Read how dumb our Language Commissioner is!!

Messages
573
Location
Forest On
Dyane Adam has been found to have acted beyond the mandate given to her office and Gerry Nicholls makes no bones about it. Below the article by Gerry Nicholls, I have attached a letter written by Marvin Jason. Mr. Jason worked as a director in the Auditor General's office and he is a "detail man" who doesn't miss a beat!! Read how Marvin picks apart one of Ms. Adam's reports and casts doubts on her competency. The bizarre fanaticism of our language commissioner Gerry Nicholls Special to the Sun Monday, September 20, 2004 I am having a hard time coming up with a way to describe Dyane Adam, Canada's commissioner of official languages. Only one word keeps popping up in my head. Fanatic. And that's such a harsh word. The dictionary says a fanatic is a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. Napoleon was more succinct when he said there is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter. Not really a pleasant way to describe somebody, especially a top Ottawa bureaucrat. Yet, when it comes to official bilingualism, Adam has no place in her head for reason. Just take the way she treated hockey broadcasting icon Don Cherry. Earlier this year, Cherry uttered a comment on Hockey Night in Canada's Coaches' Corner about French-hockey players wearing visors. "Most of the guys that wear them [visors] are Europeans and French guys" is exactly what Cherry said. It was a harmless remark. And any sensible person -- even those who disagreed with him, would never construe what he said as an attack on bilingualism. But fanatics are seldom sensible. And Cherry was barely off the air before Adam had launched an official government investigation into his commentary to see if it violated the Official Languages Act. Does that sound even remotely reasonable? What does commenting on hockey equipment have to do with Canada's official language policy? Adam never considered the cost to taxpayers of this bizarre exercise. She never considered that maybe Cherry had the right to free speech. She never considered that it was not her job to censor CBC employees. Her first impulse was to unleash her language police on Cherry. Talk about extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm for a cause. In fact, Adam is more than just extremely enthusiastic about her job. She is determined to use the full weight of her authority to crush any deviation from her rigidly strict interpretation of official bilingualism. Just consider how she recently dropped the hammer on francophone employees of the federal government. After an exhaustive -- and no doubt costly -- study of bilingualism in the federal civil service, Adam concluded that French-speaking civil servants spoke too much English in casual workplace conversation. The horror! To set things straight, Adam is demanding "concrete measures" to inject more French-speaking in the workplace. Nor is Adam content with her mandated policy of monitoring the language policies of the federal government; now she is going after the private sector. Indeed, Adam was appalled with the lax attitude of the Public Works Department when it came to enforcing bilingualism among its private sector tenants in the National Capital Area. As she put it in a recent report, the department had "done nothing to inform clients of their linguistic obligations." So under Adam's prodding, Public Works' bureaucrats sent blunt notes to their tenants demanding they provide services and printed materials in French and English. Signs, websites, menus and advertisements -- all must be bilingual. Understandably, businesses are less than thrilled with their "linguistic obligations." Optometrist Dr. Grenville Goodwin, who operates a business started by his father, can't understand any of it. "My family has owned this business for over 100 years," Grenville said. "And now they want me to change my sign? Hire new staff?" Making government services bilingual is one thing, but it's quite another thing to force language policy on private companies. In a free society every citizen should have the right to do business in whatever language they choose, even if they are leasing property from the government. Oops, I forgot. This is Canada. And in Canada we give bureaucrats like Adam full power to trample on individual rights and freedoms, so long as they are doing it to preserve government-sanctioned myths. And yes the notion that Canada is a bilingual country is a myth. Check the facts: Outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, French is the first language of less than five per cent of the population. Meanwhile, in Quebec, English signs are illegal. Adam probably considers pointing out facts like that a language crime. What else can you expect from -- for lack of a better word -- a fanatic? Gerry Nicholls is vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition -- www.morefreedom.org. © The Vancouver Sun 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Dr. Dyane Adam Commissioner of Official Languages Sept. 16, 2004 Dear Dr. Adam; Memo Ginsberg/Jason d Sept 8th refers (copy follows by fax). Some of the comments therein are disturbing and, in my opinion, at least one is misleading. Para 3 is the third para of the referenced letter. In this para it is agreed that there are a number of factual errors in the Post Office report. It is only another of several others that I have found and brings into question the validity of all your reports. By copy of this letter and other attached documents that I have already sent OCOL I am asking the Standing Committees ( SC) to oversee the quality of your Commission’s work something OCOL apparently can’t do for itself. Para 4; It is stated that "adequate services" includes "equal quality". It may include some cases of "equal quality" but there will be cases where equal quality is not included, for example, where there is no significant demand. It is like the way you applied for intervener status in the Montfort case and you claimed certain powers under the Act which was noted in the Quebec case that you do not have. By copy of this letter I am asking the SC to review all the affidavits made under oath by you to see if they actually were misleading. Para 5; In this case it states that "reasonably comparable" did not apply in the study. I tried to bypass the "significant demand" issue. But, since it has been brought up, why did the study include areas of Quebec where there was only significant demand? Why did the study include a part of Quebec where there would be significant demand (Eastern Townships) and areas like Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan where there was likely to be no significant demand? Why was BC , NF and Manitoba not included at all? Why was a Quebec area with a similar type of low demand to Sask. & Alberta, say in Shawinigan or even Quebec city not part of the Quebec review? Why were so few dealer outlets reviewed in Quebec and the one that was only reviewed in person, and not other aspects? It is another clear case of bias exhibited by OCOL. They may be subject to the OLA, however, if they are in an area that does not have a significant demand for bilingual service, it is not required by the Act, even if you declare it’s need and demand a higher degree of bilingualism. I believe you must follow the OLA and not make decisions as to what is needed if it is not required by the Act. By copy of this memo I am asking the SC to review any bias exhibited by OCOL when doing its studies. I am also asking the SC to review the situation to see whether you have the power to demand services beyond what is covered by the Act. Para 6, Here I am referred to Section 57 of the Act. My complaint was that you said you were not limited to the Act. I believe that you are constrained to the OLA. By copy of this letter I am asking the SC to confirm that your actions are constrained by the Act and any you take outside of it including any related to funding are not within your jurisdiction. Para 7; The tapes were never returned, as I asked, although the documents were returned in the time frame mentioned. Since OCOL complains about the lack of an active offer in many of their reports one would expect that they would be perfect in their active offers by all their employees. I complained about their active offers about 2 years ago with the tapes as evidence. Two years later the manager of public affairs did not provide one and corrected the situation only after I complained. The answering machines for each of the following phone numbers at OCOL headquarters do not provide an acceptable active offer and I want them all considered as official complaints; 995-9736, 995-9070, 995-0917, 992-8515, 996-7158, 943-0437, 995-0712, 995-0656, 996-9040, 995-1017. Even the answering machines at the SC for the Senate (990-6160) and the PMO’s office (942-6888) do not provide acceptable active offers. I have attempted to tape them as evidence. By copy of this letter I am asking the SC to find out why OCOL does not follow its own Act while requiring others to do so. Para 8; This para is the most disconcerting. It claims that there is no record of 170 complaints I had made. That is a disturbing indicator as to the shambles OCOL must be in. That, the number of errors in their reports & it’s high turnover all are indicators of a breakdown in management and a bias and disrespect for English and Anglos. I believe there would never have been a loss of 170 complaints by Francophones. In April 2003, I met with Commanda (Chief, Complaints Evaluation & Allocation Centre) and Parent (Assistant Chief) to review the over 100 complaints I had made up to then (a little over 1 year ago). How could they have been lost? Fortunately I taped the complete meeting and would provide it to the SC if they promise to return it and not keep it as I found with the earlier tapes. Almost all the 100 fell under the OLA as complaints and not as criticisms as stated. If they were not read how could they be claimed to be criticisms and not complaints? Most were complaints about low Anglo participation made by other Commissioners in 89, 90 & 91 and updated to the current situation. Many of the institutions that were complained about by the earlier Commissioners over 10 years ago had not only failed to improve their Anglo participation, but had reduced it even more. In this para we find another instance of lack of respect for English within the sentence "This discrepancy may be do (sic) to the..." The word do should be due. The cited lack of respect for English is found in many OCOL documents (as will be found in a number of documents that follow). After all it is the "official languages" Their communications and reports should be letter perfect. At least 2 of its annual reports are full of errors in English. By copy of this memo and the many documents to follow I am asking the SC to determine why OCOL shows such a lack of respect for the English language. Para 9; In your study "For Rent", you declared that the Quebec sign law takes precedence over the OLA. I do not believe that it is within the powers of your position to make that decision. By copy of this memo I am asking the SC to declare whether you have that authority and if not, to clarify the issue. Para 10; I could not agree more with the comments about OCOL ensuring that both languages are respected. Why, then, does OCOL show such a lack of respect for English. By copy of this memo I am asking the SC to attempt to find out the extent and reason for OCOL’s lack of respect for English. I consider a threat to a new PM way beyond the pale. Would the SC please review the perceived threat and take appropriate action. Para 11; The Action Plan states that "pre-determined portions of meetings will be conducted in the second language". That means all meetings. The response was that it is up to the chairperson to ensure that participants can use the language of their choice. The implication is that the chairperson will ensure that participants are from both language groups and thus pre-determined portions will be in both languages and still allow their language of choice. That is ludicrous. In my opinion, it is actions such as these that have contributed to Western alienation. Indeed, there are now signification separation movements in 2 Western provinces. Thanks in part to the failure of both standing committees and the whole official languages sector of the public service many perceive it to be unfair, unbalanced and anti-democratic. Were Quebec to separate, all Canadians would benefit economically except Quebec itself. If the West however were to separate all Canadians would suffer except the West itself. A far more serious situation. By copy of this memo I am asking the SC to find out what the extent to which the Official Languages program has contributed to Western alienation. Yours truly Marvin Jason cc Clerk Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages; fax 947-2104, ph 990-6160 or 990-0088, email; [email protected] Clerk Standing Committee on Official Languages; fax 995-2106, ph 996-2441 or 992-4793 email; PMO office fax 941-6900, ph 941-6888. Email; [email protected]
 
Messages
651
Location
Vancouver Island
No problem. You just ignor them like a kid throwing a tantrum, pretty soon they draw a huge pension and move-on thinking of all the 'Good' they did for the country. c'est la vie
 
Messages
47,819
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
My answer means they don't really do anything important while sucking tax dollars and then they retire and suck more tax dollars. French language tries to stay pure....I suspect this job may be involved with that lot.
 
Messages
11,006
Location
Canberra ACT Australia
Don't you just love the fact that the Kings of England and all the court way back spoke French as English didn't exist and then bang! it just comes from behind and takes over the world. Continues to grow everywhere especially China. Even more amazing is that they don't how many words there are in the English language. Some say 2 million and yet others say maybe 5 million. Interesting indeed.
 
Messages
4,651
Location
The Garden State
Unfortunately bureaucrats don't retire with that huge pension until they have reeked havoc on the poor average citizen. Costing them their freedom and money. Most bureaucrats should be imprisoned and given hard labor. That would be the first time they did any honest labor [Big Grin] . I've lived in NJ for my entire half century life so I speak from experience unfortunately [Roll Eyes] . Whimsey
 
Top