Let’s take the very worst of Bill 101 and entrench it in the Constitution
Canada must end because the most
sacred part of our constitution -- the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- was
based upon and inspired by the segregation provisions of Bill 101.
Tell me about our constitution and segregation.
The very essence of Canadian law is our constitution, the fundamental law of the
land. And that document clearly and unambiguously makes inequality and
segregation of rights the definition of what being a Canadian is. Section 23 of
the so-called Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the "right" to
which official language a person can be educated in Canada. In addition to
discriminating against anyone who is not a citizen, the right to public
education in one or the other official language is available only to those whose
parent(s) are in possession of a certificate that is handed down from one
generation to the next, just like a peerage title in the class-conscious England
Section 23 reads:
23.(1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English
or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English
or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received
that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic
minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary
school instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving
primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada,
have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary
school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have
their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the
language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who
have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of
public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to
have them receive that instruction in minority language educational
facilities provided out of public funds. (my emphasis)
Where in the world would the framers of
our precious constitution -- the highest and most fundamental law of our land --
get such a horrible idea?
The section 23 discrimination provisions were inspired by and based upon the
language of education provisions of Bill 101. As discussed in the earlier
chapter entitled “Segregation by descent“, Bill 101 segregates all Quebecers
into two separate and distinct civil rights categories: those that can freely
choose to send their children to either French or English publicly-funded
schools and those that can only send their children to French publicly-funded
“Inspired by and based upon” Bill 101. According to you…
According to no less an authority than the Supreme Court of Canada. In its
historic Protestant School Board ruling of 1984, the court said:
It is therefore not surprising that
Bill 101 was very much in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when
they enacted s. 23 of the Charter, which guarantees "minority language
educational rights". This is confirmed when the wording of this section is
compared with that of ss. 72 and 73 of Bill 101, and with other provincial
statutes on the language of instruction.
By incorporating into the structure of
s. 23 of the Charter the unique set of criteria in s. 73 of Bill 101, the
framers of the Constitution identified the type of regime they wished to
correct and on which they would base the remedy prescribed.
Who is responsible for this disaster?
As the Supreme Court indicated above, it was the “framers of the Constitution.“
None other than the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, then Justice Minister under Pierre
Trudeau during the era of patriating the constitution, appears to hold the most
responsibility. Here’s what he said on the matter when he appeared before a
parliamentary committee back in 1981:
TO READ MORE...