A larger, colder Belgium
Andrew Coyne


Who speaks for Canada, Pierre Trudeau famously asked. Thanks to Liza Frulla, we now have an answer: Quebec does. At international meetings, those of UNESCO for example, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told reporters that Quebec's Minister of Culture, Line Beauchamp, could sometimes represent Canada in her place. "We have a modus operandi," she enthused. "Line can speak for both of us very well."

Welcome to the wonderful world of "asymmetric federalism." In international affairs, Canada cannot speak for Quebec -- that's why Quebec, alone among the provinces, is entitled to a separate delegation at UNESCO meetings -- but Quebec can speak for Canada. That's asymmetric, I'll grant you. I'm just not clear what's federalist about it.

Ms. Frulla is a former minister in the Quebec government. Apparently she thinks she still is. Or perhaps it's merely that the government of Canada has become an appendage of the government of Quebec, useful in its way, so long as it minds its place. Understand: Quebec and the rest of Canada are so alien to one another that Quebecers cannot enjoy the same standards in health care, cannot participate in the same pension plan, cannot risk even being contaminated by Canadian blood -- the other nine provinces are grouped under the Canadian Blood Agency, while Hema-Quebec administers the distinct society's blood supply. Yet Canadians at large must consent to be represented abroad by a government that has not the national but the provincial interest in mind, that indeed takes every opportunity to stress the supposed contradiction between the two. This is apparently what Ms. Frulla means when she characterizes the relationship between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec as being "a perfect marriage -- perhaps even a bit of incest." What a lovely image.

And this is just the start. In the metastasizing cluster of federal-provincial deals to which the Martin government has suddenly committed this country, there is no limit to what can be arranged. If foreign affairs, perhaps the quintessential federal jurisdiction, can be conceded to Quebec -- whoops, and any province that wants it -- it is hard to see what else cannot. Did not Lucienne Robillard, the federal Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs, tell us, after last week's health care accord exempted the province from even the weak accountability provisions to which the other nine provinces would be subject, that such exceptions would henceforth be the rule, "in all areas where Quebec works with us in the Canadian framework"? The Canadian framework, note. That's what's left of Macdonald's dominion of the north: a larger, colder Belgium.

We have been this way before. In the wake of the health care deal, expectations are soaring in Quebec, just as they did after Meech Lake. And already the nationalists are using the most recent federal concessions as the launching pad to demand more. Witness this week's unveiling of the Action democratique's latest constitutional position. Not two years ago the ADQ's leader, Mario Dumont, was telling the rest of Canada in a celebrated Toronto speech that the party did not have a constitutional position, that it did not want to talk about the constitution ever again. But that was long ago and far away -- in a "foreign land," he now says. Now the party proposes the declaration of the "autonomous state of Quebec," whose citizens would enjoy "dual citizenship" with the rest of Canada, which would represent itself abroad, and which would assert the right to override federal laws at will. After all, as Mr. Dumont brashly declared, "Ottawa cannot say no. We will take whatever actions are needed ... Ottawa will not dare to get in our way." This provoked the province's Minister of InterGovernmental Affairs, Benoit Pelletier, who primly lectured the young ADQ leader: "You are either a federalist or a sovereigntist. You can't be both." Ah yes. How could he have been confused on that point?

With the nationalist genie once again out of the bottle, one of two things has to happen. Either these expectations must be disappointed, with the accompanying crisis. Or the feds must deliver. This latter option leaves two further possibilities. Either Quebec must be given these prerogatives on its own, as a mark of its special status within Confederation. Or the same terms must be extended to the other provinces. If the first, then there will inevitably be voices raised demanding to know why federal MPs from Quebec should be entitled to make law for the rest of Canada, when the rest of Canada is not entitled to make law for Quebec -- why they should raise taxes and frame policies to which they are not subject themselves. If the second, then there will soon be little left of the federal government, or of Canada: not because Canada is the creature of the federal government, but because the federal government is the political _expression of Canada, of the national will.

To those who reply, with infinite patience, that there is nothing new in this: You are right. We have already tested the limits of asymmetry. We have already practically neutered the federal government. Example: Why did the Americans make such effortless work of us in the softwood lumber negotiations? Because the federal government, rather than speak for Canada, deferred to the provinces. Example: Why did Ottawa renege, at the last minute, on a promise to send soldiers to Iraq? Not on any point of principle, but because the issue had become part of the Quebec election campaign. Example: Why don't we have a common market within our borders? Because the feds are afraid to enforce it, notwithstanding their acknowledged constitutional responsibility for internal trade.

We are already on the brink of national dissolution. Now yet another federal government is making yet another attempt to finish the job.

© National Post 2004





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick McConnell [mailto:rmcconne@magma.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:54 AM
Subject: 09-24 Quebec again


The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, September 24, 2004

Quebec gets to speak for all of us
Special deal means it can represent Canada, Frulla says; PMO insists foreign policy is still a federal role
Bill Curry


Thanks to "asymmetrical federalism," Quebec can now, at times, speak on behalf of Canada on the world stage, Canadian Heritage Minister Liza Frulla said this week in Paris.

Speaking at a press conference at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Ms. Frulla praised last week's health agreement that endorsed the principle of special arrangements for the provinces.

Ms. Frulla said the deal implies that, even though foreign affairs is a federal responsibility, Quebec Culture Minister Line Beauchamp could speak on behalf of Canada at UNESCO when Ms. Frulla can't attend.

"Line couldn't be here, but I could," Ms. Frulla was quoted as telling reporters. "I attended the meeting and I will call her. But there will be times when I won't be here or I will be in Parliament, so Line could attend these meetings. We have a modus operandi. Line can speak for both of us very well. We'll agree beforehand."

The side deal struck with Quebec and billed as asymmetrical federalism allows that province to implement its own plans to reduce waiting times and improve access to health care. It's a precedent-setting move that could allow other provinces to follow suit in future health deals.

Asymmetrical federalism allows certain provinces to exercise powers that in other provinces remain under federal jurisdiction. An example of such is the Quebec Pension Plan, which operates outside the Canadian Pension Plan.

Ms. Frulla said Quebec and the federal government have been speaking with the "same voice" on cultural issues for a while, describing the relationship between the two governments as a "perfect marriage, if not a bit of incest."

Meanwhile, Environment Minister (and former unity minister) Stephane Dion said the federal government is looking for ways for the provinces to strengthen Canada's foreign policy, provided the country speaks with one voice.

"It may be possible to improve the capacity of provinces to help the Canadian foreign policy to be stronger," Mr. Dion said.

But Prime Minister Paul Martin's spokesman, Scott Reid, said asymmetrical federalism will not have an impact on the federal government's exclusive responsibility for foreign affairs. Mr Reid said Ms. Frulla and Mr. Dion were simply commenting on the co-operation that has traditionally taken place between the federal government and the provinces on international issues.

"Provincial engagement very much enhances federal efficacy in our foreign policy efforts -- just as ministers Dion and Frulla suggested. As a federal government, we'll continue doing that because it is a smart way of conducting one's affairs," said Mr. Reid. "But that's a long way from saying that the federal government's capacity to conduct foreign policy is or will be constrained by last week's agreement. It is not. Nor will it be."

Mr. Reid pointed out that former prime minister Jean Chretien permitted a role for Quebec at UNESCO and said consulting provinces on certain foreign policy matters is both "courteous and practical."

"The suggestion made by some was that (asymmetrical federalism) might create a precedent whereby the federal government would somehow lose its control over foreign policy. That's not going to happen. Under the BNA Act, foreign affairs are the lone domain of the federal government. There is no sacrifice of authority, no precedent that could lead to an erosion of federal powers in that respect. And certainly none that stems from last week's agreement," he said.

University of Toronto political scientist David Welch agreed. While Quebec has had some international visibility, it is the federal government that has sole jurisdiction over foreign affairs, he said last night.

"Quebec has spoken on the world stage, but it's very informal," he said, pointing out that both Canada and Quebec sent representatives to La Francophonie meetings.

"But the provinces don't officially have constitutional power over foreign relations. ... Foreign governments understand that it's the federal government in Ottawa that has the jurisdiction."

But individual provinces do participate in foreign relations or have representation abroad, he said, pointing out that many have trade offices overseas.

"Ottawa has always made clear to everybody that foreign affairs is a federal responsibility, not a provincial responsibility. But in practice Ottawa has let the provinces have an international presence on many occasions."

When Mr. Dion was asked whether he would support the Quebec culture minister speaking on behalf of Canada in Paris, he said: "We need to see exactly what that means, but I would say that when you have in Quebec City a government that believes in Canada, we have more potential than if we have a government in Quebec City that wants to destroy Canada," he said.

"I would say that provinces have international relations that are very important for Canada and that this is a potential that we may use with more effectiveness, is what we are looking for. Canada must speak with one voice and we are a federation and we need to work together and to involve everyone, including the provincial governments in international activities."

Conservative party foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day said the comments from the Liberals appear to create confusion as to who speaks for Canada.

"I'm a strong supporter of provincial rights and provincial autonomy within the constitution, but you can't be mixing up your foreign affairs with your provincial affairs," he said. "When you appear to be saying that a province is speaking for a country, you're going to create confusion, so it's time to clear up the confusion."

During a May visit to Paris, Quebec Premier Jean Charest praised French President Jacques Chirac for his support of Quebec having a presence on the international stage.

"We speak as equals," he said.

In addition to UNESCO, Mr. Charest has called for a Quebec role at the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development in areas where Quebec's jurisdiction applies.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2004

National Post
Saturday, October 16, 2004

Surrendering our sovereignty
Andrew Coyne


A portrait of Canada, 2004, as seen through the eyes of a foreign power: The Prime Minister arrives in France, a nation with whom we ostensibly have good relations. He is greeted by ... whom? The president? The Prime Minister? Try the minister of Parity and Professional Equality, whatever that is.

Flash forward to next month, and a trade mission to Mexico by the Prime Minister of France. Who should be accompanying him on this trip? Why, look, it's the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest. But of course. Did not the President of France treat him as an "equal" on his recent trip to Paris? Or so Mr. Charest boasts, but there seems little reason to doubt him. (One can only hope the minister of Parity and Professional Equality treated the Prime Minister with the same courtesy.)

At first glance, this latest installment in France's long history of insulting and dividing this country would seem to present a puzzle: Just whom is the Premier of Quebec representing, as he tours the Mexican countryside in the French PM's sidecar? Quebec? Canada? France? Not to worry, says Mr. Charest: there is no contradiction. "When we speak on behalf of our interests in Quebec, we are not in contradiction, we cannot be in contradiction with the rest of Canada."

Oh really? And if a project should be discussed on which a company from some other part of Canada might wish to bid -- that is, to bid against its French competitor -- would the Premier pipe up? Or would he reserve his efforts to helping Quebec companies nip ahead of their rivals -- perhaps in partnership with the French? Suppose the government of France offers to close the deal with a little subsidy of some kind? Will the Premier object? Or will he try to cut Quebec in on a piece of the action?

I know, I'm being rude. But since no one else seems to have a problem with this abject surrender of Canadian sovereignty, this wholesale abdication of what remains of federal authority, this sly campaign to feed the country, piece by piece, to the Quebec nationalists -- well then I suppose it falls to me. Certainly the Martin government has no problem with it, or not its Quebec ministers at any rate. Listen to Liza Frulla, Jean Lapierre, Pierre Pettigrew: they're positively gushing about it.

But neither have we heard a peep from the opposition, as the implications of "asymmetric federalism" become clear: not the Conservatives, who are desperate not to offend anyone; not the NDP, who will fall for anything; and not the Bloc Quebecois, who cannot believe their good fortune at having a federal government do their work for them.

Not that they should be all that surprised: that is in fact what the feds have been doing, with occasional interruptions, for the better part of 40 years, ever since the Quiet Revolution first exploded in the face of an obviously unnerved Pearson government. Quebec was allowed to opt out of several shared-cost agreements, even to carve out its own carbon-copy of the misnamed Canada Pension Plan, for no good reason other than because it demanded it. What did the feds get in return for these concessions? Nothing, or nothing but more demands.

The "arch-federalist" Trudeau government stood by while the government of Quebec legislated the province's English-language minority into invisibility. It converted cost-sharing arrangements into block grants, and transfers into tax points, with particular terms for Quebec (it's called the "Quebec abatement". It signed the Cullen-Couture agreement, giving Quebec joint authority over who could immigrate to Canada.

Even when, after more than 50 years of provincial (mostly Quebec) obstructionism, it finally patriated the Constitution, it did so on terms that were overwhelmingly favourable to the provinces, and to Quebec in particular. The 1982 Constitution entrenched provincial control over resources. It committed the feds to provide equalization in perpetuity. It gave the provinces power to block most constitutional amendments and opt out of others. It entrenched bilingualism in the provision of federal services, and the right to minority-language schooling in every province -- every province but Quebec, which alone was allowed to opt out of this provision, so far as it applied to immigrants. What did the feds get in return? Well, they got the Charter -- but that was as binding on them as on the provinces. But as for the divisions of powers: Nothing.

We need not dwell on the Meech and Charlottetown agreements, with their muddled and conflicting visions of Two Canadas, or Ten, or Six Hundred: dispatched by a wise and merciful people in the face of the shrill contempt of their betters. But look what has happened since then: federal withdrawal from half a dozen jurisdictions, legislation binding Ottawa to treat Quebec as a distinct society and lending the federal constitutional veto to each region, even recognition in law of a provincial right to secede, albeit on condition that the people of that province actually vote to do so. And what did the feds get in return? Nothing: not the dismantling of provincial trade barriers, not Senate reform, not even formal acceptance of the 1982 Constitution (though in fact Quebec has never hesitated to apply its provisions when it suited it).

So now here we are, with the provinces in effective control of much of the federal budget, with premiers drafting amendments to the recent Throne Speech, with Quebec increasingly exempt from federal jurisdiction even as it encroaches ever further onto federal turf. And what have the feds got in return? What did they even ask for?

© National Post 2004

National Post
October 15, 2004

What's good for Quebec ...


A recent pattern is not hard to detect in the federal government's relationship with Quebec. First there was Paul Martin's recruitment of former Bloc Quebecois MP and avowed nationalist Jean Lapierre, who now serves as the federal Transport Minister, as his Quebec lieutenant. Then there was the bizarre endorsement of "asymmetrical federalism" at last month's federal-provincial health care summit. Next came the word out of Quebec that the provincial government was seeking a greater role in international affairs, and federal Heritage Minister Liza Frulla's musings about allowing her Quebec counterpart to represent the entire country at international meetings if Ms. Frulla were unavailable. And now Jean Charest, the Quebec Premier, has apparently been granted an unprecedented opportunity to dabble in foreign relations.

According to a report yesterday, Ottawa has given its seal of approval for Mr. Charest to join French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin on a November trade mission to Mexico. The reasoning behind this arrangement -- that it is part of an effort to pursue common goals, with Quebec helping France develop new ties in North America and France doing likewise for Quebec in Europe -- may seem reasonable enough at first glance. But Mr. Charest's trip, and the fact that it has the federal government's blessing, sends us farther down a dangerous path that risks compromising Canada's place on the world stage while simultaneously perpetuating severe domestic rifts.

Clearly, it is in the interest of all our provincial governments to foster strong international relationships that promote trade and investment. But representatives of those governments cannot partake in activities that every other country reserves solely for national leaders -- and that includes posing as the equals of heads of foreign governments and accompanying them on trade missions. To do so is to compromise Canada's ability to speak with one voice on the global stage, as virtually every other Western country does -- the same dire effect would be achieved if Ms. Frulla's ill-advised notion of having Quebec fill in at international meetings came to pass.

Moreover, Quebec's special treatment raises the question of whether other provinces will have the same opportunities. If so, we can expect our foreign dealings to become so jumbled that other countries will have no idea who is speaking for Canada at any given time. And if not, then those provinces will have an entirely legitimate grievance that Ottawa is affording them second-class status.

As for the specifics of Quebec's recent arrangement with France, we fail to see why this bridge-building can't be achieved by Ottawa. If there is an opportunity to pursue shared goals, shouldn't our entire bilingual country -- not just a single province -- share in it?

© National Post 2004

The Ottawa Citizen
October 15, 2004

Quebec independence by stealth


Twice Quebecers have held a vote to secede from Canada, and twice the majority of Quebecers have rejected the idea. Yet what could not be achieved through the ballot box is slowly been achieved by stealth.

It was announced this week that Quebec Premier Jean Charest will join the prime minister of France on a trade mission to Mexico next month. True, Quebec has long enjoyed certain presence on the international stage, notably through its special relationship with France. But never did anyone envision that France and Quebec would partner up to conduct joint foreign policy adventures.

Prime Minister Paul Martin attempted to minimize the significance of the Mexico mission. "There is but one voice on the international scene and that is the prime minister of Canada," he said. But it's hard to see how that is so when Quebec's premier officially joins another country's prime minister for a foreign trade mission. Worse, it's expected that in exchange for Quebec helping France get an economic foothold in Mexico, France will try to open the doors of Europe for Quebec.

Such backdoor independence has to stop or we could end up witnessing the awkward spectacle of the prime minister of Canada competing with the premier of Quebec at international meetings for the ears of foreign business leaders and politicians. Even Heritage Minister Liza Frulla has suggested Quebec should be allowed to speak for Canada at world bodies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

The Martin government says "asymmetrical federalism" allows Quebec special privileges. But the greater the asymmetry, the greater the strain on the federation. If it goes much farther, something's going to break.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2004

Subject: Oct. 13 - Jean-Robert Gauthier's Bill S-3

Well, ladies and gentlemen - not surprisingly Senator Jean-Robert Gauther is at it again. Read it and weep! Please write a letter to all Senators and anyone else you think should read it, urging them not to make a long-standing decision on something so important based on the retirement of a senator who has led a very priviledged life while in the senate and will, no doubt, continue to do so. If you need the addresses of the Senators or MPs, our web site has the links. Our group is small and our resources are very limited and people are being asked to do a lot, but as the only people who care, your effort is absolutely necessary. In your letter, please tell them that the Official Languages Act is not being implemented properly - the Proportionality Principle is being ignored constantly, leading to an over-representation of one language group. This is not fair, it is very discriminatory and will lead to even greater alienation of the English-speaking majority.


PUBLICATION: Le Droit
DATE: 2004.10.13
BYLINE: Gaboury, Paul

ILLUSTRATION: "We want a watchdog, not a pocket dog."

Senator Gauthier sounds the bell for the last time. Taking advantage of his last moments in the Senate, senator Jean-Robert Gauthier succeeded in convincing the Senate for the fourth and... last time to again study his bill aimed at giving more teeth to the Official Languages Act. The senators agreed to accelerate the procedure and agreed to refer Bill S-3 to the permanent senatorial committee of official languages.

"We want a watchdog, not a pocket dog. Restitution should be allowed when the federal institutions do not fulfill their obligations ", put forward senator Gauthier. It was the fourth time that senator Gauthier presented his bill in the Senate. At the last session, the Senate had adopted it, then returned it to the House of Commons.
Thereafter, the bill had been sponsored by Don Boudria at the stage of the second reading. However, it had fallen through the cracks during the last election. The senator is counting very much on the adoption of his bill since he must leave his functions on October 22. He will then have reached
75 years old, the age limit allowed to sit as senator.

In front of the Senate, senator Gauthier again explained that his bill S-3 has several aims. He initially aims at specifying the imperative character of the commitment starting with part vii of the Law on the official languages. Then, it imposes obligations on the federal institutions for the implementation of this commitment. The bill also provides the capacity of constitution making it possible for the courts to oversee the application of it by government departments.

In addition, Senator Gauthier pointed out that Bill S-3 takes into account the majority of the recommendations made by the Official Languages Commissioner, Dyane Adam. During work in committee, the Language Commissioner had recommended clarifying part vii of the Official Languages Act and to specify the imperative character of commitment by imposing an obligation on federal institutions, to ensure its suitable implementation and a right of recourse in front of the courts under the terms of article 10 of the Law. It is possible that the Senate will adopt this bill within the two next weeks, before the departure of the Senator.

Language rules: An even tougher challenge than creditors?

BRENT JANG

Friday, November 19, 2004

Air Canada regional jets serving western cities usually need just one flight attendant. But if that person speaks only English, the airline needs to have a French-speaking attendant on board, too.

Operations manuals for mechanics need to be in both official languages. And advertising must be in publications serving people in French and English.

But those days should end, Air Canada says. After struggling through an 18-month restructuring process that saw it cut everything from labour costs to leasing deals, the country's flag carrier now wishes to pare the costly business of bilingualism.

The Montreal-based airline has seven translators on staff, available 24 hours a day, along with an additional 10 on call.

The carrier, which emerged from bankruptcy protection on Sept. 30, is now fine-tuning its business strategy, including updating its "linguistic action plan" before making a presentation next Thursday to the Commons standing committee on official languages.

Air Canada wants a "level playing field" in the industry when it comes to bilingualism, company spokeswoman Laura Cooke said yesterday.

Indeed, the carrier has battled creditors, unions and even pop diva Celine Dion's critics, but now the airline's fight for success is moving to a different plane -- the sensitive issue of Canada's official languages.

A revamped Air Canada is upset by what it sees as Ottawa's unfair and costly bilingualism demands, saying the airline is forced to schedule translators around the clock, buy advertisements in small French-language newspapers and train staff to be bilingual.

Air Canada stresses that it isn't anti-French -- far from it -- but its translation department is run off its feet complying with the Official Languages Act. Internal newsletters have to be made available simultaneously in English and French.

Translation and safety are the two sacred cows that haven't been downsized by restructuring.

The self-described "extreme makeover" featured creditors getting pennies on the dollar for money owed, unionized employees taking wage cuts and the hiring of Ms. Dion for new TV commercials.

The airline wants to let market demand be the driver for French services, and not have bureaucrats in Ottawa dictating linguistic policy to a private sector carrier.

Air Canada, which was a Crown corporation until the late 1980s, is the only airline that must comply with the Official Languages Act. If Ottawa won't relax its bilingualism requirements, then the carrier wants rivals such as WestJet Airlines Ltd., Jetsgo Corp. and CanJet Airlines to be subject to the same rules.

While Ms. Cooke said the airline is honoured to promote bilingualism and vows to meet its obligations by law, it's unhappy with "unequitable treatment" from Ottawa.

The carrier will be represented at the Commons committee by Duncan Dee, who is senior vice-president of corporate affairs for the airline's new parent company, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.

Air Canada agrees with the need to provide bilingual services in the National Capital Region, Quebec, New Brunswick and regions where demand is sufficiently high for French services. "It's just good customer service," driven by market demand, Ms. Cooke said.

The airline feels the federal government can't let go of the past and treats it as if it were still a Crown corporation. It is still operating under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, passed in 1988, even though the federal government sold off its stake in the carrier in 1988 and 1989.

The act ensures that the former Crown corporation's head office remains in Montreal and that service to passengers is guaranteed "in either official language." The act requires the airline to adhere to the Official Languages Act, which governs federal institutions and covers "language of work" provisions for employees.

Air Canada runs newspaper ads across the country, in both official languages. In mainly English-speaking markets, the airline argues, this means that any ad placed in an English-language newspaper must also be duplicated in a French-language newspaper, even in the absence of a compelling business reason to do so.

These French-language newspapers with small circulations don't have an incentive to give Air Canada a competitive price for an ad, knowing the airline is required to buy an equal-sized ad in French.

Or when advertising a seat sale, for instance, the carrier buys an English advertisement in the Vancouver Sun and also a French ad in L'Express du Pacifique based in Vancouver -- one of 13 such dual placements across Canada.

On the issue of training staff to be bilingual, the airline accuses Ottawa of having a double standard. Ottawa provides federal institutions with government assistance, but won't help Air Canada carry out costly language training because the airline is in the private sector.

The airline says the goal of having bilingual staff is admirable, but training has been made more difficult by its acquisition in early 2000 of Canadian Airlines International Ltd., where unilingual anglophones made up 87 per cent of the work force.

During a round of layoffs last year, Air Canada cut a group of mostly younger employees, an estimated 65 per cent of which were bilingual.

The airline sees a major difficulty in pulling much-needed employees off their jobs to go on language training for up to four months and finding replacements to fulfill certain duties.

Despite efforts to schedule bilingual flight attendants on certain flights, sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

Airlines abide by Transport Canada regulations -- not the Official Languages Act -- for routine safety announcements in both French and English, such as the location of exits. On most Air Canada flights in the West, safety announcements in both official languages are made live over the speakers, but WestJet tends to use prerecorded French messages.

© The Globe and Mail



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


QUEBEC MAY UNLEASH LANGUAGE POLICE

WebPosted Tue Nov 23 13:16:40 2004

QUEBEC CITY ---Quebec's premier may unleash the language police to crack down on the growing use of English in workplaces around the province.

A report released on Monday found English continues to gain ground in the province. Premier Jean Charest says he favours doing whatever needs to be done to promote the French language and culture.

INDEPTH: Language in Quebec

That could include asking Quebec's language watchdog to tighten up enforcement of the rules, he said.

Under Bill 101, the controversial language law passed in the 1970s, the Office de la Langue Française, can order businesses with more than 50 employees to translate all internal correspondence into French.

"The English language has become very much – throughout the world – the language of business," Charest said.

"So the constant pressure will be there."

RELATED STORY: GE staff sue for right to work in French

The report, released on Monday by the language watchdog, says the French language is in a "precarious" state in Quebec as English usage continues to expand.

It says efforts to require businesses to comply with language laws aren't halting the trend.

The report also finds that although immigrants are still more likely to learn French, English is the language of choice for more than half of all new arrivals to the province.

Copyright (C) 2004 CBC. All rights reserved.



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


CanWest News Service
November 24, 2004

Quebec to halt English gains, Charest says
Mike De Souza


QUEBEC - The Quebec government will do whatever it takes to stop the English language from gaining ground in the workplace, Premier Jean Charest said yesterday. "We will always be very vigilant in Quebec on the issue of language," he said. A report released last week by l'Office Quebecois de la langue Francaise revealed English was picking up steam, particularly on the island of Montreal. From 1991 to 2001, the use of English grew by 2% while the use of French increased by 1.7%, the report said. "Where we will find that we are not making progress, or where we may be losing ground, we will ask l'Office recommendations, and do whatever we have to do to tighten things up," Mr. Charest said.

© National Post 2004