Based on what research?

Wow. Canada's only officially bilingual province has decided to scrap early French as a Second Language (FSL) programs, including Early French Immersion. While parents are screaming they would like to have a choice in the matter, New Brunswick Education Minister Lamrock's new action plan, called When kids come first, follows close on the heals of a report representing a "comprehensive review" on FSL programs and services in the province, initiated by the Department of Education last year. Citing problems long acknowledged by researchers and practitioners of FSL across the country, (such as too few resources and qualified teachers as well as a lack of support for French Core programs by administrators, parents, and students) the province's response is an "interesting" one.

The authors of the report appear to base their eighteen recommendations primarily on andecdotal evidence rather than on a truly comprehensive review of the research literature. The fear that Early French Immersion is leaving students behind in reading and math is mentioned alongside the Financial Evaluation of FSL programs. Hmm, makes you wonder.

Given the fact that learning two languages does take time, it is only logical to expect proficiency levels in reading somewhat later than for monolingual children. A good chunk of the Canadian population currently raising bilingual or trilingual children can attest to this without the wringing of hands. The increasingly common misconceptions that our children need to be literate before they even enter kindergarten seems to be at odds with bilingualism. And given the fact that French is hardly valued at the post-secondary level at Canadian universities it is no wonder that high school are opting out of official bilingualism programs.

A more appropriate recommendation might have been to bring in Intensive French in earlier grades to replace some of the ailing Core French programs perhaps, while leaving motivated parents to decide if they want to take on the challenge of a bilingual education for their children by continuing Early French Immersion. It seems money is doing the talking here, more than anything else. Let's hope it doesn't set a precedent.

meike at uni.ca

Thoughts on Federalism

(Extracts and edited)

Several federations have become centralized, as there is no universal practice in this regard. United States America and Australia have started enjoying centralized practices due to modern media technology and the pressure of globalization. However, countries like Canada, India and Switzerland are in the decentralized system of governance. The federal system is not a magic stick to settle all sorts of conflict, corruption and other bad aspects of democratic system.

There are certain conditions to be met while talking about the successful federal system of governance. The federal system of governance can work smoothly when it strictly follows certain democratic norms rule of law, respect for cultures amongst the different groups, and honouring some important elements of common identity. The federal structure can function effectively in such a society where rule of law and independent judiciary is honoured.

“The Government of Canada has been pursuing a more open federalism that recognizes the strength and contribution of each region of this country." Stepen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

Constitution of Quebec

Daniel Turp has always taken a lawyer's view of Quebec separation. Unfortunately for him international law isn't in his favour. Now he turns to Constitutional law, a more fertile area. Bill 196 is his draft Constitution (shown here in English and here in French).

I have always considered this more dangerous to Canadian unity, since it enunciates ideas that are the underpinnings of separation. The principles in the document are much easier apple pie to sell to Quebecers than political science-centred federalism.

I will continue to monitor Turp, as I have for over a decade, to see if he's finally putting his political life to some productive use.

graham at uni.ca

Comparison between Kosovo and Québec

Canada, Kosovo, and the myth of Happy Hostage Unity


The United Kingdom, Australia, France, The United States, Turkey, Senegal, Albania, Afghanistan and Costa Rica have already formally recognized the Republic of Kosovo as an independent country. Some two dozen more countries will likely follow their lead by the end of the month. Canada's not on the list - yet.

Some say it's at least partially about Quebec for us. This analysis on Reuters by David Ljuggren puts it this way: "Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia is a headache for Canada, which needs to find a way of recognizing the new state without boosting the fortunes of separatists in its French-speaking province of Quebec. . ."

Fair enough. Some in Canada put it less mildly and betray some more troubling biases and assumptions: "'. . Canada is boxed in,' Alain Gagnon of the Universite du Quebec in Montreal told AFP. If Canada 'quickly recognizes Kosovo independence,' it may be obliged to accept Quebec independence if separatists ever succeed in holding another plebiscite and win, he explained. . ."
Whether or not our current federal government, a government that has shown the way foreward with more flexible federalism, buys into the assumptions underlying these statements is beside the point; They are still probably considering the mood of Canadians on this matter. Some of the radio call-in shows have seen calls once again showing fear that there'd be a circumstance where Canada might have to "let" or "allow" Quebec to leave the federation.

Think about those words . . . 'accept,' 'let,' 'allow' . . . . now think about the assumptions there. The future of one of the jurisdictions that federated to make this country is apparently, in the eyes of many Canadians, in the hands of anyone but the people of that jurisdiction. How far are we willing to carry this?

I'll put it another way. Imagine a post-"oui" vote Canada wherein Canada didn't "let" Quebec leave. Besides accommodation of childish spite, what would be accomplished here? What would the economy look like? The state of civil unrest? The way we are viewed internationally?
The daft, arrogant and rigid top-down federalism of Trudeau, Chretien and Dion had its chance. Far from saving Canada, this rigidity only further polarized this country. Ottawa governments taking this line got sovereignty referendums in 1980 and 1995 for their efforts. Secession references and the now-outed post-oui contingency plans did nothing except show that we need a new approach, or a return to more respect-based principles in our federalism.

The fact of the matter is - you can't legislate unity; You can't lawyer your way to unity; You can't, without severe scarring and human cost, coerce nations within a country to stay unified. Unity in free and democratic countries and federations has to be earned. It has to be worth it. It can't be a unity of state-sized hostage taking. Moreover, if democratic mechanisms lead to a decision we may not like, we can't take our toys and pretend as if it didn't happen. Ask the Chechans what happens when a country behaves in such a way.

I am a Newfoundlander. The people of the Dominion of Newfoundland voted by a very narrow margin to join Canada. If it was enough to snuff out the country in which my grandparents were born, then a similar fair process is bloody well enough to establish independence.
Some otherwise very pro-freedom and pro-democracy people get very uptight when talk turns this way. The possibility of change frightens them. They forget that the world is not static. There is no reason to try to grab on and freeze the globe and prevent the changing of maplines after some arbitrarily picked point in our timeline. They have always changed. If we want ours in this country to stay the same, pretending as if other nations and countries do not exist will not achieve the desired effect, it will only show us to be slightly more inconsistent in our approach to such matters.

Putting aside the fact that most academics agree that a comparison between Kosovo and Quebec is a comparison between apples and oranges, Canadians need to grow up when it comes to how they let the issue of the potential for Quebec to become independent affect them. Please don't tell me that this country is so close to death's door that the only viable tools for unity remaining open to us are semantics, lawyering, or possibly coercion . . .

It is precisely because we're big and mature enough to make this federation workable and united with strong provinces and more of the new flexible federalism that we should be among the first to confidently recognize Kosovo. Besides, it's the right thing to do.

Posted by Liam O'Brien on February 19, 2008 Permalink

Talk about minorities and the need for respect!

Unbelievable - we haven't learned a thing! According to some of the victims' families who were recently contacted by B.C. Victim Services, the second Pickton trial is reportedly not going to happen.

This discussion was under way last December, the minute Pickton was convicted of 6 counts of second degree murder in the first trial. It was being talked about at the water coolers, in the change rooms of rec centres, over dinners with friends - should there be another trial for the remaining 20 victims? "It would cost way too much. The Olympics are coming and all." "Think about it, 20 women. That'll take years and years." "Yes, and oh my gosh, I just can't take anymore of these stories in the media. Don't have the stomach for it. I have had enough of the radio and television reports, and the pictures in the newspapers..."

Nice! What we are in fact saying is that those 20 women have no worth as human beings. Their stories don't need to be told because it would cost money and would inconvenience our cozy little lives. The fact is, we as a society are also to blame for the deaths of these women by being part of a community of residents who for the most part, doesn't give a rat's ass about what goes on in the Downtown Eastside and doesn't care why these women were driven into the sex trade. The 20 women still waiting for their day in court gave their lives in a most horrible way. The least we can do is offer some taxpayers' money and our respect. This is, first and foremost, about taking responsibility for what happens in our communities.

So for my part, I am ready to see that money spent, ready to explain to my children what the pictures in the morning paper mean. And I won't turn the radio dial even when my stomach feels sick from listening to what the women who died had to endure. How about you?

meike at uni.ca

Kosovo

A warning to Quebec separatists who use Kosovo as inspiration for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) : not so fast. Kosovo's UDI is gaining legitimacy -- slowly -- due to an exception in international law related to the treatment of minorities. Indeed, in that region, genocide and other atrocities by Milosovic and others created this exceptional fount of legitimacy.
Quebec would have no similar claim. I am sure the usual suspects will use this false analogy (I am going to check vigile.net right now to confirm...) but I have never accused them of being rigourous or using correct international law analysis to begin with.

graham at uni dot ca

“Britannica rules”

Phil,

I just finished reading Richard Gwyn's excellent biography of Sir John Eh MacDonald and your sentiments are exactly those of Georges-Étienne Cartier and the other Canadiens who supported Confederation. Federalism provided Canadiens with the kind of protection needed for the French language to survive in North America.

Great book by the way.

David at uni dot ca


-----Original Message-----

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:28:45

As a francophone, I thank God that in the end, Great Britain won on the Plains of Abraham because I am convinced that the British were far more flexible to accommodate the French than the French would have been towards the English. As a Nation, we were able to develop so much more with Britain... so I also share the sentiment that as far as our Federation is concerned, "Britannica rules”. This is not taking away my pride as a Francophone, it's simply a logical conclusion. I am not French... I am a multicultural bilingual French-Canadian. Huge difference!

Phil at uni dot ca

On Federalism by P.E. Trudeau - quote

"Reason over passion."

Here we go again... refutation...

I am curious?

How could you take two different releases, and misquote the essential sentiment of each one?

First, AffiliationQuebec promotes Canadian values, and minority rights! There is NO anti French or anti Quebecois sentiment in our platform!

Journal de Montreal claimed Quebecers could NOT be served in French (Which is patently untrue), which their scandalous article failed to demonstrate.Their misleading, front page article, intended to inflame the social and political balance of Montreal, while acting as "agents provocateur".

If you cannot quote AffiliationQuebec correctly, please do NOT quote us at all!

Allen Nutik,
Chef,
AffiliationQuebec

Here we go again...

There is a new political party in Québec. It is called AffiliationQuebec and it has as it's main objective the promotion of the English Language in Montréal.

Fair game, I say. After all, this is a democratic Country and I am always happy to hear of efforts pertaining to minorities everywhere.

My only concern is the spirit that seems to envelop the Party’s Leader, Mr. Allen E. Nutik (see photo above). Yesterday, I received a letter from him indicating that the Charter of Rights is wrong: “Had we known the full implications of the massive changes the Charter of Rights would impose on Canadian life, I wonder if the results have been what the legislators originally intended?” The underlining issue here seems to be because the Charter protects the French Language.

Furthermore, Nutik exclaims: “I do want to talk to you for a moment about complicity, a word that certainly conjures up a negative connotation, especially when used in conjunction with Quebec's infamous language and sign laws, which I am not alone in considering to be illegal, although the Supreme court of Canada, in their wisdom, evidently does not. “

Mr. Nutik agrees that “Quebec law does permit the use of English on signs” yet, in another article received today, AffiliationQuebec has decided to file a complaint with the Quebec Press Council because Le Journal de Montréal has discovered a lack in French Services in downtown Montreal. You may read what this Party calls an “offending article” here:

The article is neither offending nor out of place. Francophones have the right to be served in their own language in the Metropolitan of Québec.

Thus the fight continues. Some appears to still want Montréal to become, if not a bilingual city, an Anglophone city and we have seen this in the past. In our view, the result of such actions simply nourish the Nationalistic sentiments of Quebecers and helps their "Independence" cause.

Time to wake up people. Québec has the right to be as French as Alberta has the right to be English.

Stop harassing francophones!

Jean Lessage (PLQ past Premier) was right: “Maître chez nous”.


phil at uni dot ca

No one cares... thus the end?

Hello graham at uni.ca,

No one is catching up simply because no one cares.

Think about it. In the last 40 years, each "substantive" Federalist cases have been rejected... mostly by EC.

Who are you expecting to excite with this. History repeats itself, and thus the danger of the disintegration of Canada.

Time to wake up.

phil at uni.ca

Two Solitudes

Maybe the press is busy wrapping gifts. Or maybe no one cares to read the French press. But there is no coverage in English Canada as of 5pm 24Dec07 that PM Harper wishes to entrench the Quebecois' nationhood in the Constitution.
This is huge news. I hope by tomorrow the rest of the country catches up.

graham at uni dot ca

De Uni.ca à vous tous - from Uni.ca to you all!

We would agree with UBC on this one. Have a wonderful Season's Greetings everyone and a great 2008.

Meilleurs voeux à vous tous et que 2008 soit une année excellente.

www.uni.ca

Dear Mr. Bernard Lord...

The stats for the 2006 Census on Bilingualism are out today and Harper has conveniently flown into action. Former New Brunswick premier Bernard Lord has been appointed as Special Advisor to a committee for the Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages which will be meeting with English and French language minority groups across Canada on the state of bilingualism. In fact the meeting in Vancouver takes place today – BY INVITATION ONLY! as I have been just informed by the Heritage Ministry. So much for getting a chance to be heard. I’ll have to use the Uni.ca open mike instead:

The Census really says it all: the number of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 19 who are bilingual is down from 2001 figures. This is usually the age when Canadians in the ROC are most likely to be fluent in both French and English, given the French language programs in schools. So why are the numbers decreasing when there is a steady demand for French Immersion Programs and the new Intensive French Program are gaining popularity across the country? In fact, the lack of French language teachers is becoming critical because both anglophone and allophone parents are enrolling their children in French as a Second Language (FSL) programs. Speaking a second or even a third language is fast becoming a common occurrence in Canada and highly valued by Canadians.

The government, however, appears to be living on a different planet. A 2006 Research Report of FSL teaching in Canada cites a lack of francophone material resources and the diversity among the student populations as also major challenges for French language teachers. Graham Fraser, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages, has questioned why students no longer require a second language to study at a post-secondary institution in Canada. And what message does this send to the people of a country whose linguistic landscape not only includes two official languages but an ever growing multilingual reality? In Europe one cannot set foot in a university without proficiency in at least a second or a third language.

A great amount of research is being done in the academic arena on second language learning yet there is little interest and willingness on the part of both federal and provincial governments to support the work being done by researchers, teacher educators, and teachers.

Is there a hope that something will come of this latest consultative process or is it just another grab for votes on the part of Mr. Harper? It remains to be seen…

meike at uni.ca

Monarchy Rebuttal

About our white paper recommendation regarding Monarchy, Mr David Steventon writes:

Interesting editorial. Seems like one requirement is missing. That the new monarch be a past employee of CBC.

That's how stupid the concept is. Heck we have trouble finding sufficient statesmen. (Thinks, do we have any?) So how are we going to find an individual to inspire our nation, including Quebec?

And who would appoint this nation inspiring monarch? The Prime Minister? What an opportunity for a patronage appointment. Considering the wealth of qualified people for the position of Governor General, the past two have left a lot to be desired. And of course who could forget Jean Sauvé, who thought of herself as royalty, by banning the streaming masses from Rideau Hall.

Come on, you have a great web site here. Don't waste time and effort on such trivialities.

David Steventon

Thanks for the comment. Allow me to respond.

First, the onus is on you, Mr Steventon, to defend the relevance of the House of Windsor in 21st century Canada. Given that our Prime Minister has declared the Quebecois a nation, what relevance has the Queen to them?

Ask yourself: where is the Queen physically right now?

Second, in our proposal, we would not be appointing a new Monarch. This person would be our head of state, but no monarch. We would be abolishing the Monarchy from Canada.

We left open the options for appointment of the officer. It doesn’t matter terribly to us, as we’re satisfied as long as there is no election, there is also no republic.

I do not consider it trivial at all that we have this middle age vestige still at the centre of our governmental structure. That, coupled with the sheer irrelevance of the Monarchy to Canadians of non-British descent, make a strong case for reform.

The new Australian PM just announced they will have a go at a Republic; I'm suggesting we have a go at reform in our own way, too.

graham at uni dot ca

Atlantic Canada Speaks Out

Here is an interesting letter from a fellow Maritimer. He's more subtle than I am in calling these Upper Canadians "unwittingly imperialist."

graham at uni dot ca

Being a bit of a political junky, I looked through your website with some keen interest. It seems that there is an honest attempt to so-called 'solve' the county's problems, but there are major problems in your writing as concerns people, like me, from Atlantic Canada. Historically, few in this region wanted to join Canada to begin with. Arms were twisted by imperial powers to force integration. Things have changed in many ways, but latently, at least, most Atlantic Canadians feel somehow that it is our destiny to be shafted by 'Upper Canada'. From Joseph Howe to Joey Smallwood, the idea in Atlantic Canada was that the powers that be didn't want us to be independent so we had to cut the best deal we could. They predicted that our banking, agricultural, industrial, and trade standards would be dictated by the demographic core of the country and we, consequently, would lose control of them. On these counts, you would have to be lying to yourself to believe that they were in any way wrong. As this was foreseen, the hope was that some minimal guarantees of governmental service and political representation could allow our cultures to withstand the new imperialism that would inevitably try to reinvent our cultures and industry.

But alas, the good hearts of Unity believe somehow that the "martimes" are overrepresented in the senate. They are not wrong in proportion to the population. They are wrong, however, to characterize Newfoundland as being part of the Maritimes--it is not and never has been. They are also wrong to suggest that this "over-representation" somehow needs to be corrected. It was a minimal guarantee to the loss of our respective sovereignties. I could go on for hundreds of pages on how this destroyed thriving small economies and diverse cultural groupings, but instead would invite contributors just to make an effort to understand different regions' histories with balanced reviews of artifacts and historical documents rather than the unwittingly imperialist underpinnings of Toronto/Montreal publishers.

Hopelessly yours,

Malcolm Smith
Sent July 2007

A Canadian perspective

Please FW to Kevin Myers ---> Re: British newspaper salutes Canada

To Kevin Myers

RE: Canadian perspective on "The country the world forgot - again -- By Kevin Myers"
http://www.uni.ca/country_forget.html

Sometimes I'm not so proud to be a Canadian. While Canada has a great history of accomplishments, most of them come as the result of following. Canada seems to love the US so much that they followed them into Iraq and Afghanistan. Harper's not-so-secret agenda of deep integration with the US today, just another example of Canada's political will not to be a leader and not to be it's own country in this world. So why did Canada scrap their world-leading Avro Aero anyway? US pressure? So sad. Canada still has to answer to someone else's queen. How primitive is that? Canada is a nation in it's infancy. Until Canada grows up and takes control of their own ecomony without depending on the US economy and until it follows it's own path, the world will not change it's view on Canada.

If Canada wanted to be a leader in the world, then they would need to start doing the right thing and fighting the good fight. Not this crap that's going on in Afgahistan and Iraq. That's not their war. They need to stop following the US in unjust conflicts. The US is the last country in the world Canada should be following.

Look at the Canadian dollar? It's nice and high, yet people here panic. Why? Because everyone is too tied down to the US economy instead of creating their own global economy. Why is that???? We too primitive and to wimpy to do things ourselves? We still need the big bad USA to hold our hand? Our gov't is pathetic. We need someone in charge that would stick it to the US (and get rid of the queen). We need our independance.

Look at the environment. Such a sad story, and who does Caanda follow? The damned US. The worse polluter in the world.
I'm so sick of the US. That's the last country anyone should follow.

Harper totally sucks.

We need to burn their White House down again like in the war of 1812. Talk about a proud moment. The US lost that war. :)

We need to get economically independant from them.

We need to fight our own wars, just wars, not wars over oil and terrorist ghosts.

Why wasn't Canada fighting apartheid in South Africa?

Why wasn't Canada in Rwanda? In Darfur? Why isn't Canada fighting the US invasion?

Why is Canada destroying all our natural resources for the benefit of the US way of life?

Why are the Canadian forces doing more than peacekeeping in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why isn't Canada the environmental leader of the world?

Because of our damn corrupted government and the greedy people that live here. It pisses me off. What ever made this country great is being lost because of greed and US values. This is a good site: http://www.canadians.org/ I wish these people ran the country.

Thanks,
Brian

PS: To the London Telegraph, start providing e-mail addresses so the people can be more interactive.

U.S. Unity vs. Diversity

View unity video

So I'm sitting in New Orleans.
A place that has had challenges,
some recent, some much longer lived.

Many people talk about how they were abandoned by the country, even before the Hurricane. How they deserve a greater share of their natural resources, about how different they are from the rest of the country, their culture, their food, music, way of life, indeed, the colour of their skin. Their history one of slavery and civil war, poverty and racism.

And yet, not one person talks about separation.
That is crazy talk: they are Americans. Period.

When you make a bond that has any meaning, it is a foundation from which you can draw strength and unity from even in the the face of diversity and adversity. The diversity of the United States is quite extreme and in fact quite bloody at times. And yet they find strength in unity. Even now, many disagree with their governments, and yet, federalism survives and a national identity continues, even with such vast diversity of geography and demographics.

Some might say that perhaps some parts of the U.S., geographic or demographic, should separate, should assert their rights. Well that is happening, through the democratic and legal institutions. Perhaps it is slow, but it is a real alternative to bloodshed. Perhaps it was the violent history of the Civil War that has the U.S. united never to do that again, at least not to themselves.

So it seems strange, sitting here, in a place with so many problems and then I think of home, Canada, and the places I love in Ontario, Quebec and PEI where I grew up and still live a lot of the time. Where are these gross injustices, these terrible challenges, these human rights abuses that would justify separation? There are none. Argue all you want, you will never convince me that there is anything that is so wrong with Canada or Quebec or any particular part the justifies or even brings some benefit from separation. The only benefit is for a small group of provincial politicians that have been getting elected by pulling this emotional chord without a rational plan or good reason other than a drive for personal power. That's it, it's about one group of politicians wanting to grab power for themselves, and they'll mutate the issues to make it seem like it's everything else but that. And they'll take their federal pensions along the way.

Rather than being actual freedom fighters, reading the news I see those who claim to be so oppressed are themselves taking so well to being the oppressor, with mean spirited moves to prevent Muslim women from wearing their veils by choice and now a hierarchy of democractic and human rights based on the languages you speak.

Shameful and ridiculous and so inconsistent with a country like Canada.

This world needs unity, it needs to be constructed level by level with families, towns and cities, provinces, countries, continents, and the human race coming together, unifying as best we can. Canada needs to be an example of unity, not an example of an opportunity for peace and prosperity thrown away.

That's how it looks from here.

L'«amero» n'est pas exclu, dit David Dodge

Jesse Caron,
LesAffaires.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhs64JnfC8c&eurl=http://widget-26.slide.com/widgets/sf.swf

L’Amérique du Nord pourrait un jour utiliser une monnaie unique comme l’euro, dit le gouverneur de la Banque du Canada, David Dodge.

David Dodge a avancé cette possibilité en marge d’un discours livré à Chicago.
…

(Certains) croient qu’une monnaie nord-américaine unique pourrait être créée de toutes pièces et s’appeler l’amero. D’autres croient plutôt que le dollar américain serait adopté d’emblée, ce qui enlèverait au Canada et au Mexique une bonne dose de contrôle sur leur économie.

The Achilles Heel of the Separatist Man

This brief explanation of Federalism is typical of Quebec separatists. Bruno Deshaies sees the subordination of one level under the other as a constant in all federal states.

Not only is this analysis facile, he leaves out the benefits of overlap and competition, as well as the demonsttable success of federalism for Quebec, and for the country as a whole.

Federalism is the Operating System of Spaceship Earth, but separatists always miss this great historic sweep. And it is to their peril. The more they brand "federalism" and "federalists" the bad guys, the more they paint themselves into the wrong side of history.