Canadians for Language Fairness

End the unfairness of official bilingualism. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Canadians for Language Fairness

P.O. Box 40111

Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet

2515 Bank Street.

Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8


Why should the Official Languages Act concern us?

What do you know about the Official Languages Act?

The Official Languages Act (OLA), passed in 1969, is a Federal law which is enforced at the federal level and one other province i.e. New Brunswick. The province of Quebec has passed several anti-English laws (Bills 22, 178 & 101) that effectively make French their only official language. The provinces of Nova Scotia passed the French Language Services Act (2004) as did the province of Ontario (1986), and the province of Prince Edward Island (2013). Limited service in French is offered in each municipality in each of these provinces in varying degrees.

What's wrong with that?

Elevating a minority language to equal status with the majority language is creating an over-emphasis on the minority language, especially when that minority language is concentrated only in the Eastern provinces of Canada, namely, QC & NB. Further using that minority language as the criteria for employment at the federal level and increasingly at the provincial level is creating a work-force which over-represents the French-speakers. French-speakers are the ones most likely to be bilingual as they grow up speaking the language. Non-French speakers do not grow up speaking French and learning it at school does not make them fluent, especially as the educated French is very different from the colloquial French.

The 2011 Census showed that "self-assessed" bilingual Canadians make up 17.5% of Canada's population, the figure of those who can pass the language test is only about 12%. The Treasury Board (2014) showed that 31.9 % of the total Federal Public Service are Francophones in a country that is made up of only 21.3% mother-tongue French-speakers (2011 census). This over-representation of French-speakers in our public service concerns us greatly.

The limited supply of bilingual Canadians & the over-emphasis on a minority language as a criteria for employment has resulted in a lowering of academic & professional standards in our governments. Many high-level positions are filled by people with just secondary school certificates or equivalent.

As French is spoken widely only in Eastern Canada, this has led to Western Canadians being left out of the picture. The division and disunity brought about will eventually destroy Canada.

This is why you should be concerned.

Read More


23 November 2017

Omnibus Bill 177

Are the French activists so desperate that they have to exaggerate their achievements?  Anyone reading the headline in the Ottawa Citizen article should immediately focus on these two words "claim victory".   Reading the article, one realizes that this omnibus Bill 177 does NOT confer OB status on the City of Ottawa - it merely confirms that by-law 2001-170 exists and is being administered by the City as practically as possible.

Mayor Watson says that the City Council is still in control of what services will be available in both languages - the French activists cannot make unreasonable demands & force the city to comply, which would happen in the case of OB status.  It is still incumbent on the citizens of Ottawa to make sure that, in voting for their councillors, they don't vote for any councillor who will cave to the demands of the French activists & pro-French academics.  If you care about the amount of property tax you pay, keep a keen eye on what the city is spending your taxes on.  According to statistics gathered by our researchers, the cost of compliance with the FLSA was $3,062,000 in 2017.  With Official Bilingualism, it could conceivably be $20 or $30 million or more."

Bilingual Ottawa groups claim victory with provincial bill to enshrine city's bilingualism policy in law

At our last language meeting, we had a very interesting gentleman tell us about something quite amazing!  Matt Paul's story:

Matt revealed something that none of us knew is happening - an English speaker had to fight for evidence presented in court to be in the English language, in Ontario!!  Unlike most of us, Matt wasn't willing to be intimidated & he did his own research & found out that he had the right to a hearing & review the whole challenge in English.  Bravo, Matt!!  This shows us that the Crown prosecutor didn't know the law OR that he thinks that English-speaking Canadians are pushovers!!  In most cases we are!!  Unlike the French, we don't have well-funded organizations which are given millions of tax-payer dollars to go to court to fight for their rights.  People like Matt has to fight on his own.

Kim McConnell

We get letters from our readers who have to suffer in silence because the English-speaking majority has NO recourse against the unfair language laws, written into P.E. Trudeau's 1982 Constitution.  Here is a recent letter:

Much is being said on CTV news about the upcoming vote to make Ottawa officially bilingual.  DesRosiers, representing Vanier, promised during her election campaign that she would make Ottawa officially bilingual. We all know, with the make up of residents there, how easily many people of Vanier can be convinced to vote for the Liberal party because of underhanded promises.

Now there is a wolf in lamb's clothing! It all sounds so innocent & the whine of the danger of being disadvantaged in future is being accepted as a legitimate!

Like so many other instances of forcing French on people, she claims that it is only cementing what already exists. This is how they got legislation passed for bilingualism in the Federal Public Service. Then, as soon as it is passed, they begin to press for the full extent of the law so that as many francophones as possible take all the jobs available & start running everything. These francophone whiners play the role of sad, disadvantaged people just trying to get their due; then as soon as legislation is made law, they become bullies.

I was in the Federal Public Service for 12 years & several francophones tried to get me fired or limit my advancement because I did not pass their impossible French exams. The exams were created so that anglophones cannot pass; then francophones are given the jobs although they are NOT proficient in English & the language of work was English; & 95% of the public they serve is English-speaking. As soon as this gets passed, (they say next month), you will see the west end of Ottawa change significantly. The Francophones have their eyes on the west-end of Ottawa & covet what has been built up there by Anglophones, & now want to take it over. My thoughts are not too far-fetched and what I write would be easily recognized by any Anglophones in the Federal Public Service and/or who have lived in the province of Quebec like I did.  I moved to Ontario because there were no chances for jobs in the province of Quebec for Anglophones, & the govt. treats Anglophones worse than recent immigrants.

Now DesRosiers appears on the news with her whining of worry over future mayors of Ottawa in order to get the legislation passed, thus bypassing Jim Watson who has managed to prevent it so far. Bastards! Many Francophones are as much the enemies of Anglophones as anyone outside the country!  I have had to fight for jobs since I came to Ottawa in 1984 because of Francophones trying to take them from me. Making Ottawa officially bilingual would be a catastrophe for non-francophones in the whole of extended Ottawa without any doubt.

Is there anything specifically being done by CLF?


CLF's mandate is to shine the spot-light on this policy which has worked against the English-speaking majority.  Most Canadians are uninformed on how unfair this policy is so our job is to tell anybody who will listen that something has to be done to stop this "tyranny of the minority".

No politician dares to speak up for fear of the powerful French lobby. 


I worked for the Official Languages commissioner In the early 70s. That organization was full of separatists and I subsequently withdrew from there to the Treasury Board. In this article I believe it was McGuinty who referred to Canada as a bilingual country. The Canadian Legion says the same thing. Canada is NOT a bilingual country. Quebec is unilingual French and N.B. is the only bilingual Province probably because of the shouts and screams from the French factor The cost would be staggering. When I worked for Keith Spicer we would send his English annual report to Montreal for translation at 25 cents per word. When Paul Hellyer was Defence Minister he brought in integration. Saved 6 million dollars.  All the savings went to translate motor vehicle maintenance manuals which no one used as the manuals were based on American technology. The whole thing is so damn stupid!!  Wait a little longer and we might speak about translating manuals etc. Into Arabic.


Hi Kim,

Thank you for the good work you continue to do.

I was at a session in Ottawa last week which talked about Career Paths.  The goal of the session was to show the opportunities.  The meeting was of the FI - Finance Community.  Apparently, they have a hard time attracting and retaining in this professional group.

At the microphone, I asked about the impact about the new requirement that all managers and supervisors must now be CBC bilingual.  The speaker indicated that this is only a recommendation and that they are looking at how to deal with it.  It is a major issue, as there are many employees who don't meet those requirements.  He indicated that those impacted would include him!  

He also indicated that 8 out of 10 applicants are unilingual!!!!  In the FI group, people often start to supervise at FI-02.  Some FI-03's don't supervisor, but most do.  So, it appears that as early as FI-02 you can hit the glass ceiling.  I believe there is a lack of transparency when the federal government recruits at universities and does not inform applicants of this glass ceiling.  Maybe that information needs to get out to managers of recruiting departments.  If you go into a position and plan to stay there, it is a job.  But most university graduates are looking for a career......

The unit I work in has fully implemented the requirement.  They language test before looking at skills.  They will wait ridiculous amounts of time to find an employee and spend outrageous amount to relocate.  We did 3 relocations in the last 4 months.  Two appear to be massive failures.  But don't fear, they speak French.   The reason they have implemented is due to "All the grievances they get"

I have been denied many opportunities due to language.  I decided about a year ago to no longer act in the manager position, as why would I act in a position I cannot have?  This has caused an issue in the organization.  I am once again being asked to act.  The union has never encountered this situation before.  I am confident they can't make me act as I would simply get a doctor's note as the increased stress this would cause me.

A young FI told me that the Professional Group which contains Engineers (I apologize I did not get specific information) has sent an email to all their members to inform them about this requirement.  They did so to ensure employees were aware, and could either decide their current job was a good one to remain at, seek new opportunities or get language training.  I requested that my union do the same, but they don't want to do this.  They did put a blog on their site which very few have seen.

Keep up the good work.  It helps.


Read More


24 July 2017

Bill S-209

We received a heads-up from a reader who gave us the link to a private member's bill in the Senate:

Throughout the nearly 50 years that the Official Languages Act has been in force, changes have been made to strengthen the hand of French-speakers in Canada's government.  Every change has made it easier for French-speakers to get into senior positions & made all Canadian parents think that the knowledge of French is imperative for employment & the demand for French Immersion has risen all across Canada.  Years of French Immersion education in N.B. has proven that F.I has not produced more bilingual graduates, able to pass the stringent governmental language tests.  Yes, they have learnt enough French to absorb the historical revisionism of Canadian history that French is a founding nation (even though every Canadian knows the lost the war). 

Despite all the efforts made by the Francophones & Francophiles in power, the French are still not satisfied.  They have found that, despite bringing in immigrants from French-speaking countries & deliberately keepimg out immgrants from Britain, the French-speaking population has not increased substantially enough.  The Ontario government gave in to the demands of the powerful Language Commissioner to consider all people who can speak French as Francophones, thus increasing their proportion in the population & the necessity to provide service in French.  So, if you're bilngual (in English & French), you're now a Francophone.  The same tactic is being employed by the Senator who championed this bill.

We acknowledge that the CPC under PM Harper's terms in office tried to stop the expansion of the OLA but his government was not successful.  We know that the courts stood in the way of every attempt but in the eyes of many English-speakers, the CPC has to wear that failure.  It could also partly explain their failure at the last election as many English-speakers have felt betrayed.

We consider Bill S-209 to be another blatant attempt to Frenchify Canada, an effort that has already cost billions of taxpayer dollars that could be used to improve the lives of ALL Canadians, not just a select linguistic group; jobs & promotions have been denied to well-qualified Canadians because they are not linguists & more French is not going to improve the economic or poltical position of Canada as a country.  French power in the world has been on the decline for years; the US will not consider us more valuable because our government officials can speak French & let me assure you there are mor Chinese learning Enaglish than there are learning French.

Our appeal to the CPC under the leadership of Andrew Scheer was sent three (3) days ago.  We hope to get a reply in the near future.  Losing votes because more English=speakers are now aware of the growing problem may be a reason to pay attention to this complaint but only if enough Canadians will take action & voice their concerns.  Ignore it as an irrelevant issue & don't be surprised if the issue is also ignored by all politicians.  Please contact your own MP - ask them to pay attention to this issue.

Kim McConnell

Letter to CPC Leader, Andrew Scheer

July 20, 2017

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

Attention:   Mr. Andrew Scheer

                  Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Subject:    Bill S-209: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act

Dear Mr. Scheer,

As you likely are aware, Bill S-209: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public) is currently proceeding through parliament.

Our understanding of Bill S-209 is basically that it would expand the federal government’s delivery of bilingual communications and services to the public by revising the method used to justify the need for the delivery of bilingual services.

We read with interest the web page of The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer regarding the cost estimate for Bill S-209 ( as well as their report at the link given on that page.

After reading their report, we addressed several questions to The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and have received a reply from Mr. Peter Weltman, Sr. Director, Costing and Program Analysis.  (for copy of his reply, see below)

Unfortunately, Mr. Weltman’s replies raise other issues/questions as follows:

1.      The proposed change to the method for determining the need for bilingual service delivery is fundamentally flawed

In his email, Mr. Weltman states: “The Official Languages Act requires that bilingual services be made available where demand warrants.  Demand is determined using a methodology for estimating First Official Language Spoken in a census area, which considers knowledge, mother tongue, and language spoken at home.  S-209 proposes enlarging that demand calculation to include those who indicate on the census that they have knowledge of the minority official language of their census area, regardless of whether or not they speak it at home, or whether or not it is their mother tongue.  For example, if a person speaks English normally but has knowledge of French, they would be included in the calculation under S-209, but not under the existing law.”

We believe that the new inclusion of “knowledge of the minority language of their census area” in the demand calculation is a completely unreasonable, unnecessary and expensive expansion. 

We believe that any reasonable person knows that Canadians will request services in their mother tongue or language spoken at home, not in the minority language of which they may have some limited knowledge.  I have some knowledge of French but would never ask for services in French as this could lead to misunderstandings either on my part or on that of the government employee.

Would you agree?

2.      The Cost Estimate is incomplete and misleading to the public

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report provides a cost estimate of $147 million for implementation costs (one-time) and $9 million ongoing costs (annually), all of which is related to implementation for language training and the ongoing bilingual bonus and second language maintenance training.

But, this cost estimate is for only 535 newly bilingual offices, not for all of the 1,664 newly bilingual offices!

In his email, Mr. Weltman states: “The biggest impact/costs would be incurred by Canada Post, but we are not allowed to publish those details because they were provided to us in confidence.  The total number of newly bilingual offices (1,664) less those belonging to Canada Post, (1,129) leaves 535 offices.”.

If the report’s cost estimate excludes “the biggest impact/costs” regardless of the reason, then it is grossly incomplete and misleading to the public.  This cost estimate completely lacks transparency and voids the current government’s election promise of more open and transparent government.

Simply factoring the costs for the 535 newly bilingual offices to cover all of the 1,664 newly bilingual offices would mean that the total costs could be $457 million for implementation costs (one-time) and $28 million ongoing costs (annually).  This is a huge and unnecessary amount especially when the current government is already running $30 billion annual deficits and projects a debt reaching $1.5 trillion before achieving a balanced budget.

Would you agree?

3.      The Potential Social Costs

We believe that there may be significant social costs related to Bill S-209 that may not have been considered (or are being hidden), especially as they relate to Canada Post which according to Mr. Weltman has “The biggest impact/costs”.

The stated purpose of the bill is to increase primarily front line bilingual services.  In the case of Canada Post, this likely means the clerks that serve the public at Canada Post outlets.  

Many (probably most) postal outlets are now located in various shops and stores (grocery stores, drug stores, corner stores etc.) across the country, and the employees are hired by the stores, not Canada Post.  What happens now to a unilingual French employee at one of these outlets in a drug store in Quebec when the "office" is now designated bilingual - is he/she fired?  And, the same for unilingual English speakers elsewhere in Canada.  Is Canada Post going to pay for language training for these employees - we suspect not.  Are some small family-owned corner stores going to lose their postal outlet (and the income from it) because no one in the family is bilingual, or will they be forced to hire a bilingual person that they cannot afford. 

This entire issue is being completely hidden under the guise of confidentiality.

         Would you agree?

Mr. Scheer, as you can see from the forgoing, we have some very serious concerns about Bill S-209, both financial and social, especially when this bill is completely unnecessary and yet another example of wasteful spending by the current government.

We believe that these concerns need to be fully addressed for all Canadians in an open and transparent manner by all government entities including Canada Post.

We look forward to your taking up this challenge on the behalf of all Canadians, and await your response.

Yours sincerely,

Kim McConnell



Our email to the Office to the Parliamentary Budget Officer:

July 13, 2017

Dear Sir/Madam:

Subject:    Request for Information re Cost Estimate for Bill S-209: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have read with interest your report entitled "Cost Estimate for Bill S-209: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public)" dated 17 August 2016, and I have a few questions:

  1. Can you please tell me what are the current demographic rules for designating an office bilingual?
  2. Can you please tell me what will be the new demographic rules for designating an office bilingual if Bill S-209 is passed into law?
  3. Your report indicates that there will be a total of 1,664 newly bilingual offices (KMOL) - demographic rules across Canada.  Given this, can you tell me why your cost estimates are based on only 535 Newly Bilingual Offices which is less than one third of the total newly bilingual offices

I look forward to your response,

Yours sincerely,

Kim McConnell


Reply from Peter Weltman, Sr. Director, Costing & Program Analysis

From: []

Sent: July 18, 2017 9:38 AM


Subject: RE: *Request* Bill S-209

Hi Kim,

Happy to help in any way that I can.

First off, we are not subject to the Access to Information and Privacy law because we are considered a parliamentary organization (Parliament is exempt from this Act).  However, as a matter of course, we always provide information to anybody that asks, unless that information has been provided to us in confidence.  And there is no charge, but you don’t get a nice letter on letterhead- just an email from me.

The Official Languages Act requires that bilingual services be made available where demand warrants.  Demand is determined using a methodology for estimating First Official Language Spoken in a census area, which considers knowledge, mother tongue, and language spoken at home.  S-209 proposes enlarging that demand calculation to include those who indicate on the census that they have knowledge of the minority official language of their census area, regardless of whether or not they speak it at home, or whether or not it is their mother tongue.  For example, if a person speaks English normally but has knowledge of French, they would be included in the calculation under S-209, but not under the existing law.

This would take the number of Canadians qualifying for bilingual service from 2 million to almost 6 million.  The geographic distribution of this population would determine where and how many extra points of service would be required.  If half of those people lived in metropolitan Montreal, for example, it is unlikely that departments would need to add new offices- they would likely simply need more bilingual staff.

The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) has a model that is used to determine required bilingual points of presence.  Individual departments calculate their own costs of complying with this determination.  The biggest impact/costs would be incurred by Canada Post, but we are not allowed to publish those details because they were provided to us in confidence.  The total number of newly bilingual offices (1,664) less those belonging to Canada Post, (1,129) leaves 535 offices.

I hope this helps.  Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions on this or any of our work at the PBO.

Best regards - Peter

Peter Weltman

Sr. Director, Costing and Program Analysis | Dir. Principale, analyses des coûts et des programmes

Bureau du directeur parlementaire du budget  |  Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

Bibliothèque du Parlement |  Library of Parliament

Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A9


office 613.992.8044

cell     613.218.1854

Twitter   @dpb_pbo

From Beth Trudeau, Spokesperson from CLF:

Dear Mr. Scheer,

Further to Mrs. McConnell's letter, I have attached a commentary that also pertains to this subject that you should be aware of.


Beth Trudeau

Hi Jason, member of the media:

Thank you for the opportunity to state our concerns on behalf of Anglophones across Canada.  Based on the Analysis of Complaints section of the 2014/2015 report from the Office of Official Languages, there were only 550 complaints total for the year.

According to Stats Canada, in 2016 there are 164 staff total working in the six (6) Official Languages Offices with salaries and benefits totaling over $18 MILLION annually.  Based on 550 complaints, that means each staff handles 3.35 cases PER YEAR!!!

And now they want to set up another source to do what they are receiving over 18 MILLION dollars to do already to handle a whole 550 complaints?  The government would be much wiser and LESS DISCRIMINATORY if they used that same 18 MILLION dollars to instead invest in automatic translators, such as the following;

At a cost of $200 per device, the government could hand out 90,000 translation devices to government workers and the need to hire based on language instead of merit, would disappear forever.  The ability for any person of any language to assist another person of a different language would be possible.  We DO have the technology.  

There would also be less government workers on stress leave as many suffer such ailments because of the language testing and the continual threat of losing their jobs, and that will result in more savings for taxpayers.  We know this because Canadians for Language Fairness DO listen to Anglophone complaints, unlike the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser who refuses to hear complaints from the majority.

The savings to taxpayers by going the technology route instead of the same old discriminatory, unaccountable route are huge in a time when so many are having to choose between heating, eating and paying their hydro bill.


Beth Trudeau

Canadians for Language Fairness



Read More


17 September 2017

J.V. Andrew's "Enough" in Audio format

Those of our readers who have followed our efforts to tell Canadians about why we oppose the Official Languages Act will be very familiar with the valiant attempts by Ret'd Lt. Commander, C.A.F., J.V. Andrew,  to alert Canadians to the diabolical efforts to Frenchify Canada.  J.V. Andrew wrote the book, "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow" in 1977, followed by "Back-door Bilingualism in 1979 & "Enough" in 1988.  Jock, like many of Canada's military leaders, saw very early on what P.E. Trudeau was doing when he included the OLA in the 1982 Constitution.

He decided to make his predictions about the eventual result of the OLA in his writings.  We decided to make an audio version of his 3rd book, "Enough".  The book was divided into three audio files, each about an hour long, all available at this link:

Reading the written word is not the same as hearing it read by someone, especially someone who has a good, well-modulated voice.  Somehow, the effect is more powerful. 

Mr. Andrew was given a very hard time for having written those books, all criticizing the OLA for pushing the French agenda onto an unsuspecting English-speaking country.  Has his predictions come true?  Are the French given far more power than they should have in their bid to force the acceptance of the equality of the minority French-speakers with the majority English-speakers?  Has Canada spent too much money in this effort to force French on Canada, especially when the effort has failed?  After nearly half a century, the number of bilingual (English/French) Canadians has not increased substantially.  This has not stopped them from making bigger & bigger demands for more money to be spent & more laws to be made for using more force.

PM Lester Pearson introduced the initiative of bilingualizing the F.P.S. in 1966 in an effort to unify the country.  Has that ploy worked - are we more united?  P.E. Trudeau passed the official Languages Act in 1969 & made it part of the 1982 Constitution.  Since then, the OLA has been increasingly strengthened.

The Armed Forces was Trudeau's first target.

Official Languages - Bilingual Officer Corp in the military started in 1988

Regular Force Bilingual Officer Corps

On June 28, 1988, the Armed Forces Council adopted the concept of a Regular force "Bilingual Officer Corps." With a target date of January 1, 1998, promotion to the rank of Lieutenant- Colonel/Commander would be restricted to those officers who are bilingual. It was agreed that a Bilingual Officer Corps was necessary, since senior officers needed to be ready, on request, to command troops from both language groups. The need for bilingual officers therefore enhances the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. In June 1995, the Armed Forces Council adopted an expanded definition or concept of the Corps to include bilingual competency for all officer ranks.


In its early years, the primary focus of the Directorate of Official Languages was implementing and enforcing the Official Languages Act. Today, official languages have become entrenched throughout the public service, including the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. The directorate now focuses on providing guidance and support to managers and commanding officers to help them fulfill their official languages obligations and commitments.

By 2008, 73.1% of the Officers were bilingual.  Anyone with more current figures?  I imagine that ALL officers are now bilingual (mostly French).

Readers who are interested in the CBC report on the 2016 census:

Bilingualism at its highest level

The share of Canadians who speak English at home increased to 74.7 per cent in 2016 from 74 per cent in 2011, while those who speak French fell to 23.3 per cent from 23.8 per cent.

But the number of Canadians who are bilingual increased to 18 per cent, the highest level of bilingualism on record

In 1961, just 12.2 per cent of Canadians reported being bilingual.

Fully two-thirds of the growth in bilingualism since the 2011 census was due to Quebec, where a majority of bilingual Canadians live.

J.J. McCullough wrote a very revealing article in the Huffington Post, 2014:

"Let Them Learn French": Canada's Bilingual Elite Hold All the Power

"This is an awful lot of power to concentrate in just 17 per cent of the population. If you heard of some third world dump where a linguistic minority of less than 20 per cent held a permanent, legally-protected monopoly on all of the country's top jobs, you'd probably think it wasn't much of a democracy.

You'd be right. Discriminatory, arbitrary barriers to full civic participation remain a blight no matter where they're practiced, and we undermine any pretence of being a truly egalitarian nation when we seek to normalize or rationalize them. Yet a lot of Canadians seem distressingly eager to do so.

After nearly 50 years, the proportion of Canadians able to function in English & French is 18%.  The high rate of immigration has brought other languages into play (Chinese, Tagalog, Arabic, etc.).  Most immigrants prefer English & even though French is forced on Canadians by various means, French-speakers are not growing fast enough to satisfy the French extremists' demand for equality.  

What follows is a translated article from the French media.  Readers in Western Canada, please note - they are putting the pressure on for more French coming your way!!  They've got control of Eastern & Central Canada - now they're coming after you & if Bill-209 is successful, the number of French-speakers will be artificially increased to enable them to do so!!

Kim McConnell

OTTAWA - A delegation of French-speaking youth activists from the French-Canadian Youth Federation (FJCF), invited to submit their ideas, proposed a number of recommendations on Friday, September 8 to modernize the Official Languages ​​Act (OLA).

BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg  | @BVachet

During a round table that often resembled a survey of the Francophonie outside Quebec viewed by Francophone youths rather than a consultation to review the OLA, participants did not hesitate to draw a sometimes bleak picture of French in a minority setting.

 "In Saskatchewan, we can not flourish in French! French is seen as a headache and not as an asset, "illustrated the Fransaskoise, Gabriela Quintanilla.

 Saskatchewan is probably reading the Official Languages ​​Act, when we are here talking about modernizing it! - Gabrielle Quintanilla

 The same is true in British Columbia, where, according to Louis Roux, Franco-Colombians often find it difficult to identify with the Francophone community and where the provincial government lacks leadership, the province being the only one have neither a policy nor a French Language Services Act.

 "It's not just a law to say where you can speak in French, it takes places to do it," says Seth Fraser of Nova Scotia.

 "The problem is that the culture in Canada should already be bilingual and include French. If we are really Canadian, we should be bilingual! I would like to see that in 100 years, we stop talking about French and English, but we are talking about a true bilingual Canada, "said Julien Gaudet, director of the Youth Association fransaskoise (AJF).

 Lack of access to post-secondary education programs in French, places to speak French and share French culture, linguistic insecurity, lack of connection with immersion students, insufficient funding for youth organizations ... So many issues raised that a modernization of the OLA will undoubtedly be difficult to resolve.

But for the president of the Franco-Ontarian Youth Federation (FESFO), Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, it was necessary to raise these points.

"The main goal today is to bring the general reality experienced by young people across the country directly to the ears of senators who are busy modernizing the Fa. It will then be up to them to put our remarks into action in a new piece of legislation. The fact that the Act was designed almost 50 years ago has an impact on its effectiveness. She does not answer, for example, digital needs that youth reality of 21 th century. I think there is potential for this new piece of legislation to define the linguistic duality of the country and the linguistic and cultural richness of Canada. "

Learning French required?

The FJCF has several ideas for modernizing the OLA.

"The notion of the quality of French in the services offered to the population must be introduced in the Act, but also the concept of" important demands "that justifies where services are offered. The definition of what constitutes a francophone should also be revised to make it more inclusive and provide for preliminary consultations with respect to Part IV of the Act, Communications with and Services to the Public ". enumerated Gillian Theoret, treasurer of the spokesperson agency for young francophones in minority communities.

The Vice-President of the FJCF, Sophie Brassard, also calls on the federal government to raise awareness and promote French and linguistic duality through a national campaign.

Other, more ambitious ideas have been put forward, such as making French language courses compulsory for all young Canadians, or giving more teeth to the OLA so that it is finally respected.

"When the federal government gives money, the services that flow from it should necessarily be bilingual," Gaudet said.

For Mhanna-Sandoval, a new OLA should also take First Nations languages ​​into account.

No surprises

Chaired by Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier, this meeting was part of the national consultations conducted by the Senate Committee on Official Languages to modernize the Official Languages Act, as we approach the 50 th anniversary of the Act in 2019 .

Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier. (Photo Credit: Senate of Canada)

At the end of the round table, the Acadian senator was not surprised by the comments made by the young people.

"I did not have huge surprises, but I saw young articulate, lucid and for some, extremely committed to this desire that the Fa has more bite, that it has more impact in life of Canadians and that the federal government plays a leadership role so that all Canadians see official languages ​​as our common history. "

For her part, the Franco-Ontarian senator particularly appreciated the proposal to make learning French compulsory across Canada.

"This is an interesting proposition, because it could set us apart from American culture and give Canada a unique character with respect to its linguistic diversity. It would be quite realistic to see children learning both languages ​​from an early age. But afterwards, we must also think about how they will use it and not lose the use of it by growing up. "

In addition to the youth, the Senate committee planned to consult with official language minority communities, witnesses to the evolution of the Official Languages ​​Act, the justice sector and federal institutions.

Comment from a Concerned Citizen

In response to this we need to understand something very basic about the Canadian "mentality."  Canadians are in many ways Americans in lifestyle with similar lives of prosperity and access to a wide variety of goods and services.  However, Canada has also been subject to some very traditionally un-Canadian leadership such as that of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau (PET) who brought Canada into the high-taxed welfare state syndrome that he learned while a student at Harvard, the London School of Economics and at the Paris Sorbonne - all known for their Marxist-driven ideologies.  As such Canada began a march toward diverging paths from those in America. And to somehow justify all of this as anti-American sentiment was brought upon our land to help create a distinctiveness that was hitherto not easily visible or otherwise recognizable. In short, a great deal of what now consists of the "Canadian identity" is little more than an anti-American sentiment.  Canada needs somehow to justify its very heavy top-down statism by elevating itself as somehow more morally superior than its American neighbor.  And there are numerous examples that have been used to reinforce this sentimentality not the least was Trudeau's sweet embrace of the communist mass-murderer Fidel Castro and exemplified when he (Trudeau) and his young wife, the former Margaret Sinclair, attended a mass rally in Havana where Margaret would sport a bra-less, nipple-protruding white T-shirt, wildly cheering on her man, Castro. Indeed, Canadian "leadership" was significantly different from America's.

And one of the main proponents of that anti-American sentiment is driven by Canada's own fake-news media that relentlessly denigrates just about anything and everything American. Indeed, it is now almost impossible to find a Canadian news outlet that reports fair and balanced news about anything American.  (There are "elements" in the American embassy in Ottawa that will agree that Canada is sometimes (sssssh!) referred to as the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Canada..." ...ssssh...hush.......)

And much of this is now coming to a head with the current Trump administration.  Do not believe for a minute that what is written here is not known and accepted in Washington with greater detail and clarity than can be described here.  The opening salvos have already been fired with the Canadian soft-wood lumber exports to the USA now taxed at more than 30% and more to come. A new American ambassador to Canada is on his way and NAFTA has been re-opened and the Americans will no longer tolerate that smug, self-righteous anti-American attitude that has so profitably benefited Canada that has never had to pay its full share for its own defenses and pays less than it should in support of the NATO alliance. It has lived handsomely as an "ally" of America and the very generous trade surpluses that has sustained all kinds of "social" programs characteristic of the unsustainable welfare state syndrome. The late Canadian philosopher George Parkin Grant in his Lament for a Nation clearly articulated Canada's position vis-a-vis America where he painted Canada as little more than the spoiled stepson of a rich father - a stepson never really held accountable. But that accountability is now almost upon us and our failed and failing leadership class will be wondering where the money will come from to sustain the utopian illusions of the welfare state where everyone is entitled to a government cheque. Anticipate much more of the fake news Canadian media denigrating America at the upcoming re-negotiations of NAFTA where Canada is virtually powerless to stop the America-first juggernaut. Contrary to hyperventilating governmental authorities that the two economies are completely integrated, there is little the Americans need from Canada that they can't produce themselves - including energy - and at lower costs. The only question remaining is if Canada will continue to pretend it still has the moral high ground or come down to earth and accept the real world for what it is. Reality can sometimes be regained with a good spanking.


Read More


03 August 2017

Descrimination in Quebec

This is an interesting article that focuses on the minorities in Quebec.  Not just the English-speaking minorities but the racial minorities, the latter given more focus, naturally, as racism is a far bigger social crime in the modern Western civilization that has allowed the UN to promote the Cult of the Minority.  Modern social thoughts on Democracy has identified that the rights of minorities far outweigh the rights of majorities; after all, the majority can always use their voting strength in the ballot box to look after their own interests. 

This works only if the majority is informed enough to know that the funding given to minorities give them the advantage of being able to organize & be heard.  This advantage is denied to the majority (about any issue) & so they have to resort to go begging for funding from the public.  As we know, the general public is tapped out from the large number of charities begging for help so that when organizations that want to fight for the majorities ask for support, the well is dry!!

As an organization, Canadians for Language Fairness is concerned about the English-speaking majority having a voice  We hear from many public servants who contact us, begging not to let their story go public because of the fear of harassment & retribution from their Francophone bosses.  We feel for them because we know what they're going through & we know that there are 100's of thousands of English-speaking public servants who have to keep their heads down & pretend that everything is OK.  After all, a job with the public service pays far more than the private sector (at least 15% more for the same kind of work) so keeping quiet seems the most intelligent thing to do.  No point challenging this in the courts because we know where their sympathy lie - definitely not with the majority!!

So, what about appealing to the politicians for help?  Again, this is a door shut in our faces because the 1982 Constitution with its built-in Socialist agenda has made it well-nigh impossible for any politician of any stripe to dare to speak for the Silent Majority unless they want to commit political suicide.

However, we still carry on, regardless of how difficult it is to be heard.  We have attracted the attention of outspoken commentators like Howard Galganov, Jurgen Vollrath, Jean-Serge Brisson & hopefully, some fledging political parties which feel that it is time that the beleaguered English-speaking majority is heard.  Jurgen Vollrath's show on Friday, July 27th, was fabulous.  His special guests were Beth Trudeau, our very special Spokes-person; Joan Seeley from N.B.; Claire Dykeman from the Citizen’s Action Team in NB (C.A.T. for short) & Sharon Buchanan, President - Anglophones Rights Association of NB.

Jurgen's show on July 24th can be heard at this link:

The knowledge imparted by Jurgen, Beth, Joan, Claire & Sharon was so interesting that he's planning to have another one featuring Kris Austin, Leader of the People's Alliance of New Brunswick (PANB). 

Kim McConnell

p.s. don't forget the farewell party for Jurgen Vollrath on August 19th.  Awards will be given for people who have fought the good fight!!

Don Macpherson: Who's afraid of hearings on discrimination in Quebec?

Don Macpherson

More from Don Macpherson

Published on: July 28, 2017 | Last Updated: July 28, 2017 2:45 PM EDT

Kathleen Weil, Quebec Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness minister, right, speaks to reporters as Tamara Thermitus, president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, looks on , July 20, 2017 in Montreal. Ryan Remiorz / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Been hearing lately about “systemic discrimination?” Wondering what that is?

Here’s one example:

In April, the Conference Board of Canada think tank published a report suggesting that Quebec was second only to New Brunswick among the provinces in quality of life. In a few areas, however, this province ranked at or near the bottom. One of them was the racial wage gap.

That’s what the report defined as “the percentage difference in full-year, full-time median wages and salaries between university-educated Canadian-born visible minorities and Caucasians.”

This excludes a lack of recognized qualifications or language skills on the part of immigrants as factors, and ensures that the individuals whose wages are compared have attained similar levels of education.

In Quebec, the racial wage gap was 19.7 per cent.

That’s a discriminatory outcome, whether or not it results from any intent to discriminate. And that’s systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission says systemic discrimination can result not only from individual behaviour but also from “the unintended and often unconscious consequences of a discriminatory system.”

It’s “patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the structure of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons.”

Educating the public about unintentional discrimination is one reason why a public inquiry, such as the one on systemic discrimination and racism jointly announced last week by the Couillard government and the Quebec human rights commission, can be useful.

There are legitimate concerns about the consultation. Information on participation in the hearings to be held in the fall is available in French only. The human rights commission and the government have ignored the need for information in English, even though English-speaking visible minorities may face particular discrimination because of language.

The Parti Québécois has criticized the government for holding the consultation instead of acting, and has proposed 20 measures to combat discrimination in employment, housing and other areas.

And some people fear that the hearings, to be conducted by regional organizations with no experience in such matters, could get out of hand. They fear a divisive repetition of the hearings of the Bouchard-Taylor commission on religious accommodations.

The PQ has accused the Liberal government of staging the hearings on discrimination, to be followed by an “action plan” next spring, for partisan purposes before the general election due by October 2018.

Yet the PQ itself, competing with the Coalition Avenir Québec party for nationalist support, has politicized the consultation by exploiting it as an opportunity to practise more identity politics.

Saying the consultation amounts to “putting Quebecers on trial”— as if the victims of discrimination are not Quebecers themselves — the PQ again posed as the defender of the majority against minorities.

And it’s hard to see how the Liberals might gain any partisan advantage from the consultation.

Since the Liberals have held power for all but 19 months in the last 14 years, they risk being blamed for inaction against discrimination reported in the consultation.

And if the Liberal action plan includes measures the PQ has already proposed, the latter can take credit for proposing them first, before the consultation.

Some people, sensitive to accusations that Quebecers are especially xenophobic or racist, fear that the consultation will provide ammunition for “Quebec bashing” by outsiders, i.e., people who are not French-speaking Quebecers.

Yet, only six years ago, Quebecers had the courage to pressure a previous Liberal government into holding the Charbonneau inquiry to expose corruption in the province’s construction industry. And this was after their province had already been branded in English Canada in a Maclean’s magazine cover story as “the most corrupt province in Canada.”

Like corruption in construction, discrimination exists everywhere, not only in Quebec. In holding a consultation on discrimination, this province is merely following the lead of Ontario.

Quebec is the better for having gone through the Charbonneau inquiry. It will survive this one.

Twitter: DMacpGaz

The problems of uncontrolled immigration into host countries by immigrants who do not share the culture of the host countries is a problem facing many developed countries (mainly in Western civilization).  Here is Douglas Murray from UK who is concerned with this problem.

Read More


21 October 2017

French Over-representation

John Ivison's article about the Federal bureaucracy's attempt to make French an increasingly important part of Canada's government expresses what a large number of Canadians think but dare not say.  That's how bad the situation is - talk to any Federal public servant & you'll hear the frustrations that are expressed by many but are kept silent from fear of repercussions.  It is a topic which has been avoided by most politicians & journalists because it has resulted from P.E. Trudeau's 1982 Constitution & the entrenched elements in it like the Charter & the Human Rights code which have given extraordinary powers to minority interests.  The courts are obliged to follow the dictates of the 1982 Constitution which ties the hands of ALL politicians.  We can only hope that a free press might show Canadians that this policy has gone too far.   Such truism, as expressed by John Ivison, have been obvious to anyone paying any attention to this issue.

Some high-lights from the article:

1.       "nearly five decades after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the public service is not bilingual enough"

2.       " many public servants working in bilingual regions do not feel comfortable using their language of choice at work"

3.       "The solution".... "is to raise the linguistic requirements for those in supervisory roles"

4.       " The complaint is that even when French is used, it is symbolic"         

5.       "public service that is already over-represented in executive positions by French speakers"

6.       " Raising the linguistic bar is likely to exacerbate the dominance of French speakers in the upper echelons of the public service"

7.       " outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, just eight per cent of Canadians are bilingual"

8        " If the Liberals adopt a policy that makes the federal public service even less representative of the Canadian public than it is already, they will stoke the impression that the West, in particular, is being frozen out. 

Responses to the high-lighted items:

1.       To the French zealots, nothing short of total capitulation is enough.  Just look at what they've done to the English-speakers in Quebec - are they satisfied with that victory?

2.       French is a language forced on the majority by a linguistic, aggressive minority & as such, it will always be "symbolic" - unless the whole public service is run by the Quebecois. 

3.       The obvious over-representation of the French should NOT go un-noticed & it isn't.  Such a relief to see it in print by a well-known journalist.

4.       Western Alienation is already happening - let's not under-estimate the anger growing out west against a Federal government that is so dominated by the interests of Quebec.

5.       There seems to be NO limit to the amount of money the French extremists are willing to throw at this policy

The linguistic bar has been raised many times & each move has resulted in increased power given to French speakers & the province of Quebec as that is the bastion of French power.  I will refer to some of these bars - you can send me any that I've missed:

A.       The caveat of "where numbers warrant" was never defined which left the French bureaucracy total freedom to define it.  This link:  shows that provinces with 5% of the population speaking French must provide French Languages Service and Ontario is coming under that level soon.  Of course this won't happen unless the govt. accepts the redefinition of a Francophone from "mother-tongue" to "anyone who speaks French" as is being proposed by Bill S-209.  The 2016 census notes that under the 1st definition, Ontario has 490,715 (3.69%) Francophones; under the 2nd definition, the number rises to 597,070 (4.45%).

B.       Using Orders in Council (which are not debated by Parliament), the Privy Council through the machination of Lucienne Robillard, among other Francophone elites, brought in the "Right To Work in the language of choice" & "Right to be supervised in the language of choice".  Anyone with any power of observation will agree that both instruments have increased the demands for more Francophones (mostly Quebecois).

C.       The $800 bilingual bonus was initially to encourage unilingual English-speakers to become bilingual.  Most of the Federal positions where this bonus apply are now designated bilingual so the applicants would have already passed the language tests so the bonus is an additional reward which should be unnecessary.  Instead of chasing after small businesses to squeeze more taxes out of them to fund extravagant govt. services, maybe we should think of taking away these "extras" from public servants who are already paid at least 30% more than employees in the private sector for similar jobs.  

Kim McConnell

Just in case you\re not yet convinced that Canada is now firmly in the hands of the French-speakers, here is more bad news for English-speaking Canada:

OTTAWA - NDP MP François Choquette's bill to make bilingualism mandatory for Supreme Court of Canada judges has resumed on Thursday, October 19. His chances of succeeding, however, are very slim.

BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg  | @BVachet

On the government side, as well as on the Conservative side, we praise the will behind Mr. Choquette's bill, but we do not seem to want to support it.

"This is an important bill that reflects the values ​​we all share in the House of Commons, but the focus is misplaced. It would be more useful to strengthen the bilingual capacity of the superior courts, because that would increase the pool of bilingual judges, "said Ville-Marie-Le-Sud-Île-des-Sœurs, Quebec MP for the province, Marc Miller.

An opinion seconded by his colleague David Lametti, reiterating the arguments put forward by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his August 2016 opinion letter in which he ensured that, from now on, appointed judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would be bilingual .

"The law is not always the most effective at solving a problem and I think that in this case it is neither desirable nor necessary. We have put in place a new appointment process that makes bilingualism a primary criterion and has already been proven by Judge Malcom Rowe. "

Bilingual, Justice Malcom Rowe was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada a year ago according to the new process put in place by the Liberal government .

Michael Albert, Conservative MP for St. Albert-Edmonton, believes that Mr. Choquette's bill addresses a problem that does not exist.

"The Supreme Court of Canada already provides services and communications in both official languages. Since its creation, there has not been a single case of error because of a problem of interpretation. Moreover, if it happened, there would be possible remedies. "

This bill is well-intentioned, but it will create problems, including reducing the pool of good candidates. Language skills should not take precedence over skills, knowledge and experience in law . "- Conservative MP Michael Cooper  

Currently, there are eight out of nine bilingual judges in the Supreme Court of Canada. Only Judge Michael Moldaver uses simultaneous translation services.

Guy Caron quips

The official languages ​​critic, François Choquette, has taken up the torch of his predecessor Yvon Godin who, on three occasions, proposed such a bill . In 2008, 2010 and 2014, his proposal was defeated, despite the common front of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party of Canada (PLC).

"Do principles change when you're in government?", Quipped NDP House leader Guy Caron. "It is not enough to say that we will appoint bilingual judges, we need to enshrine this principle, because otherwise we have no guarantee. Bilingualism is not an asset, but a fundamental skill. "

NDP members have repeatedly cited the testimony of lawyers, including linguistic rights specialist Michel Doucet, who shared their sometimes unfortunate experiences when they pleaded in French at the Supreme Court of Canada .

"If the Liberal government is committed to appointing bilingual judges, why not enshrine this objective in the law?" Questioned New Democrat Erin Weir. "It would send a very clear message to the Canadian judicial community."

The NDP tried to convince the few members present to support the bill at second reading so that the Justice and Human Rights Committee could study and improve it.

Official Languages ​​Spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, François Choquette. Image credit: Archives

"There are improvements to be made, including the issue of access to the Supreme Court of Canada for Aboriginal judges. We are open to amendments and that is why it is important to have a second reading, "explains Mr. Choquette.

The example of Alexandrine Latendresse

At the end of the debate, the NDP member remained optimistic, while the vote of the bill at second reading will take place Wednesday, October 25.

"I am not discouraged because I know it is a legitimate right for all Canadians to have access to the highest court in the country in the official language of their choice. The Liberals are starting to get bogged down in their arguments when they say that a law is not necessary and that we have to give ourselves a small margin to appoint perhaps unilingual judges! "

2013.         Choquette relies on the example of Alexandrine Latendresse's bill on the bilingualism of certain agents of parliament, adopted in 2013.

"I hope many Liberals and Conservatives will vote in favor of this bill. Many tell me that they are ready to support it. Will they do it? It remains to be seen ... We managed to get Alexandrine Latendresse's bill passed, the next step would be the bilingual judges at the Supreme Court of Canada. "

Read More


02 December 2016

CLF thanks the Ottawa City Council

We would like to express our gratitude to all the councillors & Mayor Watson for continuing to resist the call for the City of Ottawa to be made "Officially Bilingual" & to surrender Council's prerogative to decide what the city can afford in providing services in both languages (English & French).

We are very fortunate to have a very active supporter who is an excellent researcher who knows how to access the French media.  It gives us the ability to keep an eye on what the small group of activist Francophones are doing & we get a lot of very useful information that we don't have the resources to obtain otherwise.  In the following link:

Councilors were contacted by #ONfr to rule on the question: "We would like your answer" yes "or" no "to the question: Would you support official bilingualism in the City of Ottawa if the approach does not impose additional costs and does not cause job losses? "The elected were free to respond by email or by phone.

That question refers to the greatest threat to increased bilingualism, additional costs, especially if the policy is entrenched in law & can be enforced by the courts.  The cost of bilingualization will obviously increase as everything is duplicated so common sense will tell you why it is being resisted by councillors who are worried about the cost of ALL services to be provided by the city.  The following will show you how the cost of bilingual service has doubled since the passing of by-law 2001-170:

1.       Cost of FLS in 2005 was $1.75 M (for copy of message from Andre-Cadieux, please contact Kim at

2.       Cost of FLS climbed to $ 2.6 million in 2014

2.       Cost of FLS in 2016 was $3,064 M (for page from adopted budget 2016, please contact Kim at  )

The next important point is that, no matter what they say, it will cause job losses to the majority unilingual English-speakers as more positions will be required to be bilingual.  Surely, none of you would be so naive as to believe the lie that OB will not cost jobs to English speakers?  We already know that many city employees come from Quebec to take jobs from residents who live on this side of the river & pay taxes to the city.  Do those Quebecers help pay for the upkeep of the city?

We wish to thank the councillors who said a firm, "NO" but also the ones who are "undecided but favourable to the status quo" & the two councillors who are did not like the question.  These are all councillors who have not been intimidated by the powerful French lobby.  We will keep your names on our list of councillors to promote in the next municipal election.

Kim McConnell

BTW, an item just forwarded by a reader says that several recreational French/bilingual programs, paid for & set up by the City at the insistence of the French pressure groups, will be cancelled.  Reason?  Insufficient response!!!

The article is available in French here:

OTTAWA - Half of French activities offered by the City of Ottawa must be canceled due to insufficient enrollment.

Finally, we wish to express our best wishes to the Councillors for the upcoming festive season with a hearty:



Read More


Here's how Justin Trudeau's government will ensure that French-speakers (whether they are mother-tongue French-speakers or not) will be able to demand French-language services right across Canada. 

"Where numbers warrant" will be met by boosting the numbers artificially.  You'll note that the English-speakers in Quebec will still have to live under the French-language zealots who want the French language dominant in Quebec.

Folks, Bill S-205 died on order table when Harper govt fell. It was tabled again as Bill S-209 in December 2015 when Trudeau came to power. It aims to amend Part IV (Service to the Public) of the OLA, changing the definition of "francophone" a la Ontario FLSA.***

Issues related to implementing the Official Languages Act

Commissioner lends his support to Bill S-205

In April 2015, the Commissioner of Official Languages presented his position in support of Bill S-205, which aimed to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act. In his briefFootnote 11 to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, the Commissioner gave three reasons why Part IV needs to be updated.

First, he noted that the criteria set out in section 32(2) of the Act to assess potential demand for services in the minority language are not inclusive, because they do not take into account all of the people who use the minority language in the public or private sphere. For example, the current criteria as they are applied exclude people whose first official language spoken is not the language of the minority but who:

  • speak the minority language at home (as can be the case for francophiles, anglophiles and newcomers);

  • speak the minority language in the workplace; or

  • receive their education in the minority language.

Second, he pointed out that significant demand is defined in relation to the proportion of the minority population (i.e., the 5% rule). However, the chief factor to be considered in determining significant demand in a region served by federal offices should be the presence of an official language community that shows signs of vitality. (It means presence of even one French school, according to their previous discussions - E.B.).


Third, he stressed that Bill S-205 is important because it codifies the principle of substantive equality by explicitly imposing on federal institutions the duty to provide service of equal quality in both official languages and to consult with the English and French linguistic minority population concerning the quality of those communications and services.

The Bill died on the order table after the federal election was called in August 2015 and was tabled again in December 2015 as Bill S-209. The Commissioner reiterated that this bill makes an undoubtedly significant contribution to fulfilling the purpose of Part IV of the Act and helps official language communities to strengthen their identity, to develop and to thrive.

Analysis needed of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the vitality of official language communities

In 2013, the Société franco-manitobaine made public a complaint that had been filed with the Office of the Commissioner concerning the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.Footnote 12 The complaint alleged that the method used to determine the first official language spoken in order to establish what constitutes significant demand does not take into account large segments of the population that speak the minority language and would want or be likely to use it in federal offices.

The objective of the investigation was to determine the nature of the obligations incumbent upon the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat under Part VII of the Act in the context of the Official Languages Regulations Re-Application Exercise. The exercise seeks to review and update federal institutions’ language obligations every 10 years using census data: in this case, data from the 2011 Census.

In the spring of 2015, the Commissioner released his final investigation report to the parties involved. The Commissioner concluded that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had to identify the impact of the results of the re-application exercise on the vitality of official language communities that would no longer be receiving bilingual services because of changes in the linguistic designation of some federal offices. The Commissioner also concluded that the institution should present options to the President of the Treasury Board to mitigate the negative impact of these results.

Because the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had stated that it did not intend to conduct an analysis on the impact of the results, the Commissioner concluded that it had not met its obligations under Part VII of the Act and that the complaint was founded.

The Commissioner therefore recommended that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat undertake a thorough review of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the development and vitality of the official language communities affected by the results of the re-application exercise. He also recommended that the findings of the analysis be shared with the President of the Treasury Board, along with opinions and advice on solutions to be considered in order to mitigate any potential negative impact of the Regulations.

A follow-up is under way to determine whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will be taking the appropriate steps to implement the Commissioner’s recommendations.

Société franco-manitobaine takes case to court

In February 2015, the Société franco-manitobaine applied for a court remedy in Federal Court under Part X of the Act. The Société petitioned the Federal Court to find that parts of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations are inconsistent with section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and with several provisions of the Act) and to order the government to amend the Regulations. The Société maintained that:

  • the Regulations contain an unduly restrictive definition of the word “Francophone,” i.e., they do not make allowances for the recent expansion of the Francophone space to include mixed families, newcomers, people who are bilingual and people who are able to converse in French;

  • the use of formal numerical thresholds is inconsistent with the objectives of the Act; and

  • the Regulations were adopted without consulting the French-speaking minority, and they have not undergone any significant review or consultation since they came into force in 1992.

The objective of Senator Maria Chaput’s Bill S-209 was to correct the very shortcomings cited by the Société franco-manitobaine in its court remedy. The Commissioner strongly urges the government to update Part IV of the Act and to review the criteria for defining significant demand.

Recommendation 2

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends:

  • that Parliament make Bill S-209 a priority so that the parliamentary committees examining it are able to conduct a diligent review; and

  • that, by March 31, 2017, the Treasury Board undertake an evaluation, in consultation with official language communities, of the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and directives for implementing Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

Read More


27 August 2017

No Return on Investment

A reader sent me a link on the Senate's Committee on Official Languages with the comment that the Return on Investment (ROI) of spending on the Official Languages Act is not likely to be worth the effort

The French have never been interested in the ROI of the OLA - they are only interested in the advancement & empowerment of French-speakers, specifically of the Quebecois variety.  The non-Quebecois in Quebec are not considered of any importance & a series of articles from the Gazette reports that Bill 101 has successfully killed off English language schools.  Even the English-language organization (CVESPA) is dead, due to apathy on the part of English-speakers themselves.  Those who didn't follow the 600,000 who left after Bill 101 have decided to put up with the situation; others have assimilated.  They're not well looked after but then, who cares?  They used to be a vibrant group but for most of them, it was too difficult to stay & fight the anti-English atmosphere so they left - what else could they do?

I've attached the link to the article about the 40th anniversary of Bill 101 & if you have time to read the supporting articles, you'll find that the French have won in Quebec totally.  The non-French are struggling in NB - how can we help them?  How can we stop them from taking over in Ontario?  NO political party dares to challenge the French power in ON or indeed, in any part of Canada.

Subject: Return on investment

Does not look like a worthy return on investment (ROI) An entire Senate Official Languages Committee session provides a report with 17 recommendations and start a study to modernize the official languages act, which turns 50 next year.


The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has the mandate to study all matters relating to official languages generally. It examines questions pertaining to the Official Languages Act (OLA) and pays particular attention to the federal government’s role and its commitment to advancing English and French in Canadian society and to enhancing the vitality of the official language minority communities.

During this parliamentary session, the committee published one report and began a new study.

In the fall of 2016, as part of their study of the challenges surrounding access to francophone schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia, committee members conducted a fact-finding mission and held public hearings in Vancouver and Victoria.  They met with teachers, parents and students, as well as numerous associations and organizations. In addition, they visited francophone and French immersion schools.  

After hearing additional witnesses in Ottawa, the committee tabled its report, Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-Language Learning in British Columbiain May 2017.

In this report, the committee made 17 recommendations to the federal government to enable it to live up to its official languages commitments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

With this report, the committee resoundingly reaffirmed its commitment to promoting Canada’s two official languages, which are at the heart of the Canadian identity.

Last fall, the federal government announced that it would be conducting a review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. However, the government chose to focus solely on the provision of services in both official languages, and will not be reviewing other important parts of the Act.

Considering that 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it is an opportune time for the Official Languages Committee to engage Canadians on ways to bring this legislation into the 21st century.

Accordingly, in the spring of 2017 the Senate Committee on Official Languages began an in-depth study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The Committee is conducting a five-part study and expects to present a series of interim reports on its progress. Senators intend to hear testimony from the following groups:

  • youth;
  • official language minority communities;
  • individuals who have seen firsthand the evolution of the Official Languages Act;
  • individuals who work in the justice sector; and
  • individuals who work in federal institutions.

Committee members have begun engaging with the target group for the first part of the study: individuals aged 14 to 25, more specifically, high school students, post-secondary students and young people heading into the workforce. The committee would like to learn more about how the Act can help better promote and advance opportunities in both official languages.

The French take-over is almost complete because the OLA has created a very pro-French employment situation in the Federal govt.  They are over-represented in almost all Federal Ministries & Departments & English-speakers are only taken on when they cannot find bilingual French-speakers of similar qualification to fill a position. 

Much to the dismay of the pro-French elite (which include all politicians & Francophiles), the number of French-speakers is still not growing fast enough & they are desperate to do something about that.

The message circulated on August 25th contained information about Sen. Chaput's private member's bill - Bill S-209 that will attempt to inflate the French-speakers' number.  We're mounting a petition against the effort to falsify statistics & we need your help.  Please email me for a hard copy of that petition & I will mail you a copy along with an appeal to CPC Leader Andrew Scheer alerting him to that bill. 

Kim McConnell

If you did not receive the last message, I will repeat it below:

August 25, 2017

Those who attended our Farewell Party for Jurgen Vollrath had a good afternoon.  The weather cooperated & there was plenty of food to munch on while we listened to our MC (Ron Barr) roast Jurgen, our guest of honour.  Jurgen has been a host of the DCN show called "Against the Grain", available at this link: which gives links to all of Jurgen's past shows.

Jurgen has always been a supporter of the fight for the rights of English speakers.  He led an organization called CESCO (Coalition of English-speaking Canadian Org.).  At the DCN, he gave the language issue three separate shows:

On July 28th, he interviewed Beth Trudeau, Spokesperson of CLF (Canadians for Language).  Callers from NB - Joan Seeley, Sharon Buchanan.

On August 4th, he took calls on the last show & we heard from Claire Dykeman & Sharon Buchanan of NB.

On August 18th, Jurgen had a very informative conversation with Kris Austin, leader of the PANB (People's Alliance of NB).

If you get periods of silence, don't worry - just keep tuned in & the show will continue.  You'll find it worth your while because Jurgen is a very well-informed person on this issue & he's very emotional & expresses his thoughts well.  He really gets fired up but never loses control of his information.  When he moves to Alberta & gets his show there, we hope that all the Westerners will tune in & support his attempt to spread the language battle out there.

CLF gave Jurgen an award for being a "Brave Warrior" & we had a great time listening to Ron Barr of the Ontario Truckers Asso. roasting Jurgen.

We gave awards to Howard Galganov - for being a Free Speech Patriot; Jean-Serge Brisson & Tom Black for speaking up in our support.

We also heard from Al Speyer who had a report on the financial disaster that has resulted from the Grant School being turned into a Francophone Centre; Bob Yaciuk, leader of the Ontario Trillium Party; Jack MacLaren who left the Ontario PC Party to represent the Trillium Party;  Elsa Scheider whose website is very much against the Muslim invasion  Her poem "It's not alright" is quite cute.  Lynn Jenkins appealed for more attention to be paid to the Gaelic language, once a language spoken by the majority of the early British immigrants.

My focus is on Bill S-209.  If you remember, this is a private member's bill which Senator Chaput is pushing through the Senate.  This was brought to our attention by one of our readers & I think that this bill should be brought to the attention of more people.  We wrote a letter to Andrew Scheer, leader of CPC, to alert him to this bill & to appeal to him to NOT support its passage if it should gets through the Senate & gets to the House of Common.

I asked one of our better informed readers (a refugee from Quebec) to help me write up a petition.  The petition is attached - please help us by circulating it to your family & friends.

Kim McConnell 

I was pleasantly surprised to get a response from the leader of the CPC - Andrew Scheer.  If you remember, we wrote to him to tell him about Bill S-209 on July 20th.  Although his letter didn't say very much, I was pleased that he read that he is now aware of the attempt by Senator Chaput to change the Federal government definition of a Francophone.   

August 24, 2017

Kim McConnell


Canadians for Language Fairness

Dear Ms. McConnell:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding Bill S-209, An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act (communications wit6h and services to the public).  We appreciated having the opportunity to review your constructive input on this legislation.

We have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to the Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie, Sylvie Boucher, for her review and consideration.  

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.


Correspondence Unit

Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition

cc        Sylvie Boucher, M.P., Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie

I received an alert from one of our readers that the insanity that is now spreading in the US regarding historical revisionism is now in Canada.  Our education system is being inundated with teachers who want to change our history.  The target is Sir John A. MacDonald:

Hi Kim,

It figures the individual spear heading a motion for the Peel teacher union is a French Canadian!! Misère Felipe Pareja

That debate hit the floor of a meeting by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario days ago, ending with a resolution to urge school boards across the province to consider removing the name of Canada's first prime minister — Sir John A. Macdonald — from public schools.

Felipe Pareja, a French teacher in Peel region just west of Toronto, is behind the motion.

Pareja says the decision was by no means unanimous, but that it passed by a substantial margin.

So not only are we going to confuse our children about which gender they belong to, which wash-room they should use, we are now going to confuse them about which part of our history is legitimate.  I suppose Felipe Pareja wants Canadians to revolt against the British conquerors that defeated the French & turned Canada into the successful country it became. 

Unfortunately, after the Liberals took control & used all the tricks in the book to vilify the British, the slow erosion of our British legacy (a substantial part of which is the powerful English language) & the concepts of Freedom embodied in the Magna Carta are now being turned towards more Socialism & the concept of Globalism.  The ideas that we should erase all borders & let the whole world become ONE entity, ruled by the United Nations, may be a concept that is gaining strength.  The Liberal Party are supporters of this idea - that is why we are welcoming everybody who wants to come into Canada.   Someone sent me a message saying that a Canadian pensioner gets $12,144/yr; an immigrant/refugee gets $28,290/yr.  How long this largesse from the Canadian taxpayer will last, I have no idea.  Most of these immigrants are not well educated in either English or French & will be social liabilities for years to come.  The Haitians  will be welcomed because they will enlarge the French-speakers & increase the demand for French-language services.

There are so many battles to fight that it is difficult to decide which ones to fight first.  The Charlotteville tragedy should not be directed at the people who wanted to protest the destruction of their historical monuments; they should be totally placed at the feet of the counter protestors who represented many groups (all of them Trump haters).  Fortunately for those of us who see the situation only too clearly, we have Allen West to help set the story straight:

Ok folks, here’s what REALLY happened in Charlottesville – and what everyone is missing

This past weekend I was honored to be in a most picturesque place with some great and hospitable folks ib Prescott (Yavapai County) Arizona. I was there to address the Republican Women of Prescott, the nation’s largest Republican women’s club, on their 75th anniversary. The scenery there was just breathtaking and there was just a sense of solemnness that we all need experience from time to time. How great a contrast it was from what was happening across the country in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Let me begin by saying, I deplore any form of supremacist view — white, black, Hispanic, Islamic. I will be the first to openly state and embrace, a sense of American exceptionalism and supremacy that is rooted in our founding principles and values. Any and all else that is contradictory is to be condemned. What I have witnessed post the events of Saturday 12 August is the typical Rahm Emanuel mentality and political posturing: “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Therefore, I seek to assess what really happened in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

First, may God rest the soul of 32-year-old Heather Heyer who tragically lost her life. My sincere condolences to her, her family, and those others who were injured. I fully support seeking the death penalty for 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio who committed this horrific act of violence. But, how did we get to this place?

This all began because someone decided, as other elected officials have across the country, to cave in to partisan political pressures and seek to erase American history. History is not there for us to love or hate, but for us to learn from and seek to not repeat its mistakes.

If there are those who truly believe we protect ourselves by trying to revise history due to false emotions, then we miss out on who we are as a nation, and our evolution. The statues of long since deceased leaders of the Confederate Army do not stand to remind anyone of oppression. And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues.

I certainly did not appreciate former President Barack Obama taking a photo op in Cuba before the image of Che Guevara, nor do I enjoy seeing anyone wearing said image on t-shirts here in America…but I do not go into some whimsical state of “oppression.”

And so it is that we do possess in this Constitutional Republic a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It would appear that said group who didn’t wish to see the statue of Virginian, General Robert E. Lee, who was a commissioned U.S. Army officer, graduate of West Point, and served the nation in the Mexican War, taken down did apply for a permit to hold a rally. We can dislike these individuals, but they took proper measures to secure permission to express their First Amendment right.

Contrary to their position, the word went out for a counter-protest to occur which included groups from a different side of the political spectrum, who have also been very guilty of hateful rhetoric and violence. What should have happened is that these two groups should have been kept miles apart. I do not understanding why any local law enforcement agency would allow these two groups close proximity…first lesson learned. And we must also ascertain, did the counter-protest group seek permit or did they just “show up” in order to provoke, and elicit a response they could use “politically?” Yes, motivations are important to understand in this case, if we’re serious about getting to the bottom of what happened in Charlottesville and not just the typical media-driven frenzy.

I find it rather odd that so many are seeking to lay blame on President Trump for what happened in Charlottesville. And there are some voices out there who want to blame all white people, and all Republicans. How odd that when it was the New Black Panther Party outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia in black fatigues and with clubs, nothing was said. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even prosecuted for voter intimidation. And when it was the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore fueled by media false narratives and a presidential administration’s rhetoric, there was no blame laid on Barack Obama. It appears to me that there is a blatant hypocrisy when an individual commits a horrible crime, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, and a collective group of people are to be held accountable.

But, when there’s an Islamic terror attack people say, “we cannot rush to judgment” or “this is not indicative of all Muslims”…to wit I agree, but why not call the enemy for what it is” militant Islamic terrorism or jihadism? Why must some be browbeaten into condemning the actions of a few, yet we have others who have fully admitted their support to groups calling for a “resistance?” And where were the voices to condemn the violence in Washington DC on Inauguration Day, or even at UC-Berkeley…or the violence committed against those who support the current president or hold beliefs aligned with Constitutional conservatism?

If we want to condemn groups such as the neo-Nazis and others, then we must also condemn groups such as BLM and Antifa. And we need to stop the cherrypicking, as they all should be investigated. Let’s end this absurdity of trying to connect the Republican Party with the Ku Klux Klan, since it was a creation of the Democrat Party. And I seem to recall Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, infamously known as a grand wizard of the Klan, lauded over at his memorial by Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was Senator Byrd who was vehemently against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who supported its passage.

James Alex Fields will be punished to the full extent of the law, and I truly believe he should never see the light of day again But if we blindly do not realize there has been an atmosphere of hatred fomented in this nation, we are ignorant. Who even remembers the fella who attempted to gun down several Republican Members of Congress at a baseball practice, severely wounding Rep. Steve Scalise? The mainstream liberal progressive media pushed that aside rather quickly, and let us not forget MSNBC commentator, Joy Reid, who on her Sunday show actually sought to justify Rep. Scalise’s shooting because of his voting record. Now, where was the condemnation there, and why is it that Ms. Reid still has a position and a show on that network?

Fareed Zakaria praised the Central Park play depicting the “Caesar-like” stabbing to death of President Trump — last time I checked he was still on CNN. And how many Democrat elected officials were pressured into making statements of condemnation of one Kathy Griffith who notoriously held up the bloodied severed head resembling President Trump?

There’s plenty of guilt to be passed around here, but the progressive socialist left will sadly exploit this for all they can. They will horribly believe this will provide them some sort of electoral advantage. They fail to realize they’re just as complicit in what happened in Charlottesville. Let me ask that age-old rhetorical question: “if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there, does it make a sound?”

If we were to go back and ponder this incident and just let a small group of disaffected individuals hold a rally to protest the possible taking down of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, and no one had showed up…Instead a call went out and trouble, violence ensued. Or maybe, if we had courageous elected officials who would just say, those statues aren’t offending anyone; they’re part of American history, and they stay. Imagine that, would there even be a story, any rally, and violence?

What happened in Charlottesville must not be allowed to happen again. And that means we need to hold ANY group responsible that promotes violence. “What do we want, dead cops; when do we want them, now”…”Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon”…no more. Our streets aren’t the place for hoods and masks, such as Antifa wears, and their violence and destruction of property. Let’s call them all out, and not have this selective enforcement mentality rooted in partisan political hackery. If we don’t stop the blatant hypocrisy, which is truly the problem, then we’re sitting on a powder keg — which I believe some wish for.

I have an idea. If y’all want to fight, sign up in the U.S. military — if you meet the standards. There are plenty of folks who do indeed hate the United States. Channel your angst against them…not each other.

[Learn more about Allen West’s vision for this nation in his book Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Faith, Family and Freedom]


Read More



The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.

This website has been visited 181696 times.