Bloc demands change to Canada's language act

[maldon_road]

This would require the few remaining head offices of federally regulated companies in Montreal to use French as the language of work. For various reasons, the banks, CPR, Bell have left Quebec to set up their HO elsewhere. HOs have to attract people from all across the country to come and work and this would not help that. I wonder how long CN would stick around?

MONTREAL -- Canada's Official Languages Act should be amended to stipulate French is the official language of Quebec, which would compel federal agencies that are now exempt to conform to the province's language laws, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said Wednesday....

Quebec, he argued, should be recognized as a "francophone nation," and that starts with Ottawa recognizing Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Ottawa treats the law, Bill 101, like it does not exist and big, federally chartered companies like CN, Bell Canada, Rogers and the banks are not subject to its conditions, Duceppe said.

In the meantime, Duceppe said, the use of French by private companies is stagnating, public signs are more and more bilingual and English trademarks are proliferating. For too many francophones, the language of work remains English.

He said when the House of Commons resumes sitting next week, the Bloc will propose specific amendments to the federal labour code which would make Ottawa respect the language charter in Quebec....

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...96-b0dd8678c63d

[guyser]

Ottawa treats the law, Bill 101, like it does not exist and big, federally chartered companies like CN, Bell Canada, Rogers and the banks are not subject to its conditions, Duceppe said

I wonder if our resident Charter expert is aware of this.

Edited October 19, 2007 by guyser

[maldon_road]

I wonder if our resident Charter expert is aware of this.

Ottawa treats the law, Bill 101, like it does not exist and big, federally chartered companies like CN, Bell Canada, Rogers and the banks are not subject to its conditions, Duceppe said

I don't know who the "Charter expert" is but when it comes to the workplace Bill 101 does not apply to federally regulated businesses - such as banks and forms in telecommunications and interprovincial transportation.

[M.Dancer]

CN is a huge cross border investment concern (as much of it's revenue is rail service to and from the US) There is zero reason why they should be in Montreal as opposed to New York.

[old_bold&cold]

The Bloc is trying to set up an issue that will make the voters in Quebec once again think they are being hard done by. This kind of issue would only force more companies to move their head offices to other provinces, and there would be the rub Duecppe would use to inflame strong separtist feelings, once again. He needs this to keep his party to be able to be seen as necessary to the people of Quebec. He is not dumb by any means but he is also not as good as Harper in laying the ground work to get change in the minds and souls of the voters. If the Bloc does badly in any forth coming election, I can see where Duceppe would exit the party, before it goes right down the tubes. I think that is why he is now digging to find a new vein of discontent to make use of, for his own purposes. I do not think he will find, any real strong position that will do it for him. If Harper can for the next couple years keep things in Quebec at a peaceful level, the Bloc will be mostly a fringe party.

[g_bambino]

He said when the House of Commons resumes sitting next week, the Bloc will propose specific amendments to the federal labour code which would make Ottawa respect the language charter in Quebec....

I thought Bill 101 was enacted using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, and thus was valid for only five years. If that's the case, why should Ottawa not only recognize, but legally enshrine, a temporary provincial bill?

[maldon_road]

I thought Bill 101 was enacted using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, and thus was valid for only five years. If that's the case, why should Ottawa not only recognize, but legally enshrine, a temporary provincial bill?

As for the workplace Bill 101 only applies to provincial jurisdiction. Duceppe wants to extend it to the federal industries.

[Borg]

When we let them go - peace and quiet shall reign.

If only they would stay within their borders.

Borg

[August1991]

I thought Bill 101 was enacted using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, and thus was valid for only five years. If that's the case, why should Ottawa not only recognize, but legally enshrine, a temporary provincial bill?

Language law in Quebec is understandably complex but it seems that the most controversial parts are public, commercial signs and public education up to age 16.

I believe that the Supreme Court has now ruled that current practice in Quebec is in line with the Charter and hence teh Quebec government does not use the notwithstanding clause (which would have to be renewed every five years).

The language of instruction clause is considered the cornerstone of Bill 101, which has also been the source of some of the most bitter debate in Quebec politics for decades and Thursday's decisions are expected to re-ignite language debates in the province.

But the Quebec government faces less trouble since the top court has not struck down its language law as unconstitutional.

Many had expected Quebec Premier Jean Charest to invoke the notwithstanding clause to maintain the status quo. But because the court ruling did not strike down the legislation, he won't be allowed that option.

Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier told a news conference in Quebec City that the court's ruling means there will be "no legislative changes in Quebec, no changes made to Bill 101."

CBC

----

BTW, this announcement of the BQ is part of a combined strategy with the PQ to try and take some of the place now occupied by the ADQ. Duceppe is fighting a 1970s battle here and he appears hamfisted. Marois is handling her end better I think.

[Army Guy]

August:

I believe that the Supreme Court has now ruled that current practice in Quebec is in line with the Charter and hence teh Quebec government does not use the notwithstanding clause (which would have to be renewed every five years).

Just a question that has always bothered me, you stated that the most controversial portions are the public and commerical signs...i'll have to agree on that....In my line of work speaking French has never been a carear goal...more of a luxery item... My question is if it is line with the charter and Quebec can display "French only" road, and public signs would the other provinces be in line with the charter to post "English signs only". It might seem a silly question but one i'd like to know..

[Wilber]

August:

Just a question that has always bothered me, you stated that the most controversial portions are the public and commerical signs...i'll have to agree on that....In my line of work speaking French has never been a carear goal...more of a luxery item... My question is if it is line with the charter and Quebec can display "French only" road, and public signs would the other provinces be in line with the charter to post "English signs only". It might seem a silly question but one i'd like to know..

You will be hard pressed to see a French sign in BC that isn't on Federal property. I can just imagine the uproar if our Asian communities were told all their signage had to be in English. My guess is most Anglos here would consider that an infringement on a person's basic rights.

[kp186]

I wonder how long the rest of Canada is going to put up with this nonsense and hold a referendum of its own - Do you want to keep Quebec in confederation? Yes or No? If the answer is no then we'll give them a year to get the h*ll off our land.