Little Fish in a Giant pond

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Something unpleasant is about to hit the fan in Ontario

Language rights in Ontario haven't been this controversial in Ontario since the heated debate that occured over the closing of the Hôpital Montfort.
This time, the subject of debate is even edgier. According to the Ottawa Sun, the council for the Township of Russell has officially voted 3 to 2 in favour of a by-law that will require all new business that are established in the township to post signs and advertise in both of Canada's official languages, with the tie-breaking vote coming from the Mayor Mr. Ken Hill.
The reaction from some Russell residents and merchants has been a furious one. A lawyer by the name of Howard Galganov promptly served the mayor with legal papers indicating that he intended to challenge the by-law, which he considers to be a violation of the Charter.
The website for the Russell Chamber of Commerce was quick to denounce the by-law even before it was adopted. One look at their site and it is clear that the language being used is intended to stir up emotion, in what already promises to be an emotionally charged debate.
The Chamber of Commerce website is rife with venom for Mayor Hill, and just littered with rhetoric about the Charter. They go so far as to suggest that "...we will show that we will not trade our rights away so a few politicians can score political points with a small minority of discord makers". I wonder who they mean when they refer to this small minority. According to the 2006 Census results, 6160 (44.85%) Russell township residents considered French as their "mother tongue", compared to 6810 (49.58) who marked down English. So it's not exactly like we're talking about a small community where no one speaks French.
Galganov and the Chamber of Commerce seem pretty convinced that they have a strong case, I'm not so sure at least for the moment. The Chamber of Commerce website refers to Vann Niagara Ltd. vs. Oakville, but this was a case where the municipality was refusing to allow third party advertisers, it had nothing to do with the language of advertising.
Still, we should not forget that the Supreme Court did declare that Québec's language laws against advertising in English were declared unconstitutional and invalidated them. They only exist today because the Bourassa government elected to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter. Just the same, we are not talking about banning the use of English for advertising. In fact the right to express one's self in English would be restricted in no way. Unless I misunderstand the by-law in question (to be fair I have not read it yet), it simply means that businesses that only advertise in one language will now have to advertise in the other as well.
One thing's for sure, I am going to have to get my hands on a copy of this controversial by-law, and then I intend to do a little bit of legal research on my own, before I can decide whether or not it is likely to stand up to a Charter challenge.
Personally I'd say that Mayor Hill and his council are unnecessarily opening a can of worms, since French businesses are already free to advertise in the language of their choice, but if that is the way that he and the other elected representatives on the Township council feel is the best way of reflecting the township's bilingual characteristics, I personally don't see any harm in it. Needless to say, A LOT of people will feel differently.

Labels: , ,


  • I don't really understand what the beef is about, what can be so "threatening" than having bilingual signs ? To hear the opponents such as Howard "the Quebec-flag burning bigot" Galganov, it sounds like the council is taking people's rights away.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is easy to invoque the individual rights card when you aren't a linguistic minority. This was true in New-Brunswick during the bilingualism debates of the 60s and 70s ( particularly in St-Johns with the infamous mayor Jones) and the COR party in the early 1990s. It was true in Ontario during that period and now in Russel and in Quebec, anglophones also invoque the "free market principle" to linguistic policies. It isn't a coincidence, it makes perfect sense since english doesn't need state protection.

    I understand their laissez-faire principle ( let the market decide if a customer isn't happy about his services), but having bilingual signs doesn't hinder business or impose cripling costs on owners or even "impose" a language ( to use) on anyone.

    Much ado about nothing.

    By Blogger Marc-André Mongeon, M.A, at 7:56 AM  

  • Yeah it looks we're pretty much on the same page in this debate.

    The sad thing is that this little community may be ripped apart as a result of this conflict, to say nothing of what it may do to relations between Anglophones and Francophones throughout the country.

    By Blogger Fish, at 11:30 AM  

  • Any of these accurate Pandora Jewellery will accelerate calmly on these bracelets. Waterfall, Venetian, Durango and agnate models opt for a fiber design, sometimes assorted several times for added aggregate – these curve accomplish up the aggregate of Premier Designs adornment assortment, and alloy gems with argent and gold argent alloys.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home