Supreme Court upholds the right of Alberta and Saskatchewan to have laws written in English only.
We therefore cannot, as the appellants ask us to do, allow the pursuit of language rights to trample on areas of clear provincial legislative jurisdiction. Neither can we resolve the tension arising from the interplay of fundamental constitutional principles, as the appellants ask us to do, by resorting to broad and uncontroversial generalities, or by infusing vague phrases with improbable meanings. Rather, we must examine the text, context and purpose of our Constitution to see whether there is a constitutional constraint on the power of the province of Alberta to decide in what language or languages it will enact its legislation.
Talk about escalation, this started as a traffic violation.
Going to the SCoC is like rolling a die.
Wow, a SCoC decision on language based on codified law and precedent, instead of leftist feels. Who woulda thunk it?
Of course it was escalation and you can absolutely bet that the costs for both sides of this action was paid for by Canadian taxpayers……
The Supreme Court decision I’d like to see is where Catholic school boards in Alberta are permitted to tell the provincial government to go to hell when it comes to provincially required buggery lessons and guys in dresses peeing with the girls.
It’s interesting that in Alberta some Mennonites send their kids to Catholic schools to avoid much of this stuff.
With Trudeau-mania and its politics of division, many changes to our society are due: We’ve already seen the restoration of Toronto as the centre of the Canadian universe; the opening salvos to destroy the western Canadian energy industry; and the hubris that Canada will dominate the global climate change narrative. All that is lacking (for now) is the demand for expanded French bilingualism, for as we all know, French is the one true language. I mean, why shouldn’t we adopt a third-tier, second-rate language? Why shouldn’t we “strengthen” our institutions with leadership determined by language rather than skill and competency. Let the battle begin … again.
I disagree. The passage quoted says:
“Rather, we must examine the text, context and purpose of our Constitution to see whether there is a constitutional constraint on the power of the province of Alberta to decide in what language or languages it will enact its legislation.”
At the SCC link provided, under conclusion, I read as follows:
“We would allow the appeals and answer the constitutional questions as follows:
1. Is the Languages Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-6, ultra vires or inoperative insofar as it abrogates a constitutional duty owed by Alberta to enact, print and publish its laws and regulations in English and in French in accordance, inter alia, with the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Orderof June 23, 1870, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 9?
Yes.
2. If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, are the Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6, and any other laws and regulations that have not been enacted, printed and published by Alberta in English and French inoperative?
Yes.”
I think the SCC reached the opposite conclusion as claimed.
Note bene at [242]:
“For the reasons set out above, we find that the promise made in the 1867 Address to respect the inhabitants’ “legal rights” encompasses a constitutional obligation to protect legislative bilingualism in the annexed territories, part of which would later become Alberta. That province therefore has a constitutional duty to enact, print and publish all its laws in French as well as in English.”
Absolutely right, Chris.
I say “Premier Wall for PM” and up jumps come sock puppet screaming
“That’s impossible and no good! He’s not bilingual!”
What a sad state we have for a country.
I’m surprised the SCoC didn’t roll over for the leftist collective. After all, it only makes sense that we have French embedded everywhere, just as English is. Oh, wait…
BTW, French is the 18th most spoken language on earth, just ahead of Marathin (19th) and below Wu (13th) and Telugu (15th). And no, I have no idea where any of those is spoken. Top 3? Mandarin, Spanish and English, in that order.
Our last Saskatchewan born Prime Minister was proud of his bilingual ability. He could speak both English and Ukrainian.
I’ll just stick with my Mandarin lessons, xiexie. French ain’t the future. JMO
“I mean, why shouldn’t we adopt a third-tier, second-rate language?”
Who is this “we”? And what is this putative “third-tier, second-rate language” that “we” re supposed to be adopting?
That’s from the dissent, Johnny.
The majority held:
“Alberta is not constitutionally obligated to enact, print and publish its
laws and regulations in both French and English. C and B’s position is inconsistent
with the text, context, and purpose of the documents on which they rely and must be
rejected. Absent some entrenched constitutional guarantee of legislative bilingualism,
a province has the authority to decide the language or languages to be used in its
legislative process”
Hats off to the judges. It’s a funny thing about Liberals, and trust me when I tell you that the Liberal Party of Canada is behind a lot of this French ”fanatisme.”
Francophone students, all over Saskatchewan and Alberta, and thanks to Trudeau Sr., have the right to ”French only” schooling and ”French Only” busing. One student I know of is picked up 40 miles from his Francophone school, twice a day. A school that has 4 teachers for 7 students, and a budget that is comparable to an rural English school that has 97 students. When I asked why that was, his mother explained to me that she and other French speaking parents don’t want the kids exposed to English.
Yet Trudeau Sr. could dump 20-30 Syrians in my neighborhood, and even if I don’t like hearing Syrian at the supermarket or at the rink.
And remember that my four grandparents were born in Brittany, France. So I do know a thing or two about Liberté. Egalité and Fraternité.
Is this THE Supreme Court of Canada saying this? OUR Supreme court? Taking a sensible and constitutionally sound position? They must be ill. Influenza maybe.
“Francophone students, all over Saskatchewan and Alberta, and thanks to Trudeau Sr., have the right to ”French only” schooling and ”French Only” busing.”
It has nothing to do with Trudeau Sr. Education is provincial power. If students are receiving French-language schooling in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it’s because provincial governments decided to do that.
This is racism against the Muslim and Hispanics communities in/coming to Canada..
25,000 new Libyan citizens will misunderstand your laws..
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Similarly, the Supremes once in a while make a ruling that isn’t completely nuts. OK, arguably, it’s not intentional, but still.
Now if only the SCOC would apply similar logic to cases involving so-called “First Nations”. The twisting that has been seen in the courts in regard to that nonsense is astonishing.
The kids of parents who received their education in French, in Canada, have a right to a French education where numbers within the community warrant. Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 23.
Note that Americans transferred to Quebec for work have to send there kids to a French school. If they are really rich, there are private schools. I wonder if this isn’t one reason (among others) GM left Quebec?
Technology renders most of the language law issues moot. If you want to look at Canadian laws written in French, go to the English version on the interwebz and get it instantly translated into French. I know that these translations aren’t perfect, but they are getting better every day. It won’t be long before people can hold a conversation in any language they want and have a smart phone do a simultaneous translation.
“Neither can we resolve the tension arising from the interplay of fundamental constitutional principles, as the appellants ask us to do, by resorting to broad and uncontroversial generalities, or by infusing vague phrases with improbable meanings”
Never stopped them before….
I believe the obvious meaning of this judgment is that it cost someone a couple of million bucks to lose an attempt to fight a traffic ticket; that the hidden meaning is that French only will continue to be the law in Quebec; and that the really subtle consequence will be to accelerate Quebec’s conversion to a parc national.
Map the majority and the dissenters by which PM appointed them…..
Harper appointed 7 of the 9 but they are just as likely to vote with the commies. A big disappointed was Harper’s inability to appoint real conservatives to positions. The primary qualification for a conservative judge is the willingness not to make up law but to just interpret what is written. There are many lawyers who don’t believe in an activist judiciary. Harper just had trouble finding them. I suspect he was in some ways naive. After all, he didn’t see the evil in the CBC.
It started with a traffic violation in Manitoba, too, but the results were much different. 13% French population, but all laws were forced to be written dans les deux langues ‘officielles’.
Like the “Supreme Court”, french “bilingualism” is a racket. The “Supreme Courts” ruling makes sense up until it doesn’t at which time a future Court can rule exactly the opposite as it ruled in this case. After all, its the Gods of the supreme court that enforce Trudeau Sr,s officially french act, the OLA, while unilingual Quebec forces its “French language Charter, Bill 101. Either way, Canadians are forced to pay for this wasteful inherently bigoted nonsense, over a trillion dollars since Trudo Sr imposed french as an “official language” in 1969… nice racket. Trudopia is a gigantic social engineering turd.
Ha, if you want an example of real bilingual foolishness, try my province, New Brunswick, the only legally true bilingual province, a bilingualism that has evolved into dualism, separate school systems and separate hospital systems, things we can little afford. A recent squabble is about the many three-quarters empty school buses which are separate along language lines. One school district tried to save money by having fewer buses and picking up both language groups but somebody raised the right for French students to not be contaminated by having to share a bus with the anglophones(affectionately called square-heads by the affectionately called frogs). The gutless liberal government here is asking the courts to rule on this issue. They have no balls just to allow it. We also have a very annoying useless expensive Language Commissioner(plus her minions) along the lines of the Quebec Language Cops to protect the French language though it’s purpose is suppose to protect both languages but its head is always a Francophone, currently a bait setting woman. I shake my square-head in disgust. Besides the only protection the English needs here is from the Language Commissioner.
This is the nub of the ruling. If the SCC had ruled for the plaintiff, the entire argument for bill 101 in Quebec comes crashing down…
Harper appointed on recommendations.
None were in his court, those recommending and those recommended.
Pox on Harper, maybe, but I think the system was against him.
Thorough liberal establishment.
Nadon was axed.
Nuff said.
JJM: Please read this carefully. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT a provincial constitution. It belongs to all of Canada, and our friend Pierre Trudeau introduced it!! And please note that New Brunswick has additional rights over and above this.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Marginal note:Language of instruction
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (93)
Marginal note:Continuity of language instruction
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
Marginal note:Application where numbers warrant
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Re: Bilingual New Brunswick. At least your province was indeed bilingual and about 50-50 French-English. At the time Saskatchewan was given the right to French separate schools, there was about 8% of the population that was spoke French.
Opps–sorry–that last line should read ”that was speaking French.”
To heck with this bilinguial gobbeldy gook the U.S of A needs to make English its language and screw the Un Hman Rights Commity
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT a provincial constitution.”
Did I suggest it was?
Of course the Charter applies to all Canadians. But education is still a provincial power, so how the section of the charter you quote will or will not be implemented is up to the provinces. You might note it includes a “where numbers warrant” rider. If a province decides that five students represents a sufficient number then there you have it.
Besides, what exactly are you suggesting anyway? That Canadian citizens should have no right to be educated in one of the two official languages of this country?
But this has little or nothing to do with the main issue though (the laws and regulations of Alberta). Face it, it’s just a further pretext to grumble about French.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT a provincial constitution.”
The charter is not a constitution at all, to anybody. Its an adjunct document to the constitution, but it is not the constitution itself.
The US is undergoing turmoil over embracing Syrian refugees. Syria, for a time, was ruled by the French. Bilingualism does not unite a country, but tears it apart. Once you get the French involved, you have infinite turmoil. Now, and in the past, there are idiotic factions in the US to have Spanish (or rather Mexican) be a legal second language. The libruls will only be satisfied when the US is thoroughly Balkanized. Some states now, by librul actions, have ballots and laws published in a dozen languages. If the US is Balkanized sufficiently, each librul will be king of his own section of the country. Let Kanukstan be a shining example of any action with librul or french attached to it.
“Old Country Boy”:
Interestingly, English and French have exactly the same word for describing your outburst above: diatribe.
So what is point about Old Country Boy’s “diatribe”. Trying to shut him down? Official Bilingualism along with official multiculturalism has done nothing but create divisive groups jostling for power where only greed and your own ethnicity/language/religion matter. I think Old Country Boy does have a point.
“Trying to shut him down?”
Hmmm… I don’t recall anywhere in my comment where I wrote: “Old Country Boy, shut up.”
On the contrary, as far as I’m concerned he’s perfectly free to provide further diatribes (I’m sure he will too).
And I’m free to keep calling them diatribes.
Just asking…thanks for clarifying.
I believe its Trudeaus “supreme court” that decides where “numbers warrant” not the Provinces. The Provinces, with the exception of Queebec are obligated by the court to provide special considerations for french. I suppose the Provinces could ignore the french language edicts of the Supreme Court and the french language declarations of the Trudeau Charter, bring in a Bill 178 like Quebec, but they won’t. Instead one cultural “group” (English speaking) will be forced by the courts to continue financially supporting a lesser cultural “group” french speakers, just as Trudeaus OLA and Charter were designed to function.
Face it: for you, this is just a further pretext to grumble about French.
How dare anyone speak the other official language of our country, eh?
JJM: I’m the one that started it all!! Sorry!
Language rights are a long and complex issue. Even more complex if you throw in education rights. You are right that in general, education is a provincial power. However when it comes to Francophone schools, the laws that allow them to operate derive from long and complex Supreme Court of Canada challenges and with different judgments in each province. Pending the final outcome of the court’s decisions that often took several years to resolve, these schools were being funded in part or in whole by the Feds. One Federal Dept that provided such funding was Heritage Canada/Patrimoine Canada. There may be more.
And I do agree that Canada is a bi-lingual nation, so we must respect that right. However that does not mean it’s we can’t voice an opinion. As for R V Caron, his goal was to set precedence where Alberta would have to provide legal services in both languages. Obviously he failed.
“Canada is a bilingual nation”… ahhh, no its not… Canada is a predominately English speaking nation with “two official languages”… french was imposed as an official language by francophone supremacist Peeair Turdo in 1969 and according to Stats-Can English french “bilingualism” is only spoken by 17% of the population despite the billions poured into the french language industry every year… Lets face it, the only people who support this inherently bigoted social engineering scheme are those bigots that benefit from it financially… or those tribalists that feel entitled to other peoples money… over a trillion extorted and wasted taxpayer dollars and counting.
Because I speak both languages, I can’t help but notice how alike in many ways the real cranks and fanatics are when it comes to language.
On the Anglo side, as many of these comments show (just look at Sean M’s diatribe above) it’s the usual “Horror!-There’s-French-on-my-box-of-Corn-Flakes” bluster and noise; on the Franco side it’s constant fretting that if poor little Ti-Pierre is on a school bus with even a single English-speaking kid he’ll somehow lose the ability to speak French.
I think the “horror” of the forced french act (“bilingualism”) is the complete and utter uselessness of such a divisive social engineering scheme… Although the costs that have reached well over a trillion taxpayer dollars since french was imposed as an “official language” in 1969 is also quite horrific… The “horror” of being forced by the Government and its courts to prop up this artificial construct of tribal bigotry is indeed quite horrific. The imposed french language industry is indeed a “horror” for all those that are forced to pay for it’s existence but receive absolutely no benefit from its unnecessary imposition. Not to mention the greatest “horror” of all, the insidious “horror” of delusional self importance, sociopathic obtuseness, the mind numbing stupidity and greed that inflicts the very “special” few who financially benefit from this maliciously conjured artificial construct of theft and Government imposed malignancy. Wouldn’t it be wonderfully simplistic and ever so convenient if the social and financial costs of “bilingualism” (forced french) could realistically be reduced to an argument over whether a “Corn Flakes” box had french printed on it or not… thankfully, most people are not that ignorant and understand that “bilingualism” (forced french) has nothing to do with “Corn Flakes”.