Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!lamy
From: lamy@cs.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy)
Newsgroups: can.francais
Subject: Re: Sault Sainte-Marie officiellement unilingue anglophone
Keywords: Sault Sainte-Marie Kapuskasing
Message-ID: <90Feb7.135553est.6186@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 18:56:56 GMT
References: <1990Feb5.182925.2005@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <90521@looking.on.ca> <90Feb6.184805est.6212@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <91145@looking.on.ca> <13282@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: can
Lines: 56

lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes:

>In article <91145@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>It was my impression that Bill 101 allowed public education in English only
>>to the children of parents who received an English education in Quebec.
>>Most people don't view that as any sort of guarantee of protection of
>>English language minority rights...

Actually, English education in Canada (Supreme Court ruling).  And there are
exceptions (fixed-term stay and the like).  By the same logic that led to
Que'bec having more control of it's immigration because of its distinct
identity, it should follow that Que'bec wants newcomers to join the
Francophone population.  I think what was originally meant was that Anglo-
Quebecois were guaranteed the same right as Franco-Quebecois, and that just
like a Franco-Quebecois had no right to French education outside Quebec,
Anglo-Canadians moving to Quebec did not deserve such protection.  That
provision of the original Bill 101 was widely perceived as excessive, and got
overturned.  One will also note that Bill 22 had much the same provisions
about immigrants to Quebec not educated in English in Canada being forced to
attend French school.  This was also in reaction to the fact that close to
half of the students attending English schools were at one point of allophone
and francophone background, a situation that clearly reflected how inferior
French had come to be perceived even among native speakers.  One must not
forget that Bill 22 and especially 101 may very well have been made stronger
than really required in order to have a stronger impact on a situation the
government truly felt was getting out of hands.  Over half of my cousins were
educated in English, because their parents felt they had *no future* in
French.  Things really *were* getting out of hand.

Bill 101, the election of the PQ and the so-called exodus of head offices
and branch plants that ensued ended up showing to the Quebec people that they
could hold their own and compete.  French people now feel they have a future
speaking French.  That some trampling of sensibilities had to occur is
regrettable.

Lyn Bartam writes:

>	Bill 178 is a symbolic abomination, and i am completely opposed to it.
>But Bill 101 is another thing. I have no problem with it stating that the
>official language of Quebec is French and that immigrants should expect to
>attend school in the language of the region.  Note that there are exemptions 
>	Those who use Bill 178 as a rallying cry for reciprocity should be
>aware of the facts.

Bill 178 is certainly one of the worse bit of legislation ever passed.
It stands on the middle of the road and gets hit from both sides.  On one
hand, the government use of the notwithstanding clause to reassert its claim
that commercial signage is not an individual freedom is bound to anger
anglophones and people who'd rather have the government not override courts
as a matter of principle.  On the other hand, the government's gesture
allowing English inside the store is seen by francophones as a contradiction
of the principle that commercial signage is something the government can
regulate to keep a French face on Quebec.  Ii acheives neither.

Jean-Francois Lamy               lamy@cs.utoronto.ca, uunet!cs.utoronto.ca!lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4