contrivance masquerading as a constitution came across the ocean all "under the noses" of not only the British House of Lords, but all the Canadian premiers and even the Canadian Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court in September, 1981, was far from unanimous in its endorsement of the repatriation package which was then sent to "the British Parliament for rubber stamping..")

Lastly it should not be overlooked or forgotten that Pierre Trudeau had a distinct anti-English, anti-British Common Law bias and heavily favoured his own tribe in Quebec.  This became (more) clear when he added the Charter in the Canadian constitution of 1982.  As well, records show Trudeau tried to hide this from Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time whose House of Commons also had to endorse this new, "repatriated" Canadian constitution.  Why try to hide this from Thatcher?  Thatcher was a solid conservative and no fool and would have immediately realized the adding of a Charter to a traditional English Common Law constitution could only mean a set of special provisions for a particularly-identified demographic.  And that demographic was Pierre's own tribe, the French fact in Canada.  In the words of the late Lord Acton, "Constitutions are written not to enshrine those in power but to prevent that from happening."  But that was exactly what Pierre accomplished with his Charter which would lead to the spending of untold billions of dollars to help make French in Canada "equal" to the English (Charter, S.16(1).

Canada has now reached the point in its evolutionary history of being on the verge of breaking up.  It's traditional federalism that had defined the separation of powers between the central government and the provinces, is all but gone with the provinces now hopelessly dependent and addicted to federal largess penetrating deep into provincial, constitutionally-ordained affairs such as education, health care, mineral rights and language (among others).  The province of Quebec, by far the principal beneficiary of the 1982 Charter, has now grown in disproportional influence in Canadian politics to the point where leaders' debates conducted during federal election run-ups are mostly (two out of three) held in Quebec and in the French language.  As well, the federal public service is now overwhelmingly dominated by francophone and French-first interests as evident when the all-francophone senior management at Treasury Board conducts the secret calculations of how much of an increase should be allocated to Quebec - its tribal brothers and sisters - in its annual welfare cheque from Ottawa that now is reaching staggering amounts of more than $35 billion. And this in addition to not overlooking the federal department of Heritage Canada (French Heritage Canada) with its $4 billion/year budget and 2000 employees dedicated to overturning everything English into everything French.  And this is sustainable?  The upcoming national election in Canada will be its last national election.  After that, intensified draconian and despotic measures will descend even further on our once free Dominion as the proposed Bill C-32 makes abundantly clear.  And all with the open endorsement of Pierre Trudeau's Charter.

-Al Speyers


For those who want to know the many failures of P.M. Trudeau over these past few years, here’s a link to read about them:

PM JUSTIN TRUDEAU’S 4 YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHED FAILURES. - Desmond Grundy

In response to an angry letter from M. S., this is the is our advice:

I understand your anger, Michael.  However, don’t do anything drastic that will get you into trouble.  Here is a recommendation in the way of peaceful protest – from a reader:


Mary, please remind people across the country to be observant of voting signs and posters at the election polling place they visit.

If French is before English (except Quebec), discreetly take a picture, complete the complaint form on site, and make a complaint to the Official Languages Commissioner.”

According to the Treasury Board, language placement is very clear.

Section 2:

https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12314

https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/plainte-complaint/?lang=en


Disclaimer - Views, information or opinions, expressed or implied, are those of the user / writer / individual / contributor and may not necessarily represent views of Canadians for Language Fairness or Directors

Read More


528

03 October 2021

Interesting item from the Toronto Caribbean News Network

The item linked below is from the Toronto Caribbean News Network.  It is very interesting – it shows that the “special” status being given to the French language is going to affect a lot of people, not just the Canadians who traditionally speak the universal English language.  Are there other groups whose mother-tongue may not be English but who have adopted the English language as their language of choice – maybe they should speak up too in view of the fact that Bill C-32 will affect them & it is still in the offing?

Discussions on this topic are invited to join in the debate.  If any of our readers come across other groups representing minority groups that are aware of this issue & who have written opinion pieces on this topic, please send us their links so that we can get more Canadians involved in this issue which have been kept out of the media on purpose.

CLF BoD


If you can’t speak French, that might become a problem here in Canada; a look at Bill C-32

From the Toronto Caribbean News Network

Read More


529


10 August 2020

Feedback from our readers to Ted Morton's article Equalization Payments

Canadians for Language Fairness (CLF) has entered a new stage in our ongoing effort to educate as many Canadians as we can on our favourite topic – the unfairness & total failure of the Official Languages Act (1969) which has given the province of Quebec far too much say in the governing of this large country (from Sea to Shining Sea).  We are going to publicize the opinion of readers to articles and views concerning our topic – here is the 1st session:

 

The French (mainly Quebecois) have taken unfair advantage of the OLA to advance the power & influence of the French language & culture & the following article is just one example of how they’ve managed to get such a loud voice while being less than 20% of the population, concentrated in Quebec & New Brunswick.  The very simple explanation is that the illegal (according to John Robson’s firm belief) 1982 Constitution has protected the French-speakers to a huge extent with a massive amounts of money & judicial support by manipulating the choice of judges.  The English-speaking majority has NO support from the govt. at any level & the injustice has grown over the years.

 

The loud voices of the French activists can be heard right across the country & the Fear Factor has kept the Silent Majority unable to protest.  However, now that we have the internet & people who can speak up anonymously, let’s exploit that new power & we will ensure that you will be heard.

Over 40 comments to article at this time  https://nationalpost.com/news/nhl-hit-with-criticism-over-english-only-version-of-o-canada-on-saturday/wcm/49bce3cd-4bd1-46ef-a4ec-ac06db353c3c/  

We were able to capture one comment (please feel free to capture more if you can):

5 DAYS AGO from Larry Eamer

Really!? This is what it has come to that even the most innocuous of perceived ‘slights’ is pounced on by perpetually aggrieved French-speaking Canadians as just another example of anglo intolerance. Quebec has essentially left confederation and, in the process, ‘encouraged’ the exodus of hundreds of thousands of the dreaded anglos with bigoted and discriminatory language laws. It’s time to put the national myth of two founding peoples to rest and put an end to the expensive disaster known as official bilingualism. Canada, outside of Quebec, is an English speaking nation with only a tiny fraction of a percentage actually speaking French at home yet Quebec still insists on wielding an inordinate amount of influence in Ottawa. Sadly, there doesn’t appear to be a political party or leader with the intestinal fortitude to confront the racists and bigots in la belle province and forge a new narrative for the RoC.


Larry Earner is not one of our readers – he’s just a guy who wrote in to the NP with his views.  There are many more commentators – if you can be bothered to capture their views.

Mary


Just to give you an example – our last message circulated was Ted Morton’s article at this link:

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/morton-alberta-has-been-targeted-for-its-tax-dollars-by-design/wcm/ba5c8c11-6b85-44e3-a8c3-43fe58c0d365/

Morton: Alberta has been targeted for its tax dollars by design

The following comments came from our readers – I will reproduce them just to show you that we have very intelligent, well-informed readers who are willing to share their opinions:


The socialism that we have in Canada is "French Socialism". Even Marz and Engles in the Communist Manifesto describes French Socialism as a failure. It's the French who are the problem. Central Canada will be bankrupt when we separate.

Deke M.


As long as the federal government collects the taxes and distributes them through transfers including 'equalization' back to the provinces the unfairness will continue. Obviously if Alberta had put some portion of the money it paid out in equalization over the years into some type of rainy day fund it would not need money from anyone. Sadly over the years the provinces have allowed the feds to usurp powers that were once in their domain. Provincial premiers and their governments have not always worked in the best interests of the people they should have been serving. 

Olsen O. from MB


I wholeheartedly agree Alberta has been targeted, although I wouldn't entirely agree that the concept of transfer payments is entirely bad. I would say the implementation is just a tool of the Laurentians to pig out off the rest of the country, but fundamentally there is a logic to using a portion of surplus in one area to invest in increasing productivity in others. Companies do this all the time. Tesla leveraged sales of the roadster to build the model S, and all that has fed back into battery research which is giving them a market dominance in battery tech.

The problem with the transfer payment program is it's like alimony, or funding indigenous tribes. There's no oversight to ensure the investment is actually wise or likely to yield any improvement. The only thing it creates is dependency because there's no onus of responsibility or threat of consequence for failure to succeed. 

The transfer program would produce real results if it was not handed back to the provinces, but was instead used as a metric for how investments should be targeted.

It also needs to take into account a normalizing factor to account for the different social benefits in each region. What they should do is the central authority which decides how to manage the investment should be composed exclusively of representatives from the provinces which are paying the bill. Then you would see real progress because the provinces paying the tab have a real inventive to want to ensure the realization of a real increase in average GDP per capita of unproductive regions.

We have to view our world in terms of an organism. One world, many countries. One country, many provinces. One province, many municipalities. etc, etc.

While on an individual level, we recognize that a neighbor's actions may be malicious (a.k.a. cancerous), that doesn't mean that it's not part of a whole. In a medical sense, do we need to amputate Quebec to save Canada? If it's treatable, no, but if it's like gangrene, unfortunately yes (a.k.a. separation). In a worst case, the patient may be so sick that all you can do is salvage a few organs.

One single larger nation (a full coast to coast Canada) will always be stronger than one missing a limb, but not as long as we're burdened with the illness of coping with uncoordinated waste. Our nation as a whole will prosper greater if we can focus our resources on being internationally competitive (improving the value of our currency). The alternative is to regress inward and insulate ourselves from the world in order to protect our economy from constantly bleeding out to imports, and the downgrading of our credit rating is a slippery slope.

Oliver C. from Ontaro


Equalization is not a policy, it is part of the Constitution.  Still can't understand why people don't read our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My response:  It may be part of our constitution but the formula can be changed – the Liberal Party just locked the current policy in till 2014.  If you want to know more, I have this info. in my archive.

Agreed.  But ... if the formula is ever changed it will be to provide all the parasites with more of your money.  We have a great little gig going down here.  Many, if not most, of our people either work at a seasonal job for a few weeks and get unemployment for the rest of the year or work in a fabricated government job.  For example, New Brunswick has a population of 751,000 and a civil service of 53,000 ... not counting teachers and nurses.  And they are all paid high saleries as if they lived in British Columbia.  Thirty-eight percent of our gross provincial product comes from transfer payments.  Quebec, to some extent, operates the same way as do the other Maritime provinces and Newfoundland.  Although the Newfies are much worse and totally bankrupt. 

That's the bad news.  The good news is that Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have enough votes to keep the Liberals elected into perpetuity.  In Trudeau's first election every sest in Atlantic Canada went Liberal, last time one went Green (worse than Liberal) and three went Conservative.

However, what you must understand is that we greatly appreciate all that money you send down here.  We have twice as many hospitals per capita as Ontario, beautiful government buildings, fabulous parks and lots of holidays.  So, instead of your mean spirited approach, you should be glad to play Santa Claus to such lovely, albeit useless, people.  When I was out there working and the fat French government workers were in Florida basking in the sun with the Senators and other politicians, it warmed my heart to know that they were having fun even if I couldn't.  Maybe if more of you westerners thought this way your mood would improve.  Just sayin ...

I have been a true conservative all my life, and my family's connection goes back to the beginning.  But, while it is true that socialism is both unfair and unworkable, Canadians are hooked on it.  And, like any narcotic, getting them off it is virtually impossible.  Canada is set to become more socialistic, not less.   The Liberals, Greens and NDP will, in some form, rule untill, as Maggie Thatcher said, they "run out of opm" (other peoples money).  Barring any such event, you guys out west are going to keep the East in a manner to which we have become accustomed.  Sorry, but it's true.  As a Maritimer who worked in private enterprise and had his own business, I sympathize with you - I've been screwed too.

 Jim C. from NB


NB is a prime example of using their funding from other provinces and throwing it down the toilet, wreaking havoc on a very broken and morally corrupting public education system. They service four failing second language programs within the Anglophone sector, and because of duality, they fund two complete departments of education, fund two health authorities and the list goes on and on. We could easily bilingualize all children in NB without dividing and segregating  children into divisive and unequally funded programs, but politicians promote the status quo. It’s too political to do otherwise. So the Anglophone sector will continue to graduate most of their students without the necessary language requirements to meet their unreasonable bilingual requirements. Equal opportunity applies only to a minority of NBers and casual laundry positions at the provincial hospitals will continue to be available only to bilinguals. 

Jane S. from NB


 

Yes, the equalization formula is a warped socialist construct based on equalizing the tax RATES (not the amount of tax you generate). If you generate a tremendous amount of tax dollars by encouraging development with low tax rates (Alberta), the equalization formula says you SHOULD have generated even more IF you had charged the AVERAGE tax RATE (and therefore Ottawa will only give you back a small portion of what you actually generated and give the rest to Quebec who charged very high tax rates but generates no income). This is an insane, illogical left wing idea to reward the high taxing lazy socialists and penalize the low-taxing entrepreneurs. Obviously, if you had charged the higher average tax rate, you would not have generated the business (and revenue and taxes from it).  

This is the insanity of Canada and Alberta must leave it behind. 

Joe C.


Thanks for the article. It's very good. However, what the author misses is that the federal political parties will always need to pander to Quebec to get elected. That won't change. 

As for Alberta, it's now receiving equalization payments, but Albertans must still resent the restrictions on their oil industry. Some might want to leave Canada, but the challenges involved would intimidate most -- especially new immigrants, who would not see the point. Hence, the Wexit movement will never gain enough momentum to succeed. Instead, those Albertans who understand the issues will continue to feel resentful, and journalists will keep writing articles about how unfair the situation is. 

The best we can hope for is that resentful Albertans will continue supporting the CPC, which will help maintain some sanity in Canadian politics. 😉

Paul 


 

How many readers of our mailing list are on social media?  Would anyone on social media want to help us circulate information about the problems being created by the Official Languages Act?   If you are on FaceBook, do you know that there is a lively debate on our FB page at this link: https://www.facebook.com/languagefairness.ca/

We have come across many videos made by J. J. McCullough.  He used to write for the HuffPost in Canada but he currently writes for the Washington Post.  Here is one of his videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJQ5HUUbONs

English Canada vs. French Canada — why we don't get along

Take time to listen to it & let’s exchange views on whether he has been accurate in his portrayal of why Canada is in so much trouble.  J. J. seems to know his stuff & is able to provide statistics on what he says so feel free to ask for some more links.

Mary

Read More


503



Share




LanguageFairness.ca

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

This website has been visited 684578 times.