Parking-gate: PQ minister takes aim at Jewish ‘parking tolerance’

How lucky we are that the PQ isn’t in charge of parking.

That didn’t stop PQ Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville from coming up with the latest moronic notion of what parking rules would look like in an independent Quebec where the PQ would control everything from pasta on menus to the language kids may use while playing in the schoolyard.

PQ parking rules would never accommodate any Jew whose religion prohibits him or her from driving on a holiday. But G-d forbid that Quebec would ever remove the display of Christmas trees, or close roads for a Santa Claus parade or remove the crucifix from the National Assembly. Not to mention other tolerances such as road closures for the St. Patrick parade or Italian festival or any number of multi-cultural or religious festivities enjoyed by hundreds of thousands across Montreal. Secularism in the PQ’s Quebec is one way, against “les autres”.

The PQ doesn’t miss a chance to insult or denigrate one minority or another in its pursuit of linguistic purity and uni-culturalism. Whether it’s parking, playgrounds or pasta this mean-spirited and ill-advised government has shone a light on itself for the world to see.

Does parking tolerance here or there threaten the French language any more than a christmas tree threatens Judaism?

The vast majority of Quebecers know that accommodation is reasonable, that tolerance is welcoming. The PQ should figure it out too. Live and let live. Park and let park.

Read more:

PQ minister takes aim at Jewish ‘parking tolerance’ in apparent attempt to inflame Quebecers | Full Comment | National Post.

Related articles

• PQ minister nixes parking accommodation for observant Jews (cbc.ca)
• PQ minister riled up over street-cleaning delays on Jewish holiday (montreal.ctvnews.ca)
• Rotrand calls eased parking restrictions on Jewish holiday ‘a Montreal value’ (cbc.ca)

Opinion: Our opposition to Bill 14 – a question of principle

Quebec Liberal leader Philippe Couillard and Liberal critic on language issues Marc Tanguay offer a refreshing and confident position on the language question. Their opposition to the “unnecessarily coercive and judicialized approach, and inflammatory measures,” of Bill 14 stand in stark contrast to that of the PQ government, let alone the CAQ that coward away from killing the bill outright.

Couillard and Tanguay speak of the benefits of bilingualism and multilingualism and of the great advantage that the million strong English-speaking  Quebecers – “they are not foreigners” – have in speaking at least two languages fluently.

They finally state what is plain to many but not enough in Quebec, that Francophones are placing themselves at a disadvantage by hindering themselves and their children off from greater opportunity.

I am far from a Liberal flag bearer.  Bill 22, Bill 178, these pieces of language restrictive legislation, along with hiring of more language cops came in under liberal governments.  However, the principles espoused in this opinion piece deserve praise and should be echoed by more and more Francophone leaders across Quebec.

Couillard and Tanguay close with, “Let’s choose to focus on our strengths and, above all, on our desire to live and prosper together.   Sounds good to me.

Opinion: Our opposition to Bill 14 – a question of principle (Montreal Gazette)

Cotler breaks federal MP silence on repressive language legislation

The following article appeared in The Metropolitain.

Our Linguistic Duality Must be a Legal Reality

By Hon. Irwin Cotler on April 22, 2013

In the words of René Lévesque, “A nation is judged by how it treats its minorities.” Regrettably, linguistic minorities in Canada have often had to fight for just treatment, and that struggle continues against the backdrop of several troubling recent developments that threaten the rights of minority language communities throughout the country. Simply put, it is critical to ensure that minority language communities feel welcome and are able to thrive, and this is as true for Anglophones in Quebec as it is true for French-speakers elsewhere in Canada.

Regrettably, Quebec Anglophones have recently come under increased pressure in the form of Bill 14, which would amend the French Language Charter with the goal of enhancing protection for French. All Quebecers – indeed, all Canadians – have an interest in ensuring the continued vibrancy of the French language and culture in our province, but this can and must be accomplished while respecting the rights of the English-speaking minority.

To that end, Bill 14 is problematic in several respects. It would:

• Allow the provincial government to strip municipalities or boroughs of bilingual status against their will if the population of mother-tongue Anglophones drops below 50%.

• Empower OQLF inspectors to seize property without a warrant, and to refer infractions for prosecution without giving alleged offenders an opportunity to comply.

• Prohibit English CÉGEPs from considering Francophone applicants – regardless of merit – until all Anglophone applicants have been accepted.

• Remove an exemption allowing members of the armed forces to send their children to English schools.

• Modify the Charter of the French Language by replacing “ethnic minorities” – a defined term in international law – with “cultural communities,” a concept lacking legal clarity.

• Make French the “normal and everyday language” in which government agencies are addressed, and require citizens applying for government assistance to apply in French or pay for translation. As the Quebec Bar Association recently noted, this could limit access to justice in English, particularly for low-income Anglophones and Allophones seeking legal aid.

Moreover, as the Quebec Bar Association also noted in its analysis of the legislation, Bill 14 could allow public servants to refuse to acknowledge anything said to them in English and require that files be translated in French at the expense of the applicant. Further, it places new and unnecessary burdens on employers with multilingual staffs, while translation inconsistencies in the bill may give rise to unnecessary litigation while burdening the delivery of social services.

Above all, however, Bill 14 would amend the preamble of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to say that “rights and freedoms must be exercised in keeping with … the values of Quebec society, including … the importance of its common language and the right to live and work in French.” In so doing, Bill 14 renders Quebec’s Charter a document designed to entrench the supremacy of the majority, whereas a primary purpose of constitutions is to establish individual and minority rights that cannot be suppressed by simple majority rule.

As the Supreme Court stated in the reference on Quebec’s secession, “there are occasions when the majority will be tempted to ignore fundamental rights in order to accomplish collective goals more easily or effectively. Constitutional entrenchment ensures that those rights will be given due regard and protection.” Accordingly, while the Francophone majority may certainly seek to ensure the sustained vitality of its language and culture, the rights of the Anglophone minority must be protected even if their protection complicates the majority’s goal.

In constitutional democracies such as ours, it is the constitution that protects minority rights from what Alexis de Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority.” Indeed, without constitutional safeguards, a majority-elected legislature would be legally empowered to oppress minority groups. Therefore, for Quebec’s Charter to subordinate all other rights to the importance of the majority’s language would be to undermine the very raison-d’être of a human rights charter.

Inasmuch as the language minister has expressed her hope that the amendments to the preamble will affect Supreme Court decisions about Quebec’s language laws, Bill 14 seeks manifestly to reduce constitutional protections for linguistic minorities. Yet such protections must be robust, both for Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones elsewhere in Canada.

Last October, at a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Quebec City, Canada signed an international agreement to “uphold cultural, linguistic, ethnic, racial, political and religious diversity as a global value which should be celebrated, respected, encouraged and protected within and among all societies and civilizations.” It is time for government decisions – at both federal and provincial levels – to adhere to this noble ideal.

Irwin Cotler is the Member of Parliament for Mount Royal and the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is an Emeritus Professor of Law at McGill University. 

 

Opinion: Growing healthy communities

English: A small urban agriculture project in Amsterdam (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Côte-Saint-Luc project aims to connect people with their food – and with each other

BY ANTHONY HOUSEFATHER AND TANYA ABRAMOVITCH, SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE

APRIL 23, 2013

MONTREAL – Imagine strolling through a park and plucking a ripe fruit off a tree as you pass by. In the not-too-distant future, this will be reality in the city of Côte-Saint-Luc. In the years to come, however, it will probably be a common sight in most cities across North America. Even in climates like ours.

Edible landscaping is just one element of urban agriculture, which is the practice of growing food in or around a city. On Thursday of last week, Côte-Saint-Luc launched its urban-agriculture initiative, which we’ve dubbed Côte-Saint-Luc Grown.

Our goal is to better connect people with their food, and also with one another. Food is one language that everyone has in common, and therefore activities that revolve around it are especially useful in growing not just healthy people, but healthy communities. Unlike other levels of government, municipalities have a unique opportunity to help shape and improve the habits of their residents because we interact with them on a daily basis. We provide recreational activities — and now in Côte-Saint-Luc we will be providing nutritional ones as well.

While we may be first in Quebec to adopt a Food Charter and a comprehensive urban-agriculture program, we are not pioneers. We are following in the footsteps of San Francisco, Toronto, New York and Todmorden, a village of 17,000 in the United Kingdom. Pam Warhurst co-founded Incredible Edible Todmorden, a food partnership that encourages community engagement through local growing. Watch her TED Talk presentation at Ted.com and you’ll understand how urban agriculture can have profound and positive effects on a community of any size.

Accessible to all, urban agriculture is the epitome of resilience and sustainability. Anyone, young or old, can participate and reap its numerous benefits, most importantly improved health and wellness, food cost savings, and social interaction. The environmental benefits and economic benefits are also significant.

During the Second World War, 40 per cent of what people ate was grown in their backyards; there is no reason we cannot attain that figure again. Municipalities can support urban agriculture by providing access to land, offering gardening courses, planting edible landscapes, and encouraging farmers’ markets, among other things. In Côte-Saint-Luc, we will be doing all these things and more in 2013.

Somewhere along the line, widespread knowledge about planting and gardening was lost. Things our great-grandparents knew about growing tomatoes or basil didn’t make to our generation. Cities can re-establish that lost knowledge, and make sure locally grown fruits and vegetables are part of our future. Cities needn’t be the size of Toronto to embark in urban agriculture; they just need to recognize its value to the communities of not just today, but tomorrow as well.

For more information, visit CSLGrown.org.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Related articles

• Côte Saint-Luc launches first-in-Quebec urban agriculture initiative (gjnashen.wordpress.com)

Opinion: Changes proposed by Bill 14 risk serious rights violations

By Pearl Eliadis, Special to The Gazette April 18, 2013

MONTREAL – Last Friday, the Quebec Bar Association testified at legislative hearings in Quebec City on Bill 14, which proposes to amend several laws, including the French Language Charter, and impose new restrictions on (mainly) anglophone rights.

When I first wrote about Bill 14 last fall (Opinion, Dec. 11, “Bill 14 chips away at English minority rights”), I highlighted the bill’s proposed change in definition of “ethnic minorities” to the nebulous “cultural communities.” Other writers have discussed this as well. The proposed new term, in my view, is worrisome because it serves as prologue to a litany of substantive rights violations in the bill.

The Bar found more than a dozen of these, in a number of areas. Among them:

Jobs: Let’s say your employer hired you because she needs well-educated employees who speak two or more languages. After all, you work in the Montreal area, so you probably serve clients of different linguistic backgrounds. Under Bill 14, your employer would be obliged to “subsequently review such needs periodically” to justify not only your job, but also the job of every other employee whose skills in a language other than French were seen as an asset when they were hired. It does not matter how big or small the company is. If requiring a language other than French cannot be justified to the satisfaction of the language bureaucrats, your job or your promotion would be jeopardized. This applies even if you are fluent in French.

Public services: Bill 14 proposes to require communication with the provincial government in French, in order to obtain a licence, authorization, assistance, indemnity or any other benefit. Applications, then, would have to be made in French. All supporting documents would have to be in French, too. Otherwise, the government would insist on translating it, at your expense. This provision would create a disadvantage mainly for English speakers. If Bill 14 is passed, forget about English versions of driver’s licence forms, income-tax forms and other tax-related information, not to mention English versions of government websites, which are already inadequate. Then there is Bill 14’s proposed new passive right for government officials to be addressed solely in French. The corollary is that public servants would be entitled to refuse to even acknowledge anything said to them in English.

Health and social services: Under Bill 14, workers in health and social services would be able to demand full translation of files into French. Translation costs would be borne by the English-language health-care system. But what if there were a real emergency, and your file had to be transferred from the English-speaking system to a specialist in the French-speaking system? The English version of Bill 14 says that the person authorized to receive your documents may require “a quick rundown of their content” in French — and this, in addition to the full translation of the file. The French version of the bill can be interpreted as saying only a “quick rundown” would be required. The translation contradictions are not helpful. To be sure, there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting unilingual workers to understand what they are reading. However, Bill 14’s proposals would impose financial burdens on an already-beleaguered health system. (I am betting there was no consultation with the English system on this point).

Your child’s schooling: Let’s say you move. Or you want to transfer your child to another English school, for whatever reason. Education officials under Bill 14 would, in these cases, be entitled to disregard your child’s years of schooling to date if this schooling in English were obtained through “trickery,” deception or a “temporary artificial situation.” These terms are all undefined, and interpretation would be left to the discretion of bureaucrats.

These are but a few examples of what awaits us if Bill 14 is passed. The bill promises years of litigation and legal instability.

Who will pay? For starters, the taxpayer.

The Quebec Bar Association’s brief, which highlights the legally problematic aspects of Bill 14, should be reassuring to anyone who believes that the rule of law should prevail regardless of one’s mother tongue or home language.

Protecting French is a legitimate political objective. But Bill 14 goes too far, and risks becoming a launch pad for multiple legal challenges that will further damage Quebec’s reputation.

Pearl Eliadis is a Montreal human-rights lawyer. She was part of the legal advisory team for the African Canadian Legal Clinic of Toronto, an intervenor in the Whatcott case. She teaches civil liberties at McGill University.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Related articles

• Bill 14 would strip Anglos of rights: Quebec Bar (montreal.ctvnews.ca)

Opinion: Volunteers make the world a better place

Beata Levine volunteers in Zimbabwe as a research photographer. The 66-year-old Côte St-Luc resident has been doing volunteer work since she was 15. Photo courtesy of Beata Levine.

BY BEATA LEVINE, SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE APRIL 10, 2013

MONTREAL — I have always believed, as Saint Francis of Assisi said, that “it is in giving of oneself that one receives.”

In fact, these are words that I live by.

At 66 years young, I can say I have lived a wonderful life of privilege. I have my health and have had a supportive husband, Joe, for 45 years. I have children, grandchildren, incredible friends and good fortune. Yet there is another dimension to my life that fulfils me in a different way. And that is my life as a volunteer.

Ever since I was 15 years old, volunteerism has been a part of my life. I began as a candy striper, or someone who volunteers for non-medical tasks, at St. Mary’s Hospital. Over the years, I have volunteered in a wide variety of organizations. Volunteer work has always been about self-fulfillment and helping the broader community. The two have always gone hand-in-hand and this stands true even today, as I find myself halfway across the world volunteering yearly, deep in the African savannah.

My volunteer life grew with leadership roles in the home-and-school association at my children’s school, and as an animator for seniors’ groups. I continue to work as a vCOP, or volunteer citizen on patrol, in the city of Côte Saint-Luc. And I have travelled abroad to Israel to work on an army base through the Sar-El program.

With numerous other volunteer positions under my belt, I realize that nothing has touched me in quite the same way as my past three years of volunteer experience in Africa.

There is something unique about the hands-on experiences I have had in Africa, connecting with its people, land and magical wildlife. I feel as though I am making a remarkable difference in the projects I work on — both in Africa and here in Montreal.

At the present time, I am advocating for Basecamp Maasai Brand, which empowers disadvantaged women’s groups. Among other things, I make connections with local fair-trade retailers here in Montreal who can sell their crafts. I have also coordinated a very exciting pen-pal project between Olesere School in Kenya and at Akiva School in Westmount. I will be going to Africa again later this year to embark upon a new project, the Victoria Falls Lion Conservation Volunteer Project, at Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. I can hardly wait!

Volunteering has always been a great way to meet new friends from different parts of the world and diverse paths of life. Through email and social media, we stay in touch and share our concerns. Through the connections I have made with my fellow volunteers, I have learned that dedication and passion to a cause always makes a difference.

It has been a humbling experience working with the African Impact program for the past three years. I have grown to love so much more than my own small world. Volunteering has given me back so much in return. I have purpose in my life, a great deal of pride and a sense of self-fulfillment.

My only hope is that I can impress upon others how personally enriching it is to to look beyond oneself, and try through volunteering to make this world a better place.

Beata Levine, 66, of Côte St. Luc, has been doing volunteer work since she was 15 years old. She is currently involved with volunteer projects in Africa.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

In my opinion:  Beate Levine is an extraordinary Cote Saint-Lucer who has given some of her time to a project very close to my heart, vCOP.  She patrols our streets and parks regularly and now we know what she does with some of her other spare time.

I congratulate Bea for her sharing her incredible experiences with us and hope that she inspires many more to give of their time.  What a tremendous difference Bea makes in the lives of people near and far.  You can too.

vCOP Bea O’Levine gets into the St. Paddy’s spirit

English is as official as French

The Suburban Newspaper

By William Johnson, April 3rd, 2013

Even as English is again under attack at the National Assembly during the hearings on Bill 14, it is perhaps true that most Quebecers have been misled into believing that English is not also an official language of Quebec. But that’s entirely unfounded in fact or in law. English has been an official language of Quebec ever since 1763. Every law passed since then has been passed in English. Every law to be passed by the current Parti Québécois government will be passed in English as well as French, and the English text will be official, just as will be the French.

English is part of Quebec’s very identity. That part is largely what makes the difference between Quebec and other former colonies of France, such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, Louisiana, Haiti, Vietnam or Algeria.

So how has the myth been propagated that French is the “sole official language?” It began with the trickery of Robert Bourassa’s Bill 22 of 1974, the so-called “Official Language Act, which proclaimed – in English as well as French: “French is the official language of the province of Québec.”

Did English cease thereby to be an official language of Quebec? Not at all, as seven McGill professors wrote in a lengthy legal opinion, published on July 19, 1974: “Section 1 which provides that French is ‘the official language of the province of Quebec’ is misleading in that it suggests that English is not also an official language in Quebec, which it is by virtue of section 133 of the BNA Act and the federal Official Languages Act. Section 133 of the BNA Act provides for two official languages in the legislature (in debates, the records and journals, and the printing and publication of statutes) and in the pleadings and process of the courts in the province of Quebec. No legislation in the National Assembly proclaiming French the sole official language in the province can affect these bilingual areas protected by the BNA Act itself.”

This statement was signed by Quebec’s two most distinguished legal scholars, Frank R. Scott, dean of the McGill Law Faculty, and John Humphrey, the chief drafter of the United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights. What they wrote in 1974 was then reinforced by the Constitution Act 1982, which further constitutionalized English and French language rights across Canada.

When Camille Laurin prepared the first draft of the Charter of the French Language (1977), it contained several items which the Cabinet knew were unconstitutional, as is borne out in Jean-Claude Picard’s biography, Camille Laurin. L’homme debout (2003). But Laurin persisted to declare French the only official language of the legislature and the courts, according to his admirer Picard “even after all the jurists consulted by the government explained to him that this violated Section 133 of the Canadian constitution and that it would certainly be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

And that is what happened. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision on Blaikie (1979) struck down the pretence that only French was the language of Quebec’s legislature and its courts. The court ruled: “Section 133 is an entrenched provision, not only forb¬idding modification by unilateral action of Parliament or of the Quebec Legislature but also providing a guar¬antee to members of Parliament or of the Quebec Legislature and to litigants in the Courts of Canada or of Quebec that they are entitled to use French or English in parliamentary or legislative assembly debates or in pleading (including oral argument) in the Courts of Canada or of Quebec.”

Picard also quoted the then deputy minister of justice, Robert Normand: “I stressed to him, as had many others that the sections dealing with the language of the courts and of the National Assembly were unconstitutional, but he insisted on keeping them to the end and managed to convince everyone to keep them anyway in the bill.”

There was only one exception on which Laurin gave in. His first draft of the Charter of the French Language had declared: “French is the only official language of Quebec.” But he relented when he was convinced that this would be struck down by the courts and so would undo the political effect of Bourassa’s statement in Bill 22. As Picard wrote on page 266: “And so he accepted to remove the word ‘only’ in Section 1 of the draft bill, which had stipulated that ‘French is the only official language of Quebec.’ But as for the rest, he got pretty much everything that he had wanted.”

Those who say that French is the “sole” official language of Quebec are either misinformed or deliberately misinforming. English was, is and will be an official language of Quebec.

Hearings into Bill 14: Bill 101 should not be subject to tinkering, civil rights lawyer says

Lawyer Julius Grey seems to have adopted the CAQ approach of suggesting that with changes to Bill 14 it would be an acceptable law.  Furthermore, he even concludes that Bill 101 should be allowed “to do its work and not try and change it.” So much for language and human rights.

Grey, apparently, is increasingly out of sync with the community he purportedly seeks to protect.  The English-speaking community has little interest in whittling away what few rights it has left.  The threat of Bill 14 hangs heavy upon English-speaking Quebecers, but Grey acts as if it is merely a minor discomfort to be shaken off.

What’s more, Grey argues that the imposition upon small business is not too heavy a burden. The business community doesn’t even agree with him. Ridiculous, Mr. Grey.

On the other hand, I salute the representatives of CRITIQ, the newest group to speak out for linguistic equality. Montreal Lawyer Richard Yufe, newspaper publisher Beryl Wajsman and former Cote Saint-Luc Mayor and D’Arcy McGee MNA Robert Libman presented their brief before the National Assembly yesterday calling for Bill 14 to be struck down in its entirety.

Wajsman, editor-in-chief of the Suburban, is unabashedly outspoken in human and language rights issues.  Libman, who lead the Equality Party in the National Assembly from 1989 to 1994, stood for his party’s namesake, equality.  These worthy goals, sadly, seem unattainable today to Quebec’s English-speaking community.  However, it’s only through the continued efforts of these leaders, and others like Cote Saint-Luc Mayor Anthony Housefather, that we will eventually succeed in making Quebec a better society for all.

Hearings into Bill 14: Bill 101 should not be subject to tinkering, civil rights lawyer says (Montreal Gazette)

Related articles

• Quebec’s War on English: Language Politics Intensify in Canadian Province (world.time.com)
• Cote St-Luc battles Bill 14 with online video (montreal.ctvnews.ca)
• Language minister wishes for calmer spirits (globalnews.ca)

 

Street food in Cote Saint-Luc?

Street food: City set to give green light to pilot project (Montreal Gazette)

Montrealers will be licking their fingers on downtown street corners this summer as the city will be trying out curbside food vendors for the first time since 1947.  Food trucks, bikes and kiosks are typical in most big cities around the globe.  Sounds like a great idea whose time has come.

How about in Cote Saint-Luc?  Would you agree?

National Post Comment on language police

Barbara Kay has an excellent commentary on the Office quebecoise de la langue francaise, otherwise infamous as the language police or tongue troopers.

She sums up her blasting of Quebec’s linguistic intolerance as follows:

The only beneficiaries of this fiasco will be Sainte Agathe’s ducks. Henceforth the signs forbidding people to feed them, up to now in English as well as French, must be in French only. I daresay that will mean a lot of extra breadcrusts thrown to them by law-abiding unilingual tourists who haven’t got a clue what “Défendu de nourrir les canards” means.

The ominous rigidity and totalitarian attention to detail of the Office reminds one of the soulless Inspector Javert in Les Misérables. Javert is so consumed by his obsession with the law that he has forgotten what it is to be a human being. And we all know what happened to the Inspector. Unable to reconcile the fact that there are times in life when compassion, human fellowship and morality conflict with the Law, he committed suicide.

Read Barbara Kay’s Full Comment.

Editorial: Service in English should be common sense for STM

Montreal Gazette, Jan. 9, 2013

It was a simple, straightforward request that Gazette transportation reporter Andy Riga put to the Société de transport de Montréal.

 

Using Quebec’s access-to-information law, Riga asked the transit authority what legal opinion it had, either from in-house counsel or outside lawyers, on how Bill 101’s language requirements apply to the agency’s employees — notably those whose jobs involve dealing with the public.

 

Yet getting a straightforward answer turned out to be no simple thing.

 

The initial response, from the STM’s director of legal affairs, Sylvie Tremblay, was that no such legal opinion exists. After that was reported, STM vice-chair Marvin Rotrand piped up to contradict her, saying that the STM does in fact have written opinions from its legal department about the matter.

 

However, not only was Rotrand at a loss to explain the discrepancy between their responses, he maintained that while he does have such opinions in hand, these cannot be shared with the public. Why not? Because, said Rotrand, it is STM policy to keep internal legal opinions confidential.

 

The issue of STM language policy has become contentious over the past year as a result of a series of highly publicized incidents involving STM employees belligerently refusing to serve transit users in English. In one incident last October, a métro ticket taker allegedly assaulted a passenger who complained to her about being refused service in English.

 

Côte Saint-Luc Mayor Anthony Housefather, who has been pressing authorities on the matter for some years, was told by STM board chair Michel Labrecque in 2009 that in conformity with the language law, hiring criteria for bus drivers require only a knowledge of French, and that drivers cannot be expected to communicate in a language other than French. A similar opinion was ventured two years later by former mayor Gérald Tremblay’s chief of staff, Hugo Morissette. He did allow, however, that a language other than French can be used in communication with STM clientele, and that in cases where an emergency evacuation of a métro station is necessary, the announcement is also made in English.

 

The insistence that bilingualism cannot be legally required of transit employees who deal with bus and métro riders is disputed by civil-rights lawyer Julius Grey, who maintains that the STM is misinterpreting Bill 101. He and others note that the language law allows an exception to the rule that no language other than French can be required in hiring when “the nature of the duties requires such knowledge.”

 

Given the nature of their duties, which include serving a large number of English speakers, it would seem that the exception would legitimately apply to front-line STM employees. This is precisely the interpretation of the law that has been taken by the provincial agency that oversees commuter trains in the Montreal region, the Agence métropolitaine de transport. The AMT requires fare inspectors along with ticket-counter and call-centre employees to be able to communicate in English.

 

More than a legally defensible policy, this is a sensible approach that it surely behooves the STM to emulate. More than a helpful courtesy to its English-speaking clientele, extending service in English to those who need it is important to maintaining Montreal’s reputation as a welcoming destination for visitors, something on which the local economy is heavily dependent. Surly refusal of English service — as was extended to Montreal Impact player Miguel Montano last summer, prompting Montano in turn to say on Twitter that Montreal was a racist city — is decidedly counterproductive.

 

In practice, STM employees are typical of Montrealers as a whole in that the great majority are accommodating of English speakers, whether or not the law requires it. For the transit authority, providing service in English should not be contingent on legal opinions, but rather on the common sense that providing service in English ultimately benefits all Montrealers.

 

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Editorial+Service+English+should+common+sense/7791073/story.html#ixzz2HV3IbIy3

 

In my opinion:

The Gazette got it bang on.  Providing service in English, in addition to French, in any essential service just makes good sense.  It is courteous to those who pay the taxes to provide the service in the first place as well as to visitors.  It makes sense to attract more users to the service, to attract tourists to the city and to welcome business investment too.

Kudos to Mayor Anthony Housefather who has stood up for the rights of Quebec’s English-speaking community for 20 years.  We must continue to speak up and to advocate for rights, privileges and for good sense.

 

National Post editorial board: English is a right, not a privilege

 

National Post Editorial, Jan. 4, 2013

 

 

Language tensions are to Montreal what black flies are to the Laurentian mountains that lie to the city’s north: They’re easy to ignore individually, but collectively at peak season they can lead to near-intolerable frustration. Sometimes, they make residents feel they are paying too high a price for the pleasure of experiencing Quebec’s charms.

 

During the last provincial election, language tensions were ratcheted up to one of those near-intolerable peaks as a tried and true means of garnering votes by the Parti Québécois. PQ leader Pauline Marois and her minions spread false, fear-mongering tales of the French language’s demise in Montreal, and in subtle but effective ways, encouraged francophones to feel offended even by the sound of the English language.

 

On three separate occasions within weeks, an English-speaker allegedly was physically assaulted by a francophone who had simply overheard — not even been spoken to personally — other people speaking to each other in English, and who cited the sound of English as the reason for their animus.

 

Shortly after the election, a transport employee put up a sign on his subway collection booth that “here things are done in French” and refused to speak English to a woman making inquiries. A paramedic refused to speak English in an emergency situation involving a child in an anglo area. In October, a subway ticket taker allegedly grabbed a woman customer who spoke English to him in a headlock and punched her, allegedly telling the customer to “go back to your country” and “in Quebec, we can only speak French.”

 

This was one “black fly” too many, and brought blowback that demanded investigation. Montreal’s Société de transport de Montréal (STM) deplored the violence, but insisted Bill 101, Quebec’s language law, forbade it from legally compelling bus and subway workers to speak English.

 

In December, Montreal’s Gazette filed an access-to-information request with the STM, seeking a legal opinion on how Bill 101’s employee-language requirements apply to the agency. On Dec 21, the STM responded: “No such legal opinion exists.” But the Gazette investigation found otherwise in the language of Article 46 of Bill 101: “An employer is prohibited from making the obtaining of an employment or office dependent upon the knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language, unless the nature of the duties requires such knowledge” (our emphasis).

 

For example, the Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT), which runs Montreal commuter trains, requires front-line agents to be able to communicate in English. That is sensible, because the commuter trains serve areas of Montreal that are predominantly anglophone. It makes even more sense for buses and subway stations, because they not only serve anglophone residential areas, they also serve untold numbers of tourists and other unilingual visitors from the United States and the rest of Canada.

 

Montreal anglos wrongly have come to believe that the use of English by public service workers is a kindness rather than an obligation. Indeed, many of them believe that French is the only official language in Quebec. But English is in fact an official language in Quebec, by virtue of Section 133 of the BNA Act and the federal Official Languages Act. That rankles Quebec nationalists, but there is nothing they can do about it.

 

When the PQ came to power, they declared French the only official language of the National Assembly and the courts — even though everyone knew this was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court duly struck that down in the 1979 case of Attorney General vs. Blaikie.

 

Not all francophones in the Quebec government’s employ must be competent in English — just as not every Ontario government worker must know French. Obviously the working language of Quebec is French, just as English is the working language of most other provinces. But in those contexts where clear communication is required for citizens to make use of critical services, then both official languages should be admissible as a matter of course.

 

National Post

Le Devoir opinion piece by Mayor Housefather: Un statut bilingue légitime et essentiel

Libre opinion – Un statut bilingue légitime et essentiel

24 décembre 2012 | Anthony Housefather – Maire, Ville de Côte-Saint-Luc

À la suite de l’article publié dans Le Devoir intitulé « La moitié des villes bilingues ne remplissent plus les critères », précisons que la Charte de la langue française originale ne se basait pas sur le critère actuel pour déterminer si une municipalité obtenait le statut de ville bilingue. Depuis plus de 25 ans, le critère utilisé pour déterminer l’octroi de ce statut était si la majorité des résidants de la municipalité parlaient une autre langue que le français. Il n’était nullement précisé que ce statut était basé sur la langue maternelle.

Aujourd’hui, à Côte-Saint-Luc, plus de 82 % de nos résidants ont une autre langue maternelle que le français et seulement 15,1 % des résidants parlent uniquement français à la maison. Il n’y a aucun doute que nous remplissons largement les critères qui à l’origine conféraient le statut de ville bilingue.
Dans le contexte de la législation sur les fusions forcées en 2000, le gouvernement péquiste d’alors a adopté la loi 171 et changé la critère, soit 50 % des résidants de langue maternelle anglaise, ce qui est la définition la plus étroite possible de communauté de langue anglaise. Une statistique bien plus appropriée pour déterminer qui est anglophone est la première langue officielle parlée ou la langue parlée le plus souvent à la maison. Cependant, puisque le statut bilingue était un droit acquis et pouvait être révoqué uniquement à la demande de la municipalité elle-même, il n’y a pas eu de problème avant l’arrivée du projet de loi 14, qui permettrait au gouvernement provincial et à ses organismes de contester ou de révoquer notre statut.

 

Unique au monde
Contrairement à ce qu’affirme dans votre article Jacques Beauchemin, sous-ministre à la Politique linguistique au ministère de l’Immigration et des Communautés culturelles, soit que le statut de ville bilingue est une « anomalie », ce qui est anormal, c’est que les municipalités ne peuvent pas décider d’elles-mêmes la langue dans laquelle elles veulent servir leurs résidants. À ma connaissance, le Québec est le seul État dans le monde occidental qui interdit aux municipalités de fonctionner dans les langues de leur choix. Certains pays, États et provinces exigent des municipalités qu’elles servent les minorités linguistiques dans leur langue lorsque cette tranche de la population atteint un certain seuil (bien inférieur à 50 %). Cependant, le Québec est le seul endroit où le gouvernement interdit aux municipalités d’utiliser la langue de la minorité, à moins que la minorité ne forme la majorité définie selon le critère le plus étroit possible.
En plus d’alléguer de façon incorrecte que les municipalités ne satisfaisaient pas au critère d’origine, l’article donne des chiffres incorrects pour la langue maternelle des municipalités et qui sont largement plus bas que ceux publiés par le recensement 2011 de Statistique Canada. En ce qui concerne Côte-Saint-Luc, l’article indique que seulement 40 % de nos résidants sont de langue anglaise, ce qui est faux. En effet, selon le recensement de 2011, 45,4 % de nos résidants indiquent l’anglais comme langue maternelle (soit comme choix unique, soit comme réponse multiple). De plus, ce chiffre n’inclut pas les personnes vivant dans les huit maisons de retraite ou les deux hôpitaux sur le territoire de notre ville (si tel était le cas, ce pourcentage serait bien plus haut). Par ailleurs, environ 63 % de la population a déclaré qu’elle parle anglais à la maison (4 fois plus que le français) et plus de 70 % a déclaré que l’anglais était la première langue officielle parlée.
C’est pourquoi il est faux de dire que la communauté d’expression anglaise est une minorité dans notre municipalité. Avoir une situation qui permet au gouvernement actuel d’exiger que notre municipalité cesse de communiquer avec ses résidants, d’adopter des règlements et d’afficher en anglais et en français est complètement absurde. Par tous les moyens possibles, nous continuerons de nous opposer à cette législation et tout Québécois épris de justice et du principe d’équité devrait faire de même.

Related articles

• First five bilingual municipalities adopt resolutions opposing Bill 14′s provisions on removing bilingual status (gjnashen.wordpress.com)
• Council speaks out against Bill 14, supports bilingual status quo (gjnashen.wordpress.com)

 

Lettre de Dida Berku à La Presse

Dida Berku writes to La Presse in response to article on electoral fraud conviction against Charles Lugassy.  Berku says that La Presse covered this story is a one-sided manner, perpetuating accusations without checking the facts.   Considering that the Quebec Court found Lugassy to be guilty of electoral fraud “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that his statements were “improbable conjectures, outlandish and not supported by the evidence”, Berku says that La Presse should have been more careful in how they presented this piece.

Lettre de Me Dida Berku Conseillère municipale Côte Saint-Luc

20 décembre 2012

Je m’inscris en faux contre l’article de Karim Benessaieh du 19 décembre portant le candidat Lugassy qui fut condamné pour manœuvres électorales frauduleuses commises en 2009 à Cote Saint Luc.

Cette histoire dure déjà depuis plusieurs années et à chaque étape et à chaque occasion qui lui est offerte par les média M. Lugassy profère des accusations de plus en plus malicieuses à l’égard des élus et de l’administration de sa ville. Cette fois ci les accusations vont trop loin et les faussetés sont trop grossières. Il faut les corriger.

M Benessaieh a répété ses fausses accusations à mon égard et à l’égard du Maire et des élus de Cote Saint Luc avec une insouciance telle qui m’oblige de corriger point par point les faussetés gratuites qui y sont faites. Il est inconcevable que le journaliste et votre journal peuvent répéter sans corroboration ni interrogation des parties impliquées, les accusations de la part d’une personne qui vient d’être condamné par la Cour du Québec d’avoir commis une fraude électorale. Je vous souligne que le Tribunal a trouvé M Lugassy coupable « hors de tout doute raisonnable.» d’avoir tenté d’obtenir que Mme Cohen se retire de l’élection en lui offrant un avantage soit de payer pour ses frais électoraux.

Il est clair que votre journaliste n’a même pas lu le jugement car s’il avait lu le jugement il n’aurait jamais pu reprendre les fausses déclarations qui lui ont été avancées par M Lugassy.

On ne peut que conclure que la motivation de votre journal est justement de promouvoir l’hypothèse de M.Lugassy à savoir que le véritable enjeu est «la domination des juifs anglophones ashkénazes» sur la politique municipale dans Côte-Saint-Luc. » Ceci est une fausseté grossière qui ne passe pas le test de la réalité.

M. Benessaieh écarte la condamnation on disant que « la juge Johanne White a essentiellement accordé plus de crédibilité au témoignage de Mme Cohen-Peillon qu’a celui de M. Lugassy ». Mais c’est bien plus que cela.

La Cour du Québec a entendu 6 témoins et a rendu un jugement détaillé de 26 pages dans laquelle Mme la Juge relate les faits et la preuve qui l’ont amené a trouvé l’accusé coupable d’une infraction pénale «hors de tout doute raisonnable ». Il ne s’agit pas du tout comme le prétend M. Benessaieh d’accorder plus de crédibilité à l’un qu’à l’autre, mais plutôt d’appliquer des règles strictes de preuve en matière criminelle. Mme La Juge conclue en disant que « le Tribunal considère que le Directeur général des élections s’est déchargé de son fardeau de preuve. » Elle qualifie au par. 94 de son jugement que la version des faits de M. Lugassy est « invraisemblable, truffée de conjectures farfelues et nullement supportée par la preuve. »… Elle continue au par. 95 « Le Tribunal considère que la version du défendeur ne soulève aucun doute raisonnable quant à l’infraction qui lui est reprochée. » et au par. 109 « Le Tribunal ne croit pas que le Directeur général des élections s’amuserait à entreprendre des poursuites pénales pour assouvir les désirs de vengeance d’une candidate défaite. » Il ne s’agit pas d’une infraction qui a été prise à la légère comme semble impliquée l’article du journal.

A l’appui de sa thèse que la politique est une chasse gardée des ashkénazes anglophones à Côte-Saint-Luc, M Lugassy indique « qu’il a reçu des menaces et de l’intimidation. On se serait cru au goulag, en Sibérie .» Est –ce les élus du conseil qui lui on fait ses menaces ou toute la communauté ashkénaze anglophone de Cote Saint Luc ? Ces remarques sont absolument comme dit Mme La Juge « invraisemblable, truffée de conjectures farfelus et nullement supportés par la preuve… » Il s’agit d’accusations gratuites et malicieuses à l’égard des élus de notre ville qui n’ont pas leur place dans votre journal sans corroboration ou commentaire de notre part.

M. Lugassy allègue que la communauté sépharade représenterait 40% de la communauté juive à Cote Saint Luc, Cette statistique ne tient pas la route. Encore c’est de la conjecture. Selon les dernières statistiques disponibles, en 2001, sur une population totale de 19,785 juifs à Côte Saint-Luc il y avait environ 4,285 sépharades soit 21.7 % de la population de confession juive. Mais peu importe le nombre, les élus de Côte Saint-Luc sont la pour représenter tous les citoyens pas seulement un groupe linguistique ou religieux comme semble vouloir le faire M Lugassy.

« Pour la première fois en 30 ans, la communauté sépharade francophone m’a demandé de me présenter » M Lugassy n’est pas le premier candidat sépharade à se présenter dans les élections de Côte Saint-Luc. En 2006 Mme Aline Malka qui travaillait pour le bureau du maire de Montréal pendant la fusion s’est présentée à l’élection et dans les années 90’s il y avait M Charles Barchechat qui est un homme d’affaires et journaliste. Tous les citoyens de la ville sont invités à s’impliquer dans la démocratie locale. Et tous les élus parlent le français bien que notre ville soit une ville bilingue reconnue par la loi.

« Ils se sont tous ligués contre moi, du maire jusqu’au greffier de la Ville. Il accuse ce dernier de s’être acharné contre lui, notamment en menant, à titre de président d’élections, cinq enquêtes sur sa candidature après la campagne de 2009. » Le greffier de la ville agit comme président de l’élection mais n’a absolument pas de pouvoir d’enquêtes suite aux plaintes portées selon la Loi. D’ailleurs Mme la Juge White en dit autant dans son jugement lorsqu’elle expose au par 17 ce qui suit : « Elle ( Mme Cohen ) a appelé à plusieurs reprises l’avocat de la ville pour lui faire part de la situation, mais cela ne relève pas de sa responsabilité. Elle ne se souvient pas si elle a porté plainte au Directeur général des élections durant la campagne, donc, avant le 1er novembre 2009. ». Le greffier de Côte Saint-Luc qui agissait comme président d’élections n’a pas mené des enquêtes et n’a pas porté plaintes. Toutes les accusations relèvent du Directeur Général des Élections du Québec. Faut il croire maintenant que le Directeur Général des Élections du Québec est au service des « ashkénazes anglophones »?

« Ils veulent envoyer un message au prochain sépharade qui va vouloir se présenter en 2013: la politique est une chasse gardée des ashkénazes anglophones à Côte-Saint-Luc.»

En tant que conseillère municipale depuis 1990, avocate et membre respectée de la communauté Montréalaise, je considère ces accusations non- fondées et très insultantes à notre intégrité et serment d’office. Maire et conseillers nous sommes tous élus pour représenter tous les résidants et non pas seulement les membres d’une communauté linguistique ou religieuse comme semble vouloir le faire M. Lugassy.

Nous avons une harmonie totale à Cote Saint Luc représentant nombreux groupes d’origines diverses ethniques et linguistiques, incluant les personnes d’origine italienne, russe, philippine, irlandais, iranien et israélien. Nous avons une harmonie totale, nous travaillons ensemble, nous jouons aux sports ensemble, fréquentons les mêmes écoles et célébrons les fêtes et la culture en harmonie.

Le conseil est dédié à servir toute la population et tout le monde est libre de participer aux réunions du conseil et participer à la démocratie locale. Jamais depuis que je suis élue ai-je vu M Lugassy s’intéressait aux affaires de la ville. Jamais est il venu à une réunion du conseil pour poser une question. La politique municipale est une politique locale et il faut s’impliquer pour réussir lors d’une élection.

En conclusion le ton de cet article et la façon cavalière que le journaliste a simplement repris les fausses accusations de M Lugassy sont très inquiétant. Dans le contexte actuel ou nous vivons à Côte Saint-Luc anglais, français et allophones de toutes origines et religion ensemble et en harmonie, il est inconcevable que vous faites passer un message si mesquin qui ne fait qu’alimenter les querelles du passé et les comportements d’une autre époque.

Il est d’autant plus incroyable que vous acceptez de reproduire ce contenu sans interroger ni le Directeur Général des Elections, ni la plaignante, ni le maire et les élus de la ville. Le tout uniquement dans le but de promouvoir une manchette sensationnaliste sans mérite ou fondement.

Quand allez vous arrêter d’alimenter l’animosité envers les « anglophones » et la haine envers les « ashkénazes juifs » ? Vous réveillez des querelles qui sont déjà dépassées depuis longtemps et qui ne méritent pas l’attention que vous leur portez, le tout sans vérifier les faits et sans souci pour la vérité.

Related articles

• Lugassy found guilty of electoral fraud – Coupable de fraude électorale dans Côte-Saint-Luc (gjnashen.wordpress.com)
• Court fines Lugassy following conviction of electoral fraud, maybe more charges to come (gjnashen.wordpress.com)
• CSL candidate found to have violated election rule (gjnashen.wordpress.com)

Letter to the Gazette Editor: Lisée’s comments on Bill 14 fail to comfort

Letter: Lisée’s comments on Bill 14 fail to comfort

MONTREAL GAZETTE DECEMBER 11, 2012

Re: “Quebec municipalities would not lose bilingual status automatically” (Gazette online, Dec. 10)

Thanks, Jean-François Lisée, for trying to reassure me and the rest of the anglo population that the English-language is well protected by Bill 14 and the OQLF language police, but I’d still like to see this draft bill flushed away.

As Côte Saint-Luc Mayor Anthony Housefather pointed out in his opinion piece published in The Gazette last week, the government takes a very narrow perspective on language by using “mother-tongue” rather than language used in the home or preferred language.

What’s the real reason for making political decisions based upon the language of one’s mother (and father) that often doesn’t reflect the reality of the language spoken in one’s home today?

Most English-speaking Quebecers would hardly trust the OQLF to decide at what critical mass a municipality or institution would lose its bilingual status. Leave that decision to those affected. The current law leaves the bilingual status with the city council, just as it should. A few bilingual towns communicating effectively with its constituents will have no important bearing on preserving the French language.

Enough with sugar coating the bitter pill of narrow-minded and mean-spirited policy.

Glenn J. Nashen

Councillor,

Côte Saint-Luc

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Letter+Lis%c3%a9e+comments+Bill+fail+comfort/7680965/story.html#ixzz2ErJnsCdt