The three pieces of legislation highlighted combined with policies, regulations, institutions based on them, SCC decisions, and Provincial Court Decisions, Human Rights Tribunal decisions have us, over 3.5 decades, in the place we are today. Minority control of the majority in a climate of Extreme Political Correctness.
Something like 25-30% of Canadians are now and have always been in control of the legal, political, socio-cultural agenda of this country and their control is becoming increasingly stronger. For the most part it has been enforcing the Liberal philosophies of increasing individual/minoity linguistic rights with no commensurate increase in responsibilities. This happens to the detriment of the majority.
This 25-30% group is mainly composed of unilingual Quebecers, Bilinguals in primarily QC/ON, Bilinguals & their supporters in the ROC, and minority linguistic groups who have always voted Liberal as a best way to promote their own agenda. We are one of the few countries in the world where a minority of the population has basically legally acquired the divine right to govern and ensure it remains so in perpetuity. The Conservatives from '84 to '93 did nothing to change the dynamics. The only way of change now is for the Provinces to take back much of the power that they have allowed the Feds to encroach on.
Today, Anglophones (particularly males) may as well forget about applying for most any career position within any of the Federal Government organizations/institutions - member of parliament, the public service, the RCMP, the Military , CBC, Judiciary, IRB Adjudicators, Border Service, Human Rights Commissions, - and on it goes. Federal hiring, promotion, transferring policies over decades have entrenched the minority groups and the careers of dominants are most likely to start with entry level positions and then either be career stagnating or downright career ending as far as higher level promotions are concerned.
Under Law S-3, Official Bilingualism is being forced onto the Provinces whether the need is there or not. Lately, the feds have been relocating departments into the provinces - such as Tourism in BC, loading up the Harry Hayes Building in Calgary - with Francophones/Bilinguals of course getting a high proportion of the jobs. A push is under way for all RCMP policing the Trans-Canada Highway to be bilingual.. Radio Canada is seeking equal broadcast time in French for the 2010 Olympics.
In spite of the billions of dollars spent since the ' 60s and the millions that are continuing to be spent on bilingualism today, it is estimated by a Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Human Resources (CPAC) that there are only 18% of Canadians today who are bilingual. Watch CPAC for a while and you are bound to conclude that bilinguals are far over-represented in most all federal institutions at the higher levels. Look at Harper's cabinet today. Most all of the people in power positions are bilingual easterners as are far to may of the senior bureaucrats.
Time for AB to get control of its own agenda
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The 3rd most negative piece of federal legislation
...... has turned out to be The Official Multicultural Act (1988) passed into law under the Mulroney Conservatives, and the setting up of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal shortly thereafter to enforce it.
As with Official Languages and the Charter, these were brought into being by the majority votes of a Centrist government (ON,QC) and designed primarily for protection of QC as well as to ensure continued political/financial control of the central government over the ROC. Under the guise of accommodation, they have become the platforms of choice for most all linguistic/cultural minorities to further their own narrow interests. While not initially intended to deal with issues of freedom of speech/action, the venues of the federal/provincial human rights tribunals are increasingly finding themselves adjudicating in these areas. Initially it was about "accommodation" - first of all to Francophones and then over time, to newcomers.
Exacerbating this whole Multicultural issue has been the dubious at best, and downright slip-shod policies/decisions by the majority federal governments over the past 3.5 decades in the areas of Citizenship, Immigration, Refugee, and Heritage. These four federal files are in abominable shape and there seems to be no will at the federal level to make much in the way of significant positive corrections. It is time for the provinces to set up their own strategies.
The net situation is that Canadian citizens are finding themselves bound increasingly tighter by a network of legality that has us in a mode of enforced Extreme Political Correctness. The dominant cultures are left with choices to accept/acquiesce or face finding themselves taken to court - provincially, federally, or quasi-judicially - and for the most part, losing if it happens. It is no longer about "accommodation" but rather about push-back in terms of what is/is not "reasonable accommodation".
The West had little or no say in terms of this act/fallout legislation coming into being and was legally compelled to follow along with the implementations or deal with going to court - provincially or even to the SCC. AB resistance to this legislation is apparent as it took until 1996 before Alberta enacted the Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission.
Anyone not following what is happening as regards the whole area of Multiculturalism, particularly in Britain, France, and Denmark, should be. They"get" that multiculturalism has become an abysmal failure and their social fabrics are in the process of being legally shreded. The U.S has not yet "got it" and Canada even less so.
With Toronto/ON having to fight off a major lobby to bring in Sharia Law, it is time that Canadians begin to not only "get it" but start doing something about it. As a province, AB can takes steps to avoid what has been happening in Europe (and it will) but so far, the will just is not there.
As with Official Languages and the Charter, these were brought into being by the majority votes of a Centrist government (ON,QC) and designed primarily for protection of QC as well as to ensure continued political/financial control of the central government over the ROC. Under the guise of accommodation, they have become the platforms of choice for most all linguistic/cultural minorities to further their own narrow interests. While not initially intended to deal with issues of freedom of speech/action, the venues of the federal/provincial human rights tribunals are increasingly finding themselves adjudicating in these areas. Initially it was about "accommodation" - first of all to Francophones and then over time, to newcomers.
Exacerbating this whole Multicultural issue has been the dubious at best, and downright slip-shod policies/decisions by the majority federal governments over the past 3.5 decades in the areas of Citizenship, Immigration, Refugee, and Heritage. These four federal files are in abominable shape and there seems to be no will at the federal level to make much in the way of significant positive corrections. It is time for the provinces to set up their own strategies.
The net situation is that Canadian citizens are finding themselves bound increasingly tighter by a network of legality that has us in a mode of enforced Extreme Political Correctness. The dominant cultures are left with choices to accept/acquiesce or face finding themselves taken to court - provincially, federally, or quasi-judicially - and for the most part, losing if it happens. It is no longer about "accommodation" but rather about push-back in terms of what is/is not "reasonable accommodation".
The West had little or no say in terms of this act/fallout legislation coming into being and was legally compelled to follow along with the implementations or deal with going to court - provincially or even to the SCC. AB resistance to this legislation is apparent as it took until 1996 before Alberta enacted the Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission.
Anyone not following what is happening as regards the whole area of Multiculturalism, particularly in Britain, France, and Denmark, should be. They"get" that multiculturalism has become an abysmal failure and their social fabrics are in the process of being legally shreded. The U.S has not yet "got it" and Canada even less so.
With Toronto/ON having to fight off a major lobby to bring in Sharia Law, it is time that Canadians begin to not only "get it" but start doing something about it. As a province, AB can takes steps to avoid what has been happening in Europe (and it will) but so far, the will just is not there.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Two more pieces of legislation negatively affecting AB and the ROC
The 2nd most deleterious piece of legislation affecting Alberta and the ROC (outside QC) is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) . Embeded as it was in the Constitution, it is virtually impossible to be changed much less repealed. The most realistic defense against the Charter seems to be in using the Notwithstanding Clause in key areas. In particular, for setting aside dubious decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and against federal legislation such as Law S-3. We have judge made law in Canada today - perpetuated by both federal liberals and conservatives over decades. Basically, nine politically appointed (not elected) people are determining the entire critical legal/political/socio-economic agenda in Canada. It is time to get back to the democracy of legislation by parliament (elected representatives). From my POV, we have moved far to much to the "left" and it is time to get the pendulum swinging back towards the center.
Alberta's Premier Lougheed was one of the premiers who insisted that the Notwithstanding Clause be included and not to have included it would have been a deal breaker. Getty/Klein et al did not have the will to use it. Over time this Notwithstanding Clause has taken on mythical status to the point where it is pretty much thought of in some quarters as being downright un-Canadian to think of actually using it for the purpose for which it was included in the Constitution.
As with the Official Languages Act, it was brought into law with a Liberal government under Trudeau and with an overwhelming majority - primarily from ON/QC. There is not much doubt that it was Trudeau's intent to impose greater protection to French/ Francophone culture and further the concept of Canada as a mosaic rather than a melting pot/assimilation concept that was the pattern in the U.S.
With the 25th anniversary of the Charter being celebrated this year, what better time to air the positives and the negatives of this piece of legislation. The MSM is more likely to focus on the positives rather than the negatives for rather obvious reasons - reasons that are more apparent to some than to others. The Charter was conceived/imposed by Central Canada and is just another way for the Centrists to remain in control of the ROC while protecting the interest of QC. Unfortunately every other minority linguistic group is now using the Charter to further a whole lot of their own very narrow interests, some of which are much more divisive than helpful in building Canada.
One can argue that this is democracy - but it is also about the democratic deficit in this country as well. Central Canada is highly unlikely to do much to change things so it is left to the provinces to become much more demanding. So far the will, generally, has not been there but times are changing.
Alberta's Premier Lougheed was one of the premiers who insisted that the Notwithstanding Clause be included and not to have included it would have been a deal breaker. Getty/Klein et al did not have the will to use it. Over time this Notwithstanding Clause has taken on mythical status to the point where it is pretty much thought of in some quarters as being downright un-Canadian to think of actually using it for the purpose for which it was included in the Constitution.
As with the Official Languages Act, it was brought into law with a Liberal government under Trudeau and with an overwhelming majority - primarily from ON/QC. There is not much doubt that it was Trudeau's intent to impose greater protection to French/ Francophone culture and further the concept of Canada as a mosaic rather than a melting pot/assimilation concept that was the pattern in the U.S.
With the 25th anniversary of the Charter being celebrated this year, what better time to air the positives and the negatives of this piece of legislation. The MSM is more likely to focus on the positives rather than the negatives for rather obvious reasons - reasons that are more apparent to some than to others. The Charter was conceived/imposed by Central Canada and is just another way for the Centrists to remain in control of the ROC while protecting the interest of QC. Unfortunately every other minority linguistic group is now using the Charter to further a whole lot of their own very narrow interests, some of which are much more divisive than helpful in building Canada.
One can argue that this is democracy - but it is also about the democratic deficit in this country as well. Central Canada is highly unlikely to do much to change things so it is left to the provinces to become much more demanding. So far the will, generally, has not been there but times are changing.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The single most deleterious piece of federal legislation that has and will continue to negatively impact Alberta is the Official Languages Act (1969). It was brought in when the Liberals had a majority government and there was insufficient voting numbers in the West to have any impact on whether or not this act was passed. In effect, the west simply did not have an effective vote in terms of this act being passed nor the way in which it has been/continues to be implemented. This is changing now with what seems to be a run of minority federal governments.
In 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec language law (Law 101) was unconstitutional. The Quebec government successfully invoked the provisions of the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter to over-ride this decision. While there is a provision that an over-ride must be reviewed every 5 years, this has not been a problem. Law 101 (QC) stands today, just as it was intended to do in 1989.
It is time for Alberta to use the notwithstanding provision of the Charter to ensure that English remains the functional language/culture of Alberta.
English is far and above the dominant/functional language in Alberta and deserves to be protected - just as Law 101 has protected the French language/culture in QC. Since Alberta was incorporated in 1905, English has been the dominant language/culture and it will probably remain as such. With this comes a "reasonable expectation" that people choosing to locate in Alberta must be/or work to become fluent in English. For the most part, it has happened over the decades but in the last 5-10 years this expectation seems to be faltering under the guise of "Reasonable Accommodation".
Of even greater concern is the little known Law S-3. Yes, this is a federal law but with huge ramifications for Alberta - not a whole lot of them good. Few people in AB even realize that this law exists.
Laws S-3 (an amendment to the Official Languages Act/ 2005) emanated in the Senate with two of the principal sales people being Hugh Segal (Conservative) and Don Budria (Liberal). With their help, it was ushered through the senate and then very quietly ushered through the House of Commons for the necessary three readings. The two people must have done a super sales job on the sitting MPs in order to get this (then bill) through the house of commons with no public debate - particularly in Western Canada.
In 2005, Law S-3 was given all party approval in the House of Commons which allowed it to be signed into law by the Governor General. It was given royal assent on Nov 25/2005 - a few days before the last federal election and is now law in Canada.
Question:
Where was your MP as this bill was moving through the House of Commons? My guess is that they were pretty much muzzled in order to prevent any kind of public debate on the subject.
What does this Law do?
It pretty much mandates the use of French across Canada on demand - not as before, "where numbers warrant". Apparently if someone demands services in French and is not satisfied, they have a legal remedy - and by the way, you and I get to pay for the legal challenge via our taxes should it happen.
Not only will French be expanded, but as with all other federal legislation designed to protect the Francophone minority, other linguistic minorities are bound to argue that it should apply to them as well. Will they succeed? Given the track record of the Supreme Court of Canada, they just may well succeed. Do we have to allow it to happen? No we don't. We can use the Notwithstanding Clause to negate the application of Law S-3 as it applies to Alberta.
There was/is no will within the current or past AB governments to do this. The upcoming election will hopefully make it happen.
In 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec language law (Law 101) was unconstitutional. The Quebec government successfully invoked the provisions of the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter to over-ride this decision. While there is a provision that an over-ride must be reviewed every 5 years, this has not been a problem. Law 101 (QC) stands today, just as it was intended to do in 1989.
It is time for Alberta to use the notwithstanding provision of the Charter to ensure that English remains the functional language/culture of Alberta.
English is far and above the dominant/functional language in Alberta and deserves to be protected - just as Law 101 has protected the French language/culture in QC. Since Alberta was incorporated in 1905, English has been the dominant language/culture and it will probably remain as such. With this comes a "reasonable expectation" that people choosing to locate in Alberta must be/or work to become fluent in English. For the most part, it has happened over the decades but in the last 5-10 years this expectation seems to be faltering under the guise of "Reasonable Accommodation".
Of even greater concern is the little known Law S-3. Yes, this is a federal law but with huge ramifications for Alberta - not a whole lot of them good. Few people in AB even realize that this law exists.
Laws S-3 (an amendment to the Official Languages Act/ 2005) emanated in the Senate with two of the principal sales people being Hugh Segal (Conservative) and Don Budria (Liberal). With their help, it was ushered through the senate and then very quietly ushered through the House of Commons for the necessary three readings. The two people must have done a super sales job on the sitting MPs in order to get this (then bill) through the house of commons with no public debate - particularly in Western Canada.
In 2005, Law S-3 was given all party approval in the House of Commons which allowed it to be signed into law by the Governor General. It was given royal assent on Nov 25/2005 - a few days before the last federal election and is now law in Canada.
Question:
Where was your MP as this bill was moving through the House of Commons? My guess is that they were pretty much muzzled in order to prevent any kind of public debate on the subject.
What does this Law do?
It pretty much mandates the use of French across Canada on demand - not as before, "where numbers warrant". Apparently if someone demands services in French and is not satisfied, they have a legal remedy - and by the way, you and I get to pay for the legal challenge via our taxes should it happen.
Not only will French be expanded, but as with all other federal legislation designed to protect the Francophone minority, other linguistic minorities are bound to argue that it should apply to them as well. Will they succeed? Given the track record of the Supreme Court of Canada, they just may well succeed. Do we have to allow it to happen? No we don't. We can use the Notwithstanding Clause to negate the application of Law S-3 as it applies to Alberta.
There was/is no will within the current or past AB governments to do this. The upcoming election will hopefully make it happen.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)