Conference kaosws::canada

>    I heard on the CBC radio news this morning that the youth wing of the 
>    Parti Quebecois has adopted a policy over the weekend, whereby all 
>    immigrants to Quebec will be forced to take french language instruction.
 
	This seems very OTT to me.

	I grant that it can sometimes be difficult, or very difficult, not
	to speak the native tounge of a country in which you live, but
	mandatory instruction seems a very draconian measure. I don't know of
	any other country that does this.

	Is this an extreemist group?

	Heather

    OTT???  What does this mean?
    
    Yes, they are extreemist.  They also voted that at least one of their
    members sit on the party executive, and this wasn't accepted by the
    party either.  No need to wonder why, with policies like that one...
    
    Today, immigrants who want to take French courses are paid to
    do so.  An American friend of mine started the courses but quit because
    they were too difficult.
    
    Imagine, being paid to learn another language and quitting!  But I
    digress...
    
    Normand

    OTT means "Over The Top".
    
    Overkill, if you like.
    
    Wayne

	Yup, sorry, OTT is "over the top"
    
>    Today, immigrants who want to take French courses are paid to
>    do so.

	Do you mean paid, like an hourly rate, or the classes paid for?

	If it's an hourly rate, than I would have thought that this would
	be enough of a carrot.

	The ones that don't take this up volunterily may not learn much even if
	the teaching was compulsory.

	Heather

    They are paid a monthly rate.  It sits somewhere between UI and welfare
    and many immigrants take the courses to extend their benefits.  It's
    funded by the province.
    
    And so when people tell me they quit the courses because they were too
    difficult, I remind them of my German courses at McGill, which cost me a
    bundle... and weren't a picnic, either.
    
    Normand

    I heard that they wanted to include "Quebec Cultural" training with the 
    language training, and that refusal should be punished by criminal
    charges. (I have not read this myself, I was told this by a FRANCOPHONE
    though.) 
    
    As for this being an extreamist group, it is the youth wing of the
    party that is widely believed to win the next provincial election in
    Quebec. It would be like calling the Brown Shirts an extreamist group
    before the elections in Germany before WWII. Yes they are extream, but
    they will form the next government.
    
     Heaven help minorities in Quebec when these young "nationalists" grow
    up and assume the reigns of power.
    
    
    							Derek.

 >When these young nationalists grow up, they will mature and realize that
 >with power comes responsibility.

  Responsibility towards who?????

  Ben

  PS. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    re .7 I think you may be right about my leg getting longer....
    
    BUT these people will grow up to be the next leaders (as they are
    already inside the power structures of Quebec) and I hope they do learn
    that just because you have power dosen't give you the right to do as
    you please.
    
    
    					Derek (who now walks with a limp)

	It looks like a very generous off to fund this, however I don't like
	the idea of compulsion, if it stays the way it is, I think it's a good
	idea.

	Heather

    Yet another waste of your tax dollars.....
    
    If the Quebec provincial government can dictate that all immigrants go
    to a french speaking school...how is this any different. ?
    
    Brian V
    

    Well, one way it might be different is...
    
    People who are not students!  We're talking Mr/Ms Immigrant, working
    adults.
    
    Pieter
    

    
>    How do you attract immigrants?
 

	This is very rare indeed, a place that wants to attract immigrants.

	Heather

    Canada (generally) provides a far better life to those that come as
    immigrants. A higher standard of living, political/religious freedom,
    and the opportunity to give your children a chance at a better life.
    These are strong reasons to come to Canada. Wether they coose to learn
    English is entirely up to them, as a person could live in Toronto and
    speak only Chineese for example. Maybe this explains why Quebec can
    only keep 1 in 3 immigrants who initially come there.
    
    
    
    						Derek

English language courses (free) are offered in Toronto ...  You don't have
to pay if you can show the need like a new immigrant.

Stuart

    Of course, if anyone moves to Quebec (Canadian or an immigrant) and
    wants to their children to be educated in English, they can't do that
    because of the fine language laws in Quebec...

    RE: .19
    
    Not quite true, Gary.  If either parent was educated in Quebec in
    English, OR (new policy as of 1991) if the child has had at least one
    full year of English education in another province, then that child has
    the choice of English-only education in Quebec.
    
    Otto.

    In a country where there are 2 official languages, ideally, there should 
    be no restrictions on the use of either language anywhere in the
    country.  Practically speaking, this is ridiculous, but in areas where
    there is sufficient demand, services (and this includes education) 
    should be available in one of the two official languages.
    
    So, if I moved to a place with a very low or non-existant anglophone
    population, then it would be ridiculous for me to expect education in
    English.  On the other hand, in say Montreal or Hull, there is no
    reason an English based primary education shouldn't be available.
    
    The same thing goes in the rest of Canada ... Ottawa and area provide
    French language education ... both with a French Language school board
    (aimed at Francophones) and French Immersion schools, aimed at
    Anglophones.
    
    There are NO rules in Ontario, apart from availability to deny anyone
    an education in one of Canada's official languages, where Quebec does
    provide such rules.
    
    Stuart

    I agree with Stuart. The ROC will provide alternate language education
    if numbers justify it. I have seen on TV there is a small town in
    Alberta that no longer provides ENGLISH primary school service. The
    demand for FRENCH imersion has eliminated the need for ENGLISH schools.
    
    One would think this would be an indication of the desired harmony the
    English in Canada want to have with the French.
    
    
    							Derek 

    Let's see,
    
    Quebec has (or did have) a functioning English language school system,
    
    And then made it illegal for immigrants (all) to attend the English 
    language system,
    
    And now the English language system is facing hard times because of low
    enrollment,
    
    And the Quebec government recognizes that if they allowed immigrants to
    enroll in the English school system, most would, so they wouldn't
    become francophones and the French language scholl system would be
    harmed (the last two points were made in a radio show within the last
    couple of weeks).
    
    Now convince me that the Quebec government has not constructed a
    situation that can only end with the complete elimination of an English
    school system in Quebec.  Also convince me that if any province was to
    enact similar laws or deny it's francophone citizens a French
    educational system, that the citizens of Quebec would stand up and
    defend that province just as they defend the laws of Quebec.
    
    Garry, who is still planning to send his children to French immersion...
      

    RE: .26
    
    I have to agree with Normand on this one.  It is a little unfair for
    Anglophones who don't actually live in Quebec to criticize a system
    they have no direct experience with.  My son attends an English school
    in Quebec, so I have first-hand knowledge of the system.  It is neither
    dead nor dying.  Compared to his first few years of schooling in
    Calgary, his educational development and activity roster inside school
    is much higher.  In fact, one of the reasons he is not in French school
    or French immersion is that he would have surely failed grade 3 (his
    first year here).  That is because he was exposed to NO French at all
    in Calgary, and would not have been until grade 6 (that's when I was
    first exposed in Quebec in the '60's!).  He cried every time he had
    French class in grade 3 because he was so far behind the other children
    and couldn't understand anything (he's doing quite well now, thank
    goodness).  As well, he was behind in Mathematics and writing skills,
    since in Calgary they didn't start handwriting (as opposed to printing
    words) until grade 3.  So again he was behind his peers.
    
    Each system has it's good and bad points.  But to *ASS*U*ME* how a
    system works without knowledge is what causes prejudice, IMHO.
    
    And the point is well taken that immigrants don't necessarily have to
    settle in Quebec.  If that is their own choice, then the point is moot. 
    They have chosen French education, French culture, and English as a
    second language in the province.
    
    Otto.

    The popularity of French imersion reflects the reality of the
    advantages of being bilingual in Canada. How many politicians will
    never aspire to become PM because they lack the ability to communicate
    in both official languages? How many unilingual people are retarded in
    their career growth in both public and private sector work? I suggest
    that French Imersion is not an isolated incedent, and reflects the
    people in this country of non-french decent that want/need to
    accomodate the French fact in Canada. 
    
     Not too bad for a bunch of people who "Can't understand" the French
    culture because they are not French!! Maybe we can't understand it, but
    we sure try to support it!!! 
    							Derek.

>    I suggest
>    that French Imersion is not an isolated incedent, and reflects the
>    people in this country of non-french decent that want/need to
>    accomodate the French fact in Canada. 
    
    And I suggest that people who send their children to French immersion
    schools don't do it (in general) to accomodate Quebecers, but they do it
    because they are enlightened, intelligent individuals who have
    come to the conclusion that "two languages is better than one".
    
    Only my humble opinion.
    
    Normand

    I think the reason for sending children to French Immersion is much
    simpler and is the same reason that so many immigrants want to learn
    English - there are definite ECONOMIC benefits, particularly in
    Ottawa/Hull.
    
    To put it bluntly, I won't feel badly if my children never see a play 
    in French, but I will feel terribly responsible if their careers are
    limited because I failed to see the significance of "two languages are
    better than one".  
    
    Garry
    

Re:  *accomodate* the french culture by sending your children to French immersion.


Derek,

I'm afraid that I'm happy to support Norman's notion on this one that by doing
so, you are not *accomodating* the French culture but rather educating,
enlightning, and giving your children the opportunity to be more mobile when
they grow up, whether in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

If I was given the opportunity to learn Spanish, Italian, German, or whatever
for free during work hours, here in Digital Hull, I'd be the first one to sign
up, even though I don't *need* these languages to live happily in Canada.  As
far as I'm concerned the more languages you know the better off you are.

/Mario

    To the last two noters... You are not English, so you cannot comment on
    what motivates English people.
    
    							Derek.

    and by the way, why don't French people look at learning English as an
    "enlightening" experience, rather that assimilation? Is English such a
    bad language that nothing could be gained by learning it?
    
    							Derek.

Re:

>    To the last two noters... You are not English, so you cannot comment on
>    what motivates English people.

Well, I did grade 6, all high-school, in an English school in Quebec.  Did 3
years of college in Ontario, worked 3 years in Sault Ste. Marie, and worked and
lived in Ottawa for 4 years.

I may not be English but I have been around them in their territory for a while.
I guess that puts me in a position such that my comments do have some integrity.

>    and by the way, why don't French people look at learning English as an
>    "enlightening" experience, rather that assimilation? Is English such a
>    bad language that nothing could be gained by learning it?

My parents are *Quebeqois de souches* (from the roots) and they made the
decision of sending me to English school in grade 6 to learn English for the
right reason, being that I would be more mobile for my whole life thanks to it.
They are now envious of me and all others who are fluent in English.  Call it
enlightening, assimilation, whatever you want.  No-one I know in Quebec thinks
English is a bad language not worth learning.  Quite the contrary, most
Quebeckers want to learn English so they can get out and see the world a bit.
Especially Florida...

/Mario

    SET MODERATOR
    
    Please be careful about making value judgements on whether people
    are in a position to make valid comments.  I'm not saying you can't
    do that ... but I am saying that there is a fine line over which
    the judgement can become an insult.
    
    Stuart

    Once again the Francophone community can make a statement (You are not
    one of us so you can't comment) and get away with it, while if the
    English community makes the same statement (you are not one of us blah
    blah blah) and gets both an explaination why a Francophone can
    legitamatly speak for an Anglophone, and a warning to watch out about
    making value judgments. If this double standard continues I will have
    to delete this confrence as it is becomming obvious that the English
    side of the equasion is not playing by the same rules as the French
    side, and as such is disadvantaged.
    
    							Derek.

    Derek,
    
    Methinks your logic is becoming emotional!
    
    Ted.

    When I read the moderator's caution, my reaction was exactly the same
    as Derek's, however I chose to not make an issue of it - the last time
    I commented in this conference about the moderator's actions, my note
    was deleted and I was asked to take such issues up off-line...
    
    In any event, I think if you were to objectively scan any one of
    several topics, you would find a number of statements of the sort
    "your're not francophone or you don't live in Quebec, so you can't
    comment".  I don't recall any moderator action when these statements 
    were made, so it does seem somewhat of a double standard when Derek's 
    similar comment has apparently provoked a warning.
    
    Garry

    OTTO,
     If I did say that it was only after I was told my input was invalid on
    Francophone issues because I was English. I am only trying to show that
    when the logic used by a Francophone to counter an Anglophone is
    used by an Anglophone to counter a Francophone it is no longer
    accepted. If this is the case, why was it so blindly accepted in the
    first instance? I believe very strongly in logic, and this type of
    discussion defies logic. If there cannot be a basis of logic to the
    discussion it is by definition pointless. That is why I would delete
    the confrence, not because "they're my toys and I'm going home"
    
    
    							Derek.

    RE: .42
    
    While I agree with your sentiments about objectivity and
    double-standards Garry, I still believe it is better to speak from
    experience than from speculation.  I get miffed when people make claims
    or assumptions about how, for example, the English school system in
    Quebec works, or what the rules are to send a child to English school
    in Quebec, without first-hand experience.  I don't want to create a
    huge debate or arouse resentment towards individuals, but if we all
    spoke more carefully without assuming the "You don't know or understand
    because..." attitude, and back up our positions with facts, then we can
    continue without remorse or moderator intervention.
    
    And most important, there is a huge DIFFERENCE between: "In My
    Opinion..." and "even though I've never visited or lived in XYZ place,
    I KNOW it's impossible to get good salami on rye there".
    
    In an ideal world (and if we all work on it, in this conference), there
    would be no more double-standards, name-calling, or belittling of other
    people's views.
    
    $ SET SOAPBOX/OFF
    
    Otto.

    RE .43
    
    Point well taken, Derek.  I should have scanned further back, and it
    was probably unfair of me to give my opinion of your feelings. 
    Please read .45, and I promise to re-read it too!  :-)

    Re. 45 and speaking from experience:
    
    Otto, you're absolutely correct that speaking from exprience, and more
    importantly, stating accurate facts is better then expressing an
    opinion.  Assuming that what you wrote about changes to Quebec
    education law is correct, then what I wrote is wrong and I'm
    deliquent in thanking you for correcting me.  I won't bother to rattle
    on and on about how this change has no real impact for the folks that 
    want the simple right to freely choose..
    
    Re: the new tangent about double standards:
    
    My comments in supporting Derek are related to how the moderator is 
    dealing with Derek's (and others) comments re: "you're not ... so you 
    can't ...", not whether or not Derek (or anyone who uses this logic) is 
    correct in using this logic.  Personally, I think the logic sucks - one 
    does not have to personal knowledge of something to have a valid opinion.
    
    The moderator, by entering a cautionary note (which I believe was aimed 
    directly at Derek) without having done so in the past, has created the 
    perception of a double standard which I would like the moderator to address.
    
    But, as another noter asked "what's the use"!!
    
    Lockyer

    SET MODERATOR
    
    I have asked in the past and I will ask again, if you have questions
    about moderation, please contact me by mail ...
    
    But anyway ... here's the explanation ...
    
    I do not want to show double standards, and for anyone who got the
    impression that I was being biased, I can assure you that that was
    definitely not the case.  The request was simple ...please be careful
    when making value judgements on whether people are in a position to 
    make valid comments.  The reason for the request was because of the 
    appearance that this was going to decline into insult slinging, based 
    on previous experiences in earlier notes.
    
    I asked you to be careful to avoid turning such value judgements into
    insults ... that's all ... everyone noting here is pretty well aware
    of what kind of comments will start provoking an insult slinging match.
    
    Understand that, after the fun of the last insult slinging match, I
    don't want to attempt to moderate another one.  Hence the warning.
    
    The warning had NOTHING to do with who was telling who they couldn't
    make valid comments.  I would have made the same warning if the tables
    were the other way around and it looked like insult slingning was
    beginning.
    
    I do not enjoy moderating insult slinging.
    
    Stuart

	
	 Going back to the original topic, here is a few notes to what has
	been discussed before. This is how I saw it 7 years ago (might have
	changed by now):
		1. The 7 month French training program for immigrants (COFI)
	was paid for by	the Federal Government. That's perhaps why some
	thought they should have a choice of English.
		2. This program was voluntary to a point (E.g. for a 
	person under 30 the Quebec welfare was $170 a month in 1985).
	The obvious choice was to find another source of income, take
	the French courses, or starve to death.
		3. "If you do not like it, move west." Well, many were
	thinking real hard on this one. It certainly helped if you had
	money to buy the ticket,  spoke enough language to ask for 
	directions, and had an idea what you were going to do when you 
	get there. Also the general understanding was that you could not
	move out of the province before your paperwork had been processed
	(1.5+ years).

		As far as the Quebec legislation regarding the elementary
	education is concerned, I thought that in the essence it was aimed
	against those francophone Quebecers who were thinking that the kid
	had the French at home and it would be to his/her advantage to take
	an English school. Some people  could be over sensitive to the fact
	that there was a piece	of legislation that determined the rights of
	the children based on their parents' background.
		
	George

    In Quebec the boards are presently Protestant (Mostly English) and
    Catholic (Mostly French). They will be changing this to English /
    French boards. I wonder if this will create a privately funded Catholic
    board in Quebec. There has to be some resistance to the change.
    
    Glenn

    Normand, your anticipation is excellent, so I'll ask some different
    questions:
    
    How is having the Quebec government (dominated by a fracncophone majority) 
    in control of who can attend your school system much different than not 
    having a separate school board?  If some other group has control of a 
    major input to your "business" (and in fact can absolutely stop the
    inflow), then you can not be in control.  What are the regulations in 
    Manitoba and other provinces re: who can attend which school system and
    would the decision in Manitoba be hailed as a victory if the Manitoba
    government enacted the same regualtions as Quebec has re: who can attend 
    the English system in Quebec?
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry
    
    

    Geez, Normand, I didn't mean to get you all steamed.  I merely wanted
    to contrast and compare how the new laws in Manitoba compare to the
    current laws in Quebec.  I was careful to ask questions as I don't know
    precisely what the laws of Quebec are, nor precisely what the laws of
    Manitoba will be.
    
    While, you may feel that I'm baiting you, my impression as a result of
    your response, is that you don't like or want to discuss the relevence
    of the Manitoba decision.  Why did you raise the Manitoba decision in a
    topic about Quebec and langauge education?  Why are your so defensive?
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry, who applauds the Manitoba decision!!
    

>    		....	when you look more closely elsewhere, you find
>    blatant inequities that go unpublicized.

But that doesn't make the inequities in Quebec any the less wrong.

Stuart

    The rights of citizens of Canada tave their children educated in the
    minority official language of a province 
    "(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."
    
    Where there are such numbers, and such facilities exist, I suspect
    immigrants have access to them (outside Quebec.)
    
    The Canadian constitution doesn't provide an "absolute right" to
    minority official language education, even to the children of citizens;
    it does require provincial governments to provide such instruction
    "where numbers warrant."  Quebec chooses to deny the children of
    immigrants access to the existing English-language schools.  Manitoba's
    treatment of its French-language minority has been far from exemplary. 
    100 years too late, some would say, changes are being made.  Quebec is
    moving in the opposite direction.  It seems to me perfectly reasonable
    to oppose this by arguing "2 wrongs don't make a right."
    
    -Stephen

    re .57:
    
>    But, if you do, are you willing to fight for (and pay for) French
>    education to immigrants in the ROC?
    
>    Remember, availability is not a factor.  A right is a right is a right.
>    If you give rights to immigrants to choice of language for primary
>    and secondary education, then that right must apply throughout Canada.
    
    
    But Normand, not even New Brunswick can promise french and english
    education to everyone everywhere in the province under any
    circumstances!  While there are rights, there are realities governments
    must deal with.  So rather than focus on the individual's right to 
    obtain education in either official language, why not focus on the
    (minority language) group's right, to have education in the official
    language of their choice?
    
    Once we think about it in collective terms rather than individual
    terms, the working policy matches the rights.  The working policy
    being: minority language education available and offered where numbers
    warrant!
    
    It's hard sometimes to balance off individual rights vs collective
    rights, and collective applies on many levels (a minority group,
    Quebec society, Canadian society)...
    
    Pieter
    

A highly visible aspect of Quebec's francophone culture is the constant stress
on its precarious status in North America, and how eternal vigilance is
necessary in order to preserve the language and culture.  This is what I meant 
by "siege mentality."

I suggest that this is not attractive to immigrants.  If you were starting 
life in a new country, would you join a group that considers itself to be a
beleaguered minority?
 
-Stephen

    I suggest an immigrant going to the ROC would be able to enrole their
    child in either French immersion, or regular English school. This does
    represent the bilingual nature of the country. If the same immigrant
    were to go to Quebec, would they have the same choice ? In this light,
    which part of the country better reflects the bilingual nature of
    Canada?
    
    						Derek

    You most certainly can obtain a post secondary education in French in 
    Ottawa (Ontario). As I do not live elsewhere, I can't really comment.
    
    I wish more people would show such restraint.
    
    						Derek.

You can drag all this garbage into this all you like, but the basic fact we
were discussing was that there are provincial LAWS which restrict the use of
language in schools and in business that no other province now has enacted.

THAT IS A FACT and whether other services are available in other languages
depends on the demand and viability in the almost "open" market.

So stop polluting the issue with all this trash ...  the fact is that a
Quebec government is denying people essentially an aspect of free speech
and that is to use the language of their choice.  Yes, other provinces did
this in the past to French ... but things have changed.  It's time Quebec
did too.

Stuart

    Getting a little hostile, Stuart??? :-)   Apart from signs for
    businesses operating in Quebec, and the Elementary and High School
    RESTRICTIONS (note: not if you "qualify" for English education), the
    rest is as Normand states in his most recent reply.  Whether these 2
    laws (above) are "right" or not, and I believe they are not, the facts
    remain.  Open market or not has little bearing on the present
    situation.  The Quebec government could theoretically wipe out English
    Universities if they wanted.  The uproar however would be heard and
    felt around the world.
    
    Otto.

    In a way, yes I am getting a little hostile ...
    
    Normand implies that my reworked table is misleading ... In preparing
    that table, what I am trying to get over is that his table is
    misleading too ...  
    
    If you go into anywhere but the major cities, the availability of the
    of services in English in Quebec is as minimal as French in Southern 
    Ontario!  
    
    Part of my family comes from Port Colborne, Ontario and I spent a few
    years of my life living there and visit regularly... it has a significant
    French population and stores display signs in French there.  There are
    French language elementary and high schools there too.  There are NO
    laws which force the stores to use English, nor immigrants to send
    their children to the English schools, nor make businesses correspond
    in English.
    
    This is what I meant by the "open" market ... whether there is
    sufficient demand to make the use of the minority language a) viable
    and/or b) where appropriate profitable by catering to the minority
    population.
    
    So to say that French is NOT available in the Rest of Canada is like
    saying that Quebec caters well to anglophones by having McGill.  It is
    only part of the story.
    
    The bottom line is whether language restrictions by LAW is right or
    fair.  All this other talk about language availability is just a big
    red herring and can be twisted and distorted by either side.
    
    Stuart

    Regarding a suggestion that I responding as a backlash at Normand ...
    
    I apologise if it sounds that way ... it is not personally aimed at
    anyone.  The response was strong because I am tired and annoyed with
    *both* sides of this issue in this conference and elsewhere throwing 
    up smoke screens and presenting as absolutes, things that aren't and
    Normand and I have quite clearly demostrated that.
    
    This also clearly demonstrates that even though I may be a moderator,
    I also have strong opinions and there are times when I may wish to
    express them just like anyone else.  I then have to ensure that
    anything I write personally would also be moderatorially acceptable
    without being unfair to others.  In this instance, were my response
    written by someone else, I do not believe that I would have interfered,
    unless a complaint was lodged.  Were a complaint lodged, I feel that
    a clarification such as this would be reasonable.  My first reaction
    would not have been to remove the note.
    
    Any further comment or questions, please send me mail.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    I attended McGill from 1968 to 1973 and during that time the Quebec
    government stopped funding English language universities in Quebec. I
    don't know if things have changed since I got married and moved to
    Ireland in 1976. But I regularly get a McGill magazine sent to me on a
    quarterly basis and frequent requests to make a donation to McGill. So
    this leads me to assume that the "English language universities" still 
    receive little or nothing from the provincial government in the way of 
    funding.
    
    If this is still true then the Quebec government may "allow" English
    language universities but does nothing to help them survive. And this
    is plainly a way of letting them slowly die. I can't see how McGill
    can harm the survival of the French language in Quebec since there are
    native French-speaking Quebecers who attend and teach at McGill and 
    Concordia and Bishops.
    
    Ted. 
    
    P.S. I am a native Montrealer and grew up there. I speak French and my
    mother is fluent in both English and French. So I think this gives me
    the right to comment even though unfortunately I no longer live there. 

From my own experiences visiting Montreal, I don't feel comfortable that
I can fully function and be happy there, even though I can speak, and write
some (albeit limited) French.  I could SURVIVE there ... but that's not the
same thing.

As I said in an earlier note, unfortunately, some people who arrive in
Montreal believe it to be fully bilingual and therefore they could get
along happily in English.  And there are people who arrive in Ontario and
only wants to speak French ...

And finally, there are those who arrive in Canada and have no desire to speak
EITHER!

Sometimes the point is that they just want to get out of their native country.

Stuart

    Well, having lived in Montreal, and as recently as last summer visited
    there (with friends from B.C. who neither speak nor understand French),
    I once again found absolutely no need to use my French anywhere I went. 
    This included restaurants, the motel we stayed at, Metro stations, Old
    Montreal, asking directions, etc.
    
    More than that, I found no one that even thought twice about answering
    me in English when I asked for anything.  I maintain Montreal is fully
    bilingual in all areas, and any discomfort a visitor may feel is likely
    to be self-imposed (IMHO).  The Eastern Townships are predominantly
    English in some areas (Knowlton is a good example).
    
    However, my French was invaluable on a visit to Quebec City in 1987. 
    Not to say I couldn't have survived without it, but it was easier.
    
    What's my point?  I don't know if there is one, except maybe that
    English services are not as rare as people may think.  Then again,
    French pockets can also be found even in Vancouver.  I only wish it
    wasn't such a big deal in ANY part of our country.  All Canadians
    (including those in Quebec that wish to remain Canadians first, yet
    protect their heritage) should, in my opinion, be or try to be fully
    bilingual.  That's not "shoving French down peoples' throats", as I
    heard so often when I worked for the Federal Government's Language
    Training Branch, but only what I think would go a long way to making us
    a united country once and for all.  Seeing as many people are providing
    that path for our children, maybe it's not a fantasy, but a future
    reality.  Naive optimism?  Maybe...
    
    Otto.

    RE. .84

    If you had gone further east, say past Pie IX Boul. , then you would
    have seen people thinking twice. The further east you go, the more
    unilingual French it becomes. I used to live in Ville D'Anjou which has
    become almost entirely French. It's very different there than the
    downtown areas. Montreal has developed an East/West polarisation over
    the last decade or so.

    Glenn

    (Maybe it's because of the Grand Canal?)

    I don't think the polarisation has developed in the last 10 years it's
    been there longer than that. I don't like the term "polarisation"
    either it sounds like there is some kind of conflict going on. It's
    just the way the city developed. 
    
    Montreal may not be completely bilingual ( I don't think any place can
    make that claim) but it's much closer than most places in Canada
    let alone the world. You can't honestly admit that you expect everyone
    in a city the size of Montreal to be able to speak both languages
    fluently. Although I think more Francophones can spaek English better
    than the Anglophones can speak French. Which leads me to assume that
    they had to learn French while the Anglophones didn't.
    
    Stuart! You'd be able to function in Montreal quite nicely. And your
    French would hopefully improve through continued use. You mightn't be
    happy but wouldn't that be because of your attitude to the language. 
    One of the basics of any form of learning is that if you can make it
    enjoyable and relevant people learn much more quickly. I found that the
    French I knew came flooding back and I learned many more new phrases
    while I was holidaying in France because I had to use it everyday. And
    the people were very helpful once they saw me struggling. The fact was
    that I made the effort.
    
    Normand, I see your argument about the funding of the different
    universities i.e. the "haves" and the have-nots" . I never really looked
    at it from that point of view before. Gives me a completely different
    slant. Thanks.
    
    Ted.  

    That last note should read 
    
    "which leads me to assume that the Francophones had to learn English
    while the Anglophones didn't have to learn French."
    
    The shoe is on the other foot now.
    
    Ted.

>    Stuart! You'd be able to function in Montreal quite nicely. And your
>    French would hopefully improve through continued use. You mightn't be
>    happy but wouldn't that be because of your attitude to the language. 
>    One of the basics of any form of learning is that if you can make it
>    enjoyable and relevant people learn much more quickly. I found that the
>    French I knew came flooding back and I learned many more new phrases
>    while I was holidaying in France because I had to use it everyday. And
>    the people were very helpful once they saw me struggling. The fact was
>    that I made the effort.

Ted, you imply that I have a negative attitude towards French ... nothing
could be further from the truth ... The biggest problem I had with the French
courses I was taking while in the Canadian CSC was fitting them in with work.
Moreover, I couldn't fit courses into my personal time either ... consider
that with 3 kids, 90% of the "novels" I've read in the last 10 years started
"Once upon a time"!!!! :-).

I have been to Montreal and through Quebec several times.  On several
occasions in Montreal, People were anything BUT helpful while I was
struggling with French ... and then when I politely asked if they could
speak in English ... I quickly discovered they could ... by SHOUTING at
me!  I was not impressed.  On the other hand, twice we've driven to 
PEI via the south shore ... In Quebec city and East, while fewer people
spoke English, they were FAR more accomodating and helpful with my struggling
French.  So, You wonder why I wouldn't feel happy in Montreal ?  I could
only take advantage of "half" the city ... as I said, I could survive there
... just as I could survive ANYWHERE.

But you make one very good point ... and this is one of the reasons I keep
saying and will always say that language shouldn't be legislated.  If you
give people reason to learn a language and make it enjoyable, them most
people will learn.  You shouldn't force people to need to learn it.  Nobody
likes being FORCED to do anythng.

Stuart

    Stuart,
    
    No argument with anything you said in your last reply. I did not grow
    up with a very good attitude to French mainly because in primary school
    my regular teacher had to teach French as well as every other subject
    and she wasn't too hot at French herself which came across
    in her attitude.
    
    In high school I suffered even more because there the French teachers
    were native French speakers and mainly French-Canadian. I wanted to
    learn French but because I was not up to standard in their eyes, they
    often made jokes at my expense which didn't give me the confidence to
    speak in class or out of class for that matter. However, when I taught
    in high school in Montreal, I was fortunate enough to have my desk in
    with the French teachers and they were terrific. I had to work closely
    with the French teacher  who taught my homeroom class and she was
    the epitome of what a language teacher has to be, i.e.encouraging, patient
    understanding. And she was just that, not only with the kids in class
    but also with me speaking French outside of class. All the French
    teachers in the school in which I taught were excellent. It was the
    students who were awkward most of the time. Not all of them mind you
    but some of them were "real sweat-hogs". It was hard enough teaching
    them in English let alone in French. 
    
    I'm sure many have had similar experiences and that includes French
    speaking Canadians in English speaking parts of Montreal let alone
    other parts of Canada. I know this sounds shmaltzy but what used to
    impress me when I was a kid was the way French speaking hockey players
    like Jean Beliveau, Henri and Maurice Richard, Yvan Cournoyer could
    speak English so well whenever they were being interviewed on the
    Hockey Night in Canada English broadcasts. Guys like that made me
    really work harder at learning French. It was nice to see Larry
    Robinson, Bob Gainey, and several others speak French so
    well too.
    
    You're right Stuart! It's all in the attitude. Wherever you come from.
    Normand made an extremely important point in an earlier reply.
    Learning any language can only enrich a person. It's only when you
    learn the other person's language that you can really understand the
    way they think let alone what there saying.
                                     
    Ted

    How do you think learning english was for us?  I can well remember
    being smuggly coorected by a sales lady in a Morgan's (now La Baie)
    Altough it hurts, only perseverance can teach you a language.
    
    BTW I was also smuggly corrected by a Parisian because he didn't
    understand my "accent",  I also got a similar treatment in New York and
    Toronto.  My conclusion, I do not judge a country by it's major cities.
    
    
    Jean
    

    Jean,
    
    I'm sure some of those prissy English salesladies probabaly corrected
    the English of us Anglophones too, so I understand exactly what you're
    saying. I can all too often remember Anlgos making fun of 
    French-Canadiens speaking English, so I know what you mean. Ignorance
    is universal. 
    
    I have acquired a slight Irish accent since I've been living here and
    have had people slag my accent whenever I go to the UK to work.
    
    
    Ted

    Hi Pat,
    
    Heck, my wife and kids slag my accent.
    
    Ted (no respect)
    
    P.S. Will have map info shortly.

    >> P.S. Will have map info shortly.
    
    Is this a slag map of some sort? 
    
    If so, I'm interested.....
    
    ;-)

    For you, Glenn, we'd slate ya - forget the slagging.

    Boy. I seem to be taking it on the chin a lot lately. 
    
    I can hear everybody cheering.....
    
    Mr. Slag