Bilingualism ruling not expected for months

[Leafless]

Firstly what is a or what should be a provincial lanuage issue doing under federal politcs?

Because this issue is being decided by a Superior court when in my opinion should be a provincial court since language is under provincial jurisdiction.

According to an article titled ( Bilingualism ruling not expected for 'months') in the Ottawa Citizen Thurs May 15, 2006, Pg.D5 because Superior Court Justice Monique Metivier says it will take that long to examine the transcripts from the four day trial. ( If it takes that long we can probably assume what the answer will be)

The story on this is Languge Fairness took an Ottawa-based lobby group took the City of Ottawa to court over it's 'official bilingual policy' on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and violates anglophones 'freedom of expression' as laid out in the Charter of Rights.

The groups lawyer Arthur Cogan said yesterday that the bilingualism policy does not properly reflect the character of the city. Mr. Cogan said 62% of Ottawa's anglophone population is unilingual, while 98% og the city's francophone population is bilingual. Because the ciy's top positons require applicants to be "100% bilingual," he said qualified anglophones are "deterred" from pursuing a career with the city.

The lawyer representing the City of Ottawa, Ronald Caza, cited Supreme Court legislation on language and said " The City of Ottawa not only had the power, but the obligation to do what it is doing now." He also said would have the legal authority to pursue it's bilingualism policies for providing services in English and French, with or without a bylaw.

Mr. Caza also cited the city employees unions and their mission to protect employees--an argument Mr. Cogan challanged saying "The union does not protect people applying for the job."

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

Personally I am disappointed that this matter was not handled through provincial courts and shows what power provinces have over detirmining language matters without the federal authorities getting invovled (Superior Court has federal influence).

And what about the majority City of Ottawa English tax payers who have no say in this matter at all but should be entitled to a referendum since Ottawa is Not an officially bilingual province.

This case proves federal official bilingualism is being plowed through out of federal jurisdiction into provinces owing to the single fact it went to Superior Court rather than a lower Provincial Court.

Is this the type of situation you want to see your province in with no power to control language issues?

Quebec gets off scott free with no federal interference to force federal style bilingualism policies on it why shouldn't Ontario who's francophone population is 17%.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The groups lawyer Arthur Cogan said yesterday that the bilingualism policy does not properly reflect the character of the city. Mr. Cogan said 62% of Ottawa's anglophone population is unilingual, while 98% og the city's francophone population is bilingual. Because the ciy's top positons require applicants to be "100% bilingual," he said qualified anglophones are "deterred" from pursuing a career with the city.

The city, like any employer, is free to set reasonable qualifications for jobs - however, to require all senior positions to be filled by 100% bilingual persons sounds more arbitrary than based on legitimate need. It's difficult to see why ALL such employees need such a level of bilingualism. This requirement would most certainly result in a heavily francophone senior management.

I deal with senior federal public servants all the time and I would suggest all of the ones I know have some level of French capability but certainly not all are what I would call 100% fluent.

[Leafless]

Warren Green

You wrote:

"The city, like any employer, is free to set reasonable qualifications for jobs - however, to require all senior positions to be filled by 100% bilingual persons sounds more arbitrary than based on legitimate need. It's difficult to see why ALL such employees need such a level of bilingualism. This requirement would most certainly result in a heavily francophone senior management.

I deal with senior federal public servants all the time and I would suggest all of the ones I know have some level of French capability but certainly not all are what I would call 100% fluent."

We are not talking about 'official federal bilingualism' which is also discriminatory and could be considered racist.

We are talking about 'official bilingualism' apllied and IMPOSED at the municiple level in the province of Ontario, a province that is not 'officially bilingual'.

Needless to say this is democratically incorrect and very discriminatory thing to do but nevertheless was FORCED on Ottawans in a dictatorial manner and closely resembles federal style 'federal official bilingualism.

It should be rembered language is a provincial responsibility, so how could this offensive policy (Ottawa's bilingual policy) be applied without a provincial referendum or municiple referendum on the issue but nevertheless WAS. And worse still, why does an English language lobby group have to fight for their English rights in a Superior Court that does not reflect the full provincial right to control their language?

You can see Ottawa's 'Official Bilingual Policy' below and see how closely it resembles the federal one.

http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/bilingualis...y/index_en.html

[BHS]

Of course it's discriminatory. Official Bilingualism, as a policy, is designed to benefit the linguistic minority. The majority of Canadians never need to speak a word of French in their daily lives - a bilingual English / French government benefits them not at all. French speakers, on the other hand, are surrounded by English influences. It shouldn't be surprising that a policy making manditory a linguistic regime that is of benefit to only the minority of Canadians is having an effect on other aspects of government, such as hiring policies.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Leafless, I don't how this was determined. Was it a vote of Council which would legitimize it? If it wasn't then taxpayers are free to argue that it is improper and unreasonable and challenge it in court. As they seem to be.

[Leafless]

BHS

You wrote:

"Of course it's discriminatory. Official Bilingualism, as a policy, is designed to benefit the linguistic minority. The majority of Canadians never need to speak a word of French in their daily lives - a bilingual English / French government benefits them not at all. French speakers, on the other hand, are surrounded by English influences. It shouldn't be surprising that a policy making manditory a linguistic regime that is of benefit to only the minority of Canadians is having an effect on other aspects of government, such as hiring policies."

Who it is designed for is inconsequential.

In the case of the City of Ottawa's 'official bilingual policy' is concerning the 'validity' of this policy and the initial authority who decided this on behalf of the City of Ottawa in the province of 'non-offically bilingual' Ontario.

[Leafless]

Warwick Green

You wrote:

"Leafless, I don't how this was determined. Was it a vote of Council which would legitimize it? If it wasn't then taxpayers are free to argue that it is improper and unreasonable and challenge it in court. As they seem to be."

I believe this was a City of Ottawa Council decission but how can the city rule in this type of offensive policy as they are not the federal government but act in the same type of belligerent undemocratic manner and requires provincial approval.

Dyane Adams promoted this policy with actual federal funding to the City of Ottawa.

Here are some links:

http://www.uni.ca/livreouvert/ottawa_bilinguale.html

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/archives/ar_ra/2...2-chap6-1_e.htm

http://www.languagefairness.ca/Source_file...Bill1172004.htm

Only trouble with the court challenge is there could be some bias involved with a francophone Superior Court Justice who will decide the outcome of this case.

I think only an international body should be involved with the legal proceedings in a case like this which in my estimation could make a mockery out of justice as this bilingual policy involves outright discrimination with racial concerns.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Warwick Green

You wrote:

"Leafless, I don't how this was determined. Was it a vote of Council which would legitimize it? If it wasn't then taxpayers are free to argue that it is improper and unreasonable and challenge it in court. As they seem to be."

I believe this was a City of Ottawa Council decission but how can the city rule in this type of offensive policy as they are not the federal government but act in the same type of belligerent undemocratic manner and requires provincial approval.

Dyane Adams promoted this policy with actual federal funding to the City of Ottawa.

With 35% of the population francophone the City is clearly entitled to provide services in French which could include establishing some bilingual positions. I would doubt anyone would object to that.

One question however is whether or not in going as far as it did was it in violation of any provincial statutes? And just because Ontario is not officially bilingual does not mean that the City of Ottawa is probibited from having a bilingualism policy.

And are the steps it has taken excessive within the context of what it is hoping to achieve? I suspect, however, that unless the policy is clealry illegal it will be upheld by the courts.

[Leafless]

Warwick Green

You wrote:

"With 35% of the population francophone the City is clearly entitled to provide services in French which could include establishing some bilingual positions. I would doubt anyone would object to that. "

You are misrepresenting the facts wrongly.

The fact is there is no democratic system in place to establish 'official bilingualism' in a municipality.'

Everyone I know OBJECTS to any kind of 'official languages policy', federal or municiple.

Again you dwell on the 'services bit' when you know very well it involves giving jobs to francophones for nothing more than being able to speak two languages a technique they acquired to obtain English speaking jobs initially which the english don't have to do obviously unless they go and work in official (provincially)French Quebec. Surely you must be aware it is very hard to gain employment in Ottawa unless you are bilingual which is the direct result from Ottawa's bilingual policy that private buisness also adopted.

You also wrote:

"And just because Ontario is not officially bilingual does not mean that the City of Ottawa is probibited from having a bilingualism policy."

Well Ottawa is prohibited from having a bilingual policy as it requires provincial authorization and if Mr. Mc.Quinty does that I predict he will not do so well in the next provincial election. I may be wrong but I think I read that he will approve this but it will be only 'symbolic' but symbolic or not the approval of a written policy is 'official.'

Any bilingual policy is 'OFFICIAL' as that exactly what a policy does it creates an 'official document' with legal meaning.

You also wrote:

"And are the steps it has taken excessive within the context of what it is hoping to achieve? I suspect, however, that unless the policy is clealry illegal it will be upheld by the courts."

What makes you think the steps taken so far are within the context "of what is hoping to achieve."

Who is in the capacity to detirmine even the direction of a bilingual policy in Ottawa without a mandate from the citizen's of Ottawa. Certaintly NOT City Council, certaintly not the federal government in a province out of their jurisdiction, certaintly not the 'Language Commissionaire' who acts under the direction of the federal government.

I think the policy is illegal and racist.