minority language education rights...too much history
PUBLICATION: The Saint John Telegraph-Journal
DATE: 2005.01.07
SECTION: Opinion/Editorial
PAGE: D7
COLUMN: Peter Black (View From Quebec)

Provinces born in language debate

This year Canadians will toast the centennial of Alberta and
Saskatchewan's
entry into Confederation.
In Quebec, though, the celebrations may give some people pause.
It doesn't take much digging into the political story behind the
creation ofthe two new provinces to discover what a blow the process was for the
original French-speaking partners to the federation.
The issue was such a smouldering one, and of such potential damage in
Quebec, that it nearly toppled the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, the politician-in-full who had just won a thundering majority.
For
the first and only time in his long career as Liberal leader and prime
minister Laurier threatened to resign if he didn't get his way.
Laurier's way was to apply the same constitutional principles on
minority
education contained in Section 93 of the BNA Act that had won the
support of
Canada East and Canada West back in 1867 to the creation of
Saskatchewan and
Alberta.
In other words the new provinces would be required to provide publicly
funded French, Catholic schools where there was demand, in addition to
non-denominational, or de facto Protestant schools.
In 1905 the provinces-to-be were hardly dominated by French-speaking
Catholics. Immigration, mostly from Britain and eastern Europe, had
reduced
the francophone and Metis population to about 10 per cent. So, in
effect,
Laurier's desire to have Alberta and Saskatchewan at least born under
the
same tolerant terms of Confederation was a symbolic gesture to Quebec.
The province, and Laurier, were still smarting from the ugly, prolonged
battle over minority rights in Manitoba, known benignly as the Manitoba
Schools Question. They had also accepted compromise on the principles
of
minority rights education in the North-West territory that was destined
to
be split into the two new provinces. Laurier had prepared the bill
creating
the provinces, complete with minority school guarantees, hoping for a
quiet
debate and swift passage. But as the wording of the bill circulated,
opposition mounted. Sir Clifford Sifton, the Manitoba minister who had
helped develop the west to the point where it was ready for
provincehood,
resigned; other political comrades refused to rally to the prime
minister.
Laurier argued that had Saskatchewan and Alberta joined Confederation
in
1867 at the same time as the four founding colonies, they would have
been
granted the same deal for minorities. All his overtures fell on deaf
ears.
"Three months after a triumphant general election," Joseph Schull notes
in
his 1966 biography of Laurier, the federal government's plan to create
Alberta and Saskatchewan forced Laurier to face "the disintegration of
his
cabinet and complete disaster." As he had in the Manitoba Schools case, Laurier decided once again to
sacrifice principle for the sake of his party and back down. As a
result
Alberta and Saskatchewan entered Confederation with fewer
constitutional
rights for minority education than had been hammered out in Manitoba.
"The storm blew over but the wreckage remained," writes famed
journalist and
Laurier biographer John W. Dafoe.
The wreckage for Laurier was the growing impression in Quebec, fuelled
by
rival Henri Bourassa, that he had too often caved in to
English-Canadian
bigotry.
While Quebec would still stick with him and help him win his fourth
election
in 1908, Laurier was in effect finished as a national leader.
Bourassa would return to Quebec embittered, and establish Le Devoir as
the
voice of Quebec nationalism. In the wake of the Alberta and
Saskatchewan
minority language drama he would write "we are bound to come to the
conclusion that Quebec is our only country because we have no liberty
elsewhere."
There is, of course, a more uplifting epilogue to the story, at least
from
the point of view of those who support minority language education
rights.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 guarantees the right in all
provinces, a protection inspired largely by the situation of
English-speakers in Quebec.
The relative language tolerance that exists now in both Alberta and
Saskatchewan, where French schools persist if not thrive, says
something
about the spirit of people being bigger than the times in which their
political institutions - provinces - were created.

Ontario bilingualism
From CLF:

Bill 163 will be up for 2nd and 3rd reading as soon as the provincial parliament gets back from its Christmas & New Year break. The French speakers are starting the campaign to get this bill made into law. Read the latest letter in the Weekly Journal - Orleans (attached below). On the one hand, they are saying this bill is tooth-less and doesn't say or do anything. On the other, they are saying that the current policy should be entrenched into law so that future councillors cannot change it & take away the gains made by the French minority. Those who have not read the current language policy and compared it with past versions of the policy are willing to take Mayor Chiarelli's words that the policy has been there for decades and has not been changed. Therein lies the problem, this policy did not apply all across the boundaries of the existing amalgamated city of Ottawa. There were 12 municipalities and not all of them had a language policy enacted - so to many municipalities, this policy is totally new. The old City of Ottawa had a language policy drafted in 1982 but many of their principles were never applied. This points to the craftiness of some city councillors at that time to insert principles but, so as not to alarm the citizens at the time, left the application of those principles dormant, ready to be put into action. They are ready now and to know how damaging the policy is, I have high-lighted its key contentious provisions and reproduced them below the attached article by J. F. Bertrand.

Supporters who do not live in Ottawa may think that this is not their concern. However, this will show you the mind-set and the fore-planning of the proponents of Official Bilingualism. What worked in Ottawa will be applied to your city or town sooner or later - and like dominos each will fall. By stopping it in Ottawa, we can stop it from happening to Ontario and consequently in the other provinces. Each step forward for the supporters of OB is one step backwards for the rest of us. Jack Jedwab's analysis: 1. http://www.acs-aec.ca/Polls/incomplete%20bilingualism.pdf shows that, despite the claims of Dyane Adam and the well-funded Canadian Parents for French (CPF), the percentage of perfectly bilingual Canadians is now 12%. We are creating a highly privileged elite - only bilingual people will have access to the best jobs, at all levels.

The latest story from Quebec has outraged a lot of people. Two perfectly bilingual nurses in an English hospital have lost their jobs because they were not able to pass the written French test. Read their story: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/01/04/807559-cp.html You may say - but that's Quebec!!

What is happening in Quebec will spread to the rest of Canada - sooner or later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAR J-F Bertrand: Bilingual conundrum

Tue, Jan 4, 2005 12:00 PM EST


For once, Premier Dalton McGuinty kept a campaign promise.

He had announced, earlier in the fall, his intention to present before Christmas an amendment to the City of Ottawa Act of 1999 to the Legislative Assembly, which would deal with the bilingualism issue that the Tories wouldn't touch.

Madeleine Meilleur, his Minister of Culture and MPP for Ottawa-Vanier, kept mentioning that announcement when pressed for the government's intentions.

A few days before Queen's Park set off for its long holidays, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister John Gerretsen introduced Bill 163, An Act to amend the City of Ottawa Act, 1999.

It is a short, four-paragraph piece of legislation that outraged most francophones, including Councillor Jacques Legendre. They say the amendment doesn't go far enough and is nothing more than a symbol.

Others, including, of course, Meilleur but also Councillor Georges Bédard, are more satisfied and note Ottawa's French-speaking population had been waiting since the 1970s for such a development to happen.
Back in the mid-eighties, the old City of Ottawa set up a task force that looked at French-language services. Its work led to the creation of the first language policy for the city, which, in turn, was the framework for the policy adopted by the new City of Ottawa.

Mayor Bob Chiarelli prides himself in calling it "Practical Bilingualism," a compromise between the needs of the minority and the means of the municipality. In a nutshell, that policy indicates that front-line services are to be offered in both languages, that official city documentation is to be available in French and English, and that, over time, senior managers are to be proficient in both languages.

It is rather important at this point to note that most, if not all, francophones are satisfied with Ottawa's policy. But why are they disenchanted with McGuinty's proposal?

Informed citizens know that Lester B. Pearson had Parliament adopt the Bill of Rights, an act regarding Canadian's basic rights. They know as well that, when the Constitution of 1982 includes the Charter of Rights and Freedom, regarding essentially the same basic rights.

That latter document is "entrenched" in the Constitution. The main advantage is that, while any government following Pearson's could have easily amended the Bill of Rights, weakening it, for example, amending the Constitution — and the Charter, enshrined in it — is much more difficult.

When Francophones were calling for an amendment to the City of Ottawa act, they were asking to entrench the current (and quite acceptable to them) language policy. Akin to the Charter, it would be more difficult, in the future, to change the City of Ottawa Act again, thus protecting the minority's gains.

However, this is where francophones believe Madeleine Meilleur and Dalton McGuinty let them down. Bill 163 only states that "The city shall adopt a policy respecting the use of the English and French languages." And, as long as there's a policy in place, however weak, the City will respect the act that created it.

If Bill 163 is adopted in its current wording, Francophones can justly fear that a future Council comprised of intolerant elected officials could wipe away the city's language policy.

What McGuinty did is not enshrining rights that are vested, and it scares franchophones.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Following are some of the Bylaw’s key contentious provisions:



· “The City of Ottawa recognizes both official languages as having the same rights and privileges”

(Note: This despite the fact that only 15% of the City’s population is Francophone)


“Encourage Employees to work in the official language of their choice”
(Note: A similar provision at the Federal government level has resulted in the need for even junior supervisors and managers to be fluently bilingual)



“That all Executive and Senior Management Group Positions be designated bilingual”
(Note: this is identical to the requirement at the federal level which has been criticized in the news of late and which is costing the federal government millions of dollars in language training of questionable value)

“That effective immediately, all external candidates considered for Level 1 to 3 management positions be bilingual”
(Note: if you do not already work for the City – you can no longer apply for these positions unless you are fully bilingual)
• “That as of December 31, 2009. bilingualism be considered a prerequisite for any internal promotion to a designated bilingual position within Level 1 to 3 management groups”.

(Note: same disastrous effect as all of the above)

What is this??

e-newspaper by nicefolks?

Those in Canada must be having access to newspapers and those wanting to migrate....I doubt they are finding this of any interest.

just my thoughts.

Worship

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is so simple to be happy but so difficult to be simple

Worship remarks that the information on bilingualism is not of interest.

Yet, Worship from Mumbai wants to know more about life in Canada for Desi's. Bilingualism affects Desi's too.

Is Worship aware that a very large number of Desi's who are employed in the Federal and provincial governments, cannot move up the ranks because they cannot easily learn French??? Many struggle to keep their English up to par, French is nearly impossible to learn. Federal stats note the absence of new immigrants in higher posts.

Please note that the information posted is intended to make Canadian Desi's aware of the fundamental change in this country's social fabric that is being engineered by the government. Bilingualism or frenchification is slowly but positively becoming a major issue (even for new immigrants who now have to learn both English and French to get some good jobs).

As for newspaper articles, it should be noted that many of the articles posted would not appear in newspapers in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver etc. The reason is exactly as Worship notes, "no interest" either by the publications or the readers. The last thing the proponents of bilingualism want is for the English majority in this divided country to wake up and realize what is happening in the capital city and towns next to it.

As always, people have no interest in an issue until it is themselves, their spouses, their children, or their relatives/friends who desperately need employment and cannot get it because an elite minority has made their language a mandatory prerequisite for employment.

If your aim ,Nicefolks from GTA, was to make Canadian desis aware regarding the sweeping Frenchification, you could have emphasised or rather summerised the essence of the articles. I think it would have a better impact.

If you have observed, there are some members, for whom English is also challenging and to those Frenchification is something totally alien.

As mentioned in your post, no body takes interest in a matter unless it dosen't affect them or their near and dear ones......I think, that attitude more so begs for a clear cut stress on what new immigrants should prepare themselves for.

IMHO, your good intentions were lost in the plethora of words.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is so simple to be happy but so difficult to be simple

worship, I agree with you that it may be a little too much information for those who do not wish to know the intricate details of the bilingualism issue.

I will try to make it brief from now on.