In July, the Provincial Government of New Brunswick launched a review of French “second-language” programming and services within the Anglophone school system.

Background to the announcement is the Government’s self-sufficiency objective and its goal that seventy percent of all high-school graduates in the province be able to function in both “official languages” by the year 2012. That may be ambitious but heh!

Terms of reference for the review are informed by the call that New Brunswick will have the best education system in the country. The Minister of Education challenges New Brunswickers to create an education system founded on the principle of “kids first”.

Consistent with his goal is the notion that New Brunswick, as Canada’s only “officially bilingual” province should be producing student graduates with communication skills in both English and French. He does not trash French immersion programs.

As I understand it, he is only asking the question “Is French immersion” the best way to prepare our students for life in an “officially bilingual” province and if not, what is the alternative?

Implicit in this question is whether or not “immersion” dilutes the value of an English language education and/or whether immersion is an elitist education pursuit.

I am not an educator so I have no credentials when it comes to judging one education system versus another. I do have opinions. In my opinion, we should do nothing to discourage French immersion programs in New Brunswick. We should be advancing the notion of bilingualism in a province where “official bilingualism” is the law of the land.

I acknowledge the argument that “immersion” may be elitist but I also know from results of various research studies and from personal observation that kids who are able to manage studies in an immersion environment tend to be brighter than average and higher achievers in the long run.

There was a letter in this newspaper earlier in the week that argued that a more intensive French presence in our education system would be threatening. It argued that the Canadian Constitution protects the rights of English constituents to have institutions of education that preserve and promote its community. I have no argument with that statement but I have difficulty understanding how the inclusion of French language studies in the English school system would threaten the community.

This person suggested that parents have the right to have their children educated in English and that an “intensive French language program” would violate the Constitution. I was confused by his argument. Parents already have the right to educate their children in English. Nobody is suggesting that this right be removed.

The writer argues that sections of the Charter of Rights prevent intensive French language training in our education system and he slams proponents of such training who suggest that it would increase literacy in the English language. I can’t document an answer to the latter but logic would suggest that somebody who is capable of embracing a second language would be literate in the first.

The truth of Kelly Lamrock’s Second Language review is that it is a review. It is not Government policy. It does not bind government to a policy. It is not even a recommendation. It is a review of second language programming within the Anglophone school system. It responds to the Government’s goal that a significant majority of high school graduates should be able to function effectively in both “official languages”. That’s all folks.

As one might expect, reaction to the “review” has been swift. Implicit in the reaction are three issues. The first is a long-standing tension between the English and the French. The second is the notion that good jobs in New Brunswick are only available to those who are bilingual (many would read that as the French who speak English) and third is the notion that a second language is somehow threatening to those who are unilingual.

Many, perhaps a majority of Europeans are bilingual. Much of the world is bilingual. The Swiss are multi-lingual. Why are Canadians so threatened by two languages? I am unilingual (even though I had six years of classroom instruction in French).

What a privilege it would be to have the opportunity to learn a second language from day one and to become so proficient in that language that someone could declare you bilingual. I would love to speak a second or third language but alas, it’s likely that I will have to content myself with the international language of golf.

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of chairing a series of discussion groups on the matter of language. In each group, discussion ultimately turned to the issue of population decline and out-migration. In the opinion of the groups, the number one reason their friends leave the province is job opportunity and the number one reason they do not stay in the province is the perception that all good jobs are reserved for those who are bilingual.

That is not a fact but it would appear to be a very strong perception.

I am not convinced that Kelly Lamrock’s review of second-language programming in the anglophone school system is broad enough. In my opinion, it should include the question of English language literacy as well as French language training.

It should address the economic impact of increased bilingualism and it should include a circumstantial review of best practices relating to second language training.

In today’s New Brunswick, bilingualism is an asset acquired by choice.

If bilingualism should become a requirement for high school graduation, so too should literacy but that’s a story for another day. We already require maths and sciences for graduation, why not two languages in a province where two languages prevail.

With luck, the outcome of Mr. Lamrock’s review will point us in that direction.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

On Wednesday, amid the clamour of the Brian Mulroney, Karlheinz Schreiber public enquiry debacle in the House of Commons, the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper introduced a bill in Parliament that theoretically would create an elected Senate with fixed, non-renewable eight year terms of office.

As I suggested in this column a week ago, this bill is totally wrong-headed. Section 42-1 of the 1982 Constitution Act says that change in respect to the powers of the Senate, the methods of selecting senators and the number of members each province is entitled to in the Senate require Constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment requires majority resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and majority resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces that have, in the aggregate at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Conservative House Leader, Peter Van Loan says the status quo is no longer an option “and that if change cannot happen through Conservative reform, the Senate will be abolished”, the implication being that Parliament on its own could effect abolishment. Sorry Mr. Sloan but we have a Constitution that would prevent arbitrary abolition of the Senate.

The Government is also expected to reintroduce a bill in the next week or so that would add new seats in the House of Commons to better reflect the Canadian population. I have no reservation about a House of Commons representing the population, indeed I support the notion.

I do have a problem with a Senate that would reflect or mirror the population because that would make it redundant and subjugate the interests of smaller provinces to the more populous.

The so-called elected Senate idea proposed by Harper and his House Leader, Peter Van Loan is intended to by-pass the need for Constitutional amendment. In their view, the perception of an elected Senate is more important than the reality and could be realized by holding consultative referendums (similar to the U.S. where referendum is part of the electoral process) that would advise, but not instruct the Prime Minister in respect to who he or she should appoint to the Senate. In other words, it would be an electoral farce.

On the matter of Karlheinze Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, it has been alleged by Schreiber, in a written affidavit that he struck a deal with Mulroney in 1993, before the former Prime Minister left office that would result in payment of $300,000 in cash for services unknown. Shreiber’s signed affidavit also alleges that a Mulroney adviser asked Schreiber to transfer funds in connection with Air Canada's 1988 purchase of Airbus planes to a Mulroney lawyer in Switzerland.

There are so many questions to be answered in this matter. That said, the weight of inquiry is going to be borne by the families of the two men. No matter who did what to whom, the families (wives and children) of these characters are going to bear the most excruciating public examination of persona, business dealings and relationship. Innuendo, accusation and unproven allegation will dominate. Many of the issues are twenty years old and will be magnified in time and by media coverage. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Mulroney has made millions in his post-prime ministerial endeavors. Chunks of those millions have been made in association with Peter Munk, the CEO of Barrick Gold and George H.W. Bush (father of the current U.S. President). Mulroney is Chairman of Barrick’s International Advisory Board and Bush is a Senior Advisor to Barrick.

Some of the players in the alleged circumstances concerning Schreiber and Mulroney have passed away. Others have retired to happy and unhappy circumstance. In recent years, Mulroney has been a close advisor to Prime Minister Harper and a bridge-builder between the old Alliance/Reform Party and the former Progressive Conservative Party.

There are dozens of Mulroney loyalists in the Senate (Government Leader) and within the Harper government, including a few cabinet ministers. Harper has disassociated himself and his government from Mulroney. Many of these people will have difficulty rationalizing their past loyalty to Mulroney and their current loyalty to Harper.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named University of Waterloo, President David Johnston (who once worked with Mulroney on environmental issues) as the impartial third party who will define perimeters for the Mulroney inquiry. Johnston is a former Principal and Vice Chancellor of McGill University and former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario. Johnston's appointment is effective immediately and a final report to the Prime Minister is due by Jan. 11.

On Thursday, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an application by Schreiber to stay an extradition order to Germany, where he is wanted on charges of tax evasion, bribery and fraud. Canada’s Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has promised to wait 15 days before extraditing him to Germany.

In my opinion, there is no circumstance that would justify the extradition of Schreiber before he has testified before the inquiry, presented evidence and been cross-examined by both prosecution and defense lawyers. If he is allowed to leave the Country before testifying, that would show contempt for the inquiry process, Mr. Johnston and the Canadian legal system. It would also be grounds for an election where Canadian voters could be asked to decide who is guilty.

Implicit in all of this is the impact that inquiry and discovery will have on Stephen Harper and his government. Mulroney had become a close personal advisor to the Prime Minister, now he is a pariah.

At the first hint of trouble, our Prime Minister abandoned his mentor and instructed his associates in the House of Commons and the Senate to ditch the man who had been advising him and them for the last twenty four to thirty six months. Nice guy!

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Earlier this week, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal introduced a motion in the Senate requesting "that a referendum be held under the provisions of the Referendum Act of 1992 to abolish the Senate".

If the motion is adopted, Segal has declared that he would campaign against it. Segal was one of the authors of the 1992 Referendum Act, the enabling legislation for the Charlottetown referendum, when he was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
It was defeated.

Seconder for the motion was Senator Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia native, current Leader of the “Progressive Conservatives” in the Senate and former Constitutional advisor to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney during the Meech Lake debate. To pass his motion, Senator Segal would require the approval of both the Liberal dominated Senate and the Parliament of Canada.

Apparently, Harper's office was given a heads-up on the motion and had no problem with it. Neither did Marjorie Le Breton, Government Leader in the Senate (and long time Conservative Party staffer prior to her appointment to the Senate by Brian Mulroney). Segal proposes a simple referendum question: "Do you favour the abolition of the Senate of Canada? Yes or No."

Coincidently, Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP is planning to introduce a motion in Parliament to hold a similar referendum on Senate abolishment. Apparently Stephen Harper is ready to support Layton’s motion which could come to a vote as early as next week. Senate reform has been described as Prime Minister Harper's second most favourite sport after hockey. Ironically, Albertans, including Mr. Harper have long championed an elected and equal senate, not abolition. Harper’s flirtation with Jack Layton’s motion to abolish would seem to contradict his earlier position.

The two motions, even if linked as one will produce little more than hot air. The 1982 Constitution Act is very clear about the requirements for Constitutional amendment that would have to precede abolishment or fundamental reform of the Senate. Section 42-1 says that change in respect to the powers of the Senate, the methods of selecting senators and the number of members each province is entitled to in the Senate require Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendment requires majority resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and majority resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces that have, in the aggregate at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Governments in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia all have a second parliamentary chamber to represent their regions or states and to provide a counter-balance to the power of the central government. In the United States and Australia, senators are directly elected by the people and the distribution of seats is equal by state to protect the less-populous.

The UK has an appointed House of Lords. It was originally a hereditary chamber of aristocrats and clergy that served as Britain’s upper chamber. In March this year, the British House of Commons voted to replace the Lords with an elected chamber. The House of Lords rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed Upper Chamber.

If either the Segal motion or the Layton motion should be passed by both the Senate and House of Commons, we could find ourselves in constitutional crisis, particularly if a national referendum subsequently endorsed abolishment of the Senate.

Ontario has 38.8% of the population and any combination of Ontario, Alberta and five other provinces could win amendment. However five out of the ten provinces (Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces) would likely reject any amendment to have the Senate abolished or restructured to mirror the distribution of population in Canada. That said, we might and probably should consider the value of an elected Senate.

Earlier this week, Chiefs from Atlantic Canada’s First Nations released their Atlantic Aboriginal Economy Building Strategy at their Atlantic Policy Conference in Halifax. It’s noteworthy for two reasons: one, it’s a comprehensive plan to lift the Aboriginal community out of its economic and social doldrums and two it envisions a dynamic relationship between First Nations peoples and the Atlantic business community. This could be a win-win situation for everybody in the region.

Much of Atlantic Canada is faced with declining populations and near-future labour shortages. Aboriginal populations are growing at a much faster rate than non-Aboriginal peoples. An increasingly educated and trained labour force in the Aboriginal community could become a major player in the Atlantic economy.

The Chiefs’ economic development strategy is based on a set of principles: self-sufficiency, sustainability, self-determination and sensitivity to environmental outcomes and the health of its people and its communities. The Chiefs’ priorities are: to build the net worth of their land holdings; increase the value of their business enterprises and to increase the ratio of Aboriginal employment.

They recognize the value of an educated and skilled labour force and the value of partnership with the business community, a partnership that could help grow their economies and the collective economy of Atlantic Canada. The Chiefs are to be congratulated for their initiative.

One might, however question their desire to create a parallel system of economic institutions such as an Opportunities Agency, an Economic Development Board and a Banking establishment but it may be understandable in the context of past experience.

The key to a good business partnership is a combination of two-way communication, respectful relationships, shared purpose and success. In a business partnership, cohorts provide advice and assistance, consistent with the objectives of the partnership. New Brunswick and all of Atlantic Canada has a stake in the outcome of First Nations economic development.

If I have one hesitation in respect to their development plan, it’s their use of the term self-sufficient. An economy that grows in response to partnership is interdependent, not self-sufficient.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

We can’t be ambiguous about torture

Writing in the Chicago Sun Times, Andrew Greely says he is “ashamed for America because all the evil done in the nation's name in recent years is turning off the light on the mountaintop”. He says that his “government kidnaps, tortures and murders the way the Gestapo did in Nazi Germany. The President (Bush) blithely dismisses these charges. The United States, he says, does not torture but that deception is based on an opinion from (former) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defining torture”.

Michael B. Mukasey has been nominated by the Whitehouse to replace Gonzales as Attorney General. On October 18th, he told Senate Democrats that “water boarding” a simulated drowning technique used in interrogation was repugnant to him but he doesn’t know whether the interrogation tactic violates U.S. laws against torture.
I
n a four-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Mukasey straddled the fence again by outlining the laws and treaties forbidding torture and other cruel treatment, and explaining the legal analysis he would undertake of "coercive" techniques, while generally declining to render judgments. He continued, "hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical." In my personal view, torture is torture. There is nothing hypothetical about it.

Mukasey says he is reluctant to offer opinions on interrogation techniques because he does not want to place U.S. officials "in personal legal jeopardy" and is concerned that such remarks might "provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program."

His arguments are similar to those advanced by the Bush Administration in its refusal to discuss water boarding or other interrogation techniques. If Mukasey were to say the tactic is illegal, he would effectively deem earlier Justice Department opinions unlawful. That would be a good thing.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democrats’ front-running candidate for president, says that "we cannot send a signal to the world that (our) next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law." Senator Barack Obama (Ill.) another presidential candidate and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), a member of the Judiciary panel, issued similar statements.

Canada’s hands are not clean when it comes to torture. On April 23, the Globe and Mail wrote that the majority of prisoners captured by the Canadians in Afghanistan were tortured by local authorities. That revelation unleashed a huge controversy. The Harper Government reacted by signing a non-torture agreement with Afghan President, Hamid Karzai. Since then, Ottawa has insisted that torture is gone from Afghanistan.

Michele Ouimet writing in Montreal’s La Presse this week reports that he recently visited Kandahar's Sarpoza prison in Afghanistan. Three prisoners captured in recent months told him they had been tortured. One of the prison's senior officials, who was present during the prisoner interviews, confirmed the tortures: he said, "detainees are tortured by the Secret Service before they're brought to us at Sarpoza."

That leads me to the Maher Arar story. He is a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria. He came to Canada in 1987 where he earned a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in computer engineering before going to work as a telecommunications engineer in Ottawa.

On September 26, 2002, Arar was detained by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials at New York's JFK Airport while returning to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. A citizen of both Canada and Syria, he was carrying a Canadian passport. American officials alleged that he had links to al-Qaeda. On or about October 7, 2002, Arar was taken on a private jet, by U.S. officials to Yemen where he was handed off to people who transported him to the Syrian border.

Arar was lodged in a Syrian prison for more than a year. When he was returned to Canada, he said he had been tortured and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that torture is practiced in that country. The RCMP was accused of supplying the information that caused U.S. officials to detain Arar.

In January, 2004, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed Justice Dennis O'Connor to head an inquiry into the matter. A report released at the inquiry confirmed the RCMP was in contact with U.S. authorities from the time of Arar's arrest in New York to his deportation to Syria. The U.S. State Department refused to co-operate in any way with the Arar inquiry.

On September 18, 2006, Justice O'Connor in his first of two reports said there was no evidence that Arar was ever linked to extremist groups or was a threat to Canada's national security. He had nothing but sharp criticism for the RCMP. He concluded that the FBI and U.S. security officials were given an inaccurate and unfair picture of Arar and that this portrait dogged his entire time in a Syrian jail.

On January 26, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar, announcing he would receive $12.5 million in compensation, $10.5 million for pain and suffering and another $2 million for Arar's legal fees. Maher Arar remains on the U.S. watch list.

The 1949 Geneva Convention, once a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, in Part III, Section I, Article 17 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war says “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind”.

That should be the standard by which appointment of the United States’ Attorney General is measured. It should also be the standard for Canada’s law enforcement agencies and the involvement of Canada’s armed forces - directly and indirectly.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com