[can.francais] Sault Sainte-Marie officiellement unilingue anglophone

vv1@dgp.toronto.edu (Marc J. Ouellette) (02/06/90)

En Ontario, 26 municipalite's se sont jusqu'`a pre'sent de'clare'es unilingues
anglophones.  Comme tous le savent probablement, la municipalite' de Sault
Sainte-Marie s'est de'clare'e officiellement unilingue il y a quelques jours.

Je me souviens qu'il y a quelques anne'es, la municipalite' de Kapuskasing dans
le nord de l'Ontario c'e'tait de'clare'e officiellement bilingue.  Ce geste
e'tait tout `a fait justifier puisque 60% de la municipalite' est d'origine
francophone.  (Je l'sais, j'y ai passe' 18 anne'es :-)  Malheureusement, un
groupe de citoyens de Kapuskasing avait fait appel de cette de'cision devant la
cour supre^me de l'Ontario (je crois), et la de'cision du conseil de ville
avait e'te' renverse'e.  Je crois que la raison donne'e par la cour e'tait que
la question de langue e'tait du ressort provincial, et que donc la
municipalite' ne pouvait de'clarer la ville officiellement bilingue.

Ma question est donc la suivante:  est-ce que le me^me jugement pourait e^tre
applique' `a la de'cision de Sault Sainte-Marie?  Si non, pourquoi est-ce
ille'gal de de'clarer une municipalite' bilingue, mais non unilingue anglophone?

un franco-ontarien frustre',

Marc
-- 
Marc J. Ouellette  (vv1@dgp.toronto.edu)         Les Canadiens sont l`a!
"Angry words won't stop the fight, two wrongs don't make it right" - U2

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/06/90)

I don't know why they would rule against a city being bilingual, unless
it was a taxpayer revolt, and we hardly have many of those in this
country.

I think the soo's decision is being blown out of proportion.  Some people
are writing that the soo declared itself "officially unilingual" or something.
As though city hall is the city.  Far from it.

All they did was say, as far as I know, was that in the interests of
conserving money, city services would only be guaranteed available in
English. 

It's not as though they went overboard and prohibited french storekeepers
from putting up signs in french!  :-)

How many unilingual french speakers are there in the soo?  Anybody
must realize that beyond a certain point, it's a tremendous waste of
taxpayer's money to pay to have every city service available in
French.  If I lived in Que'bec I wouldn't complain if they wanted to
make some city services available only in french.  In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if this isn't the case already.

Now, if a city had a large number of unilingual speakers of a given
language, then it would be proper for them to offer all services in
that language, or make translators available.  But there has to be
some limit to this.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

lamy@cs.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/06/90)

As far as I understand it, there is strictly no reason to pass such a motion,
because Ontario municipalities plainly aren't covered by bill 8, which
mandates French services in Provincial Government administrative areas where
French population exceeds 10% of the population or where the number of
Francophones exceeds a certain threshold.

Sault-Ste-Marie and Niagara Falls were never asked to provide services in
French (and would not even qualify *even* if bill 8 applied to municipalities,
as they have resp. 6 and 2% Francophone populations).  Some cities in Eastern
Ontario might qualify, but those aren't the ones passing the laws.  I can just
barely understand why some people in the Loyalist belt who still fly a Union
Jack on their front lawn would feel like wiping their feet on a Que'bec flag
in front of TV cameras, and carry signs saying "Stop the French Take-over".
Yeah, right.  Not much point arguing with people like that.  I find immensely
more worrying to see such a movement among elected officials of much larger
cities, and a movement that appears to be spreading, at that.

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

lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (02/06/90)

In article <90521@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I don't know why they would rule against a city being bilingual, unless
>it was a taxpayer revolt, and we hardly have many of those in this
>country.
>
>I think the soo's decision is being blown out of proportion.  Some people
>are writing that the soo declared itself "officially unilingual" or something.
>As though city hall is the city.  Far from it.
	Les representants elus de la ville de Sault Ste. Marie (ou est-ce 
qu'on devrait maintenant l'appeler "St. MAry's Falls"?), dont la
responsabilite de realiser la volonte des citoyens, ont declare la ville
"unilingue".  This was an official act, taken by virtue of their position.
To say City Hall is not the City is specious.
>
>All they did was say, as far as I know, was that in the interests of
>conserving money, city services would only be guaranteed available in
>English. 
	S'il s'agit simplement de se proteger contre les taux imposes par le
gouvernment provincial pour subventionner le biligualisme, ils aurait pu
l'exprimer exactement.  They didn't do that: they said the Sault was English,
and would never provide municipal services in French.  THERE'S NEVER BEEN A
QUESTION OF THAT.  Un revolte fiscale, tel qu'en CAlifornie, s'addresserait
directement au question, et non au possibilite jamais prevu par le
gouvernement en question.
>
>It's not as though they went overboard and prohibited french storekeepers
>from putting up signs in french!  :-)
    TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.  
    Note that i was born a Quebec Anglo.  I probably feel that sign law more
than anybody in ONtario.
>How many unilingual french speakers are there in the soo?  Anybody
>must realize that beyond a certain point, it's a tremendous waste of
>taxpayer's money to pay to have every city service available in French.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
	You are completely wrong.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY SUGGESTION THAT
ANY CITY SERVICES IN ANY OF THESE TOWNS BE AVAILABLE IN FRENCH.  It is a
paper tiger.  This is a question of federal and provincial services in NOrthern
Ontario.  And to answer your question, 40% of Norther Ontario is French.
Ca suffit?

If I lived in Que'bec I wouldn't complain if they wanted to
>make some city services available only in french.  In fact, I wouldn't
>be surprised if this isn't the case already.
	As a Quebec Anglo, my mother deals with the:
	1) Quebec government in English, for taxes, driver's license 
	   and the like;
	2) the Montreal Urban Community in English;
	3) her local municipality in English;
	4) the hospital services in English; and
	5) the university and school systems in English;

	How many French outside Quebec have such services?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lyn bartram		lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu
Computer Graphics Lab	lrbartram@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ont.		

lamy@cs.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/07/90)

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

>French.  If I lived in Que'bec I wouldn't complain if they wanted to
>make some city services available only in french.  In fact, I wouldn't
>be surprised if this isn't the case already.

Nope, sorry.  The English minority has a *right* to services in English in
Que'bec.  Things like education in English and social services in English are
guaranteed for the English minority without arbitrary population thresholds.
Bills 22 and 101 never took those individual rights away.  The debate about
store signs in English had to do with whether or not commercial signage was an
individual right of that nature (as opposed to a commercial activity that
could be regulated by Quebec).

>Now, if a city had a large number of unilingual speakers of a given
>language, then it would be proper for them to offer all services in
>that language, or make translators available.  But there has to be
>some limit to this.

You are already requiring that there be a large number.  What is that, if not
a limit?  Having cities with 2% francophones revolt against something THAT
DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIES and for which they would not be bound EVEN IF it
applied to them can very easily be perceived as a direct attempt to insult
francophones. I used to shiver at people in Quebec contending that Quebec was
being too nice by guaranteeing its Anglophone minority rights to education,
social and governement services in English.  Were they right all along?  How
many insults of the St-Mary Falls Bigots variety will it take before I change
my mind and begin to think that I was a fool for upholding such principles?

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

clh@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen) (02/07/90)

In article <1990Feb5.182925.2005@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> vv1@dgp.toronto.edu (Marc J. Ouellette) writes:
>En Ontario, 26 municipalite's se sont jusqu'`a pre'sent de'clare'es unilingues
>anglophones.  Comme tous le savent probablement, la municipalite' de Sault
>Sainte-Marie s'est de'clare'e officiellement unilingue il y a quelques jours.

First of all, I'd like to apologize in advance (in English) for the fact
that my French is so bad that I can't say HOW bad in French.  However:

J'ai entendu que les villes "uni-anglos" ne veulent pas donner leurs services
en francais.  Eh bien, si je sois un francophone/phile, je ne veut pas visiter
chez eux; peut-e^tre le conseil de Niagara a y pense' :-)

>...
>Ma question est donc la suivante:  est-ce que le me^me jugement pourait e^tre
>applique' `a la de'cision de Sault Sainte-Marie?  Si non, pourquoi est-ce
>ille'gal de de'clarer une municipalite' bilingue, mais non unilingue anglophone?

Vous avez raison, monsieur;  malheureusement, il manque aux conseilleurs.

>
>un franco-ontarien frustre',
>
>Marc

un anglo de Colombie Britannique, egalement frustre',

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
uunet!ubc-cs!van-bc!tacitus!clh         V5Z 1E5
clh@tfic.bc.ca -or- Chris_Hermansen@mtsg.ubc.ca

May you work in an interesting place.

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/07/90)

Does anybody have the text of the resoltion?  My Canadian news wire is
broadcast based and doesn't pass on this sort of thing.  The only way to
get the facts is to look at the text of the resolution.   The mayor has
said that people should read the text, since the media have sensationalized
things.  (Which I believe most readily)

In particular, does the resolution stop anybody from doing something?
Or does it just say that the official language of the city government is
english?   If so, what does that mean for a french speaking person in
Sault Ste. Marie?

Let's get some facts.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/07/90)

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...   (It is a sure fire way of scaring
away large english corporations who might put offices or plants in Quebec,
however)

I still would like to see what the Soo council did before we debate this
further.  Have any rights or privileges of francophones there been
reduced, and if so by how much?  And if so, is it rights, or privileges?

Or was it truly done to thumb a nose at Bill 101/178 and does it otherwise
mean nothing?  If so, it's a silly thing for a city council to do, although
one can certainly understand their motives in this case, Bill 178 being
an abomination (in my opinion) in Canadian law.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (02/07/90)

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...   (It is a sure fire way of scaring
>away large english corporations who might put offices or plants in Quebec,
>however)
>
	I have to reiterate this again and again.  I am an Anglo Quebecoise
(and i refuse to accept that these two are mutually exclusive).  As such,
i have guaranteed access to more services in English in Quebec than any
Francophone outside Quebec, with the possible exception of some in New
Brunswick (which is 40% French, but i digress).  My language rights that are
guaranteed include hospital, university and school services.  What most poeple
don't realize is that i also can get GOVERNMENT services in English, even 
though the official language of the province is French.  Given the
propensity to reactionary acts lately, perhaps these government services will
now be suspended in the spirit of the Soo and of Thunder Bay.
	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 
for people who move to the province for a specific term, so that Americans
and English Canadians who are transferred for a limited period (say, several
years) can certainly be granted the right to attend an anglophone school.
	Those who use Bill 178 as a rallying cry for reciprocity should be
aware of the facts.

lamy@cs.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/08/90)

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

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/08/90)

One of the problems with the school law was the discrimination based on
the parents' education.  There should be no such special status.

I think the language of education should be up to the school board, with
a mandate to provide whatever language of education the parents paying
the taxes prefer.   It should not be a province-wide decision.  As long as
there are enough students of type X to warrant a school of type X in a
board, there should be one.   That means some number of French schools here
and English schools there, and any parent can send their child to any
school they like, within reasonable transportation limits.

The law as enacted was a nyah, nyah to those wanting english education to
a greater degree than the law in Sault Ste. Marie is a nyah, nyah to
Quebec.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

clh@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen) (02/09/90)

In article <91140@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Does anybody have the text of the resoltion?  My Canadian news wire is
>broadcast based and doesn't pass on this sort of thing.  The only way to
>get the facts is to look at the text of the resolution.   The mayor has
>said that people should read the text, since the media have sensationalized
>things.  (Which I believe most readily)

I would suggest that, from the brouhaha in, eg, the Globe yesterday
(Mulroney & Peterson engaged in public name calling? Deguelement!!)
that the WORDING of the pronouncement must have been somewhat inflammatory.
For example, if the pronouncement were simply a matter of service cutbacks,
would they have been reported on in this fashion?  Not likely.

And how to describe the little daisy chain of addle-pated officials bobbing
up in other communities to add their voice of dissent, except as, oh, say,
"neo-facist knee-jerk jingoism" or some such thing.

There's only one way francophones can take this, and that's as a figurative
slap in the face.  I find it quite surprising, given that many of the
towns must derive some financial benefit from francophone tourists;
surely they must be concerned about the ramifications of all of this!

>
>In particular, does the resolution stop anybody from doing something?
>Or does it just say that the official language of the city government is
>english?   If so, what does that mean for a french speaking person in
>Sault Ste. Marie?
>

Impolite or insensitive behaviour never "stopped" anyone from doing anything,
it just made it a whole lot less fun.

>Let's get some facts.

I think the facts are pretty obvious; there are a lot of pissed off people
out there.  The only possible way to resolve the problem is for the councillors
to publicly `clarify' the situation, but this will just make them appear
even more lickspittle than they already do.

Je me souviens, baby.

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
uunet!ubc-cs!van-bc!tacitus!clh         V5Z 1E5
clh@tfic.bc.ca -or- Chris_Hermansen@mtsg.ubc.ca

May you work in an interesting place.