The Legault government

293 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
It will be decided by referendum in 2022...I wouldn't hold my breath

We all know how successful referendums on electoral reform are.

Educate me Zen master

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

A referendum 3 years from now. If the CAQ are going to get brownie points., why a referendum? And why in 3 years ?

I'll eat my hat if CAQ ushers in PR.

bekayne

alan smithee wrote:
bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
It will be decided by referendum in 2022...I wouldn't hold my breath

We all know how successful referendums on electoral reform are.

Educate me Zen master

I was being sarcastic.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
It will be decided by referendum in 2022...I wouldn't hold my breath

We all know how successful referendums on electoral reform are.

Educate me Zen master

I was being sarcastic.

I'm sorry...I have a hard time recognizing sarcasm on the computer because I cannot hear one's tone. Colour me embarassed

Pondering

I refuse to be  on this. It will recieve a lot of support from the other parties and Quebec marches to its own drummer. 

 

pietro_bcc

Pondering wrote:

I refuse to be  on this. It will recieve a lot of support from the other parties and Quebec marches to its own drummer. 

 

I can see it failing very easily. Both francophones in the regions and anglophones in the west island are being told that this is a trick to take away their voice. Francophones in Montreal from what I've heard are heavily in favor, but just because the people who have the largest voice in the media support it doesn't mean it'll happen.

I'm probably voting yes unless the system they're proposing is ridiculous.

pietro_bcc

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-wants-to-ban-bonjour-hi-i...

Hilarious, these people are the equivalent of Republicans who cry when people say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Now the CAQ is saying they'll pass their own "SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS, NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS!" laws. MQFA!

What a bunch of absolute clownish babies, policing greetings... what a world.

voice of the damned

pietro_bcc wrote:

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-wants-to-ban-bonjour-hi-i...

Hilarious, these people are the equivalent of Republicans who cry when people say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Now the CAQ is saying they'll pass their own "SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS, NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS!" laws. MQFA!

What a bunch of absolute clownish babies, policing greetings... what a world.

I think this proposed idea is kinda goofy, but just to play Devil's Advocate, is it really all that different from saying that a privately run business has to sell products according to metric measurements, rather than imperial? I mean, in a lot of cases, eg. the selling and purchase of milk, there aren't any real questions of life-and-death, or even basic health and safety, involved.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-wants-to-ban-bonjour-hi-i...

Hilarious, these people are the equivalent of Republicans who cry when people say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Now the CAQ is saying they'll pass their own "SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS, NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS!" laws. MQFA!

What a bunch of absolute clownish babies, policing greetings... what a world.

I warned you all about CAQ. Theis one of the more blatant sins and with uncovered masks on top of it all.

It seems amusingly pathetic but this is just a warning shot. Prepare for many more frivilous laws and policies.

lagatta4

It is silly to police it, but "Bonjour - Hi" is rather ridiculously tacky. They aren't even in the same register of language. And yes, I do think it undermines French as a common language of communication - and I speak several languages.

Unionist

If Anglo-Canadians haven't come to terms with Bill 101 after more than four decades, I guess they never will. Québec polices the language of workplaces, of commercial signs, of traffic signs. If that bothers you, say so and make your case. Don't go after the easy stuff (policing of greetings).

And keep this in mind: Bill 101, with all its flaws, is the main reason Québec is still part of Canada, after decades of dissent and two referenda. Non-fanatical Anglo-Quebecers understand that clearly, and that's why: 1) they don't fight it any more; and 2) their rate of bilingualism has skyrocketed over those decades.

pietro_bcc

Unionist wrote:

If Anglo-Canadians haven't come to terms with Bill 101 after more than four decades, I guess they never will. Québec polices the language of workplaces, of commercial signs, of traffic signs. If that bothers you, say so and make your case. Don't go after the easy stuff (policing of greetings).

And keep this in mind: Bill 101, with all its flaws, is the main reason Québec is still part of Canada, after decades of dissent and two referenda. Non-fanatical Anglo-Quebecers understand that clearly, and that's why: 1) they don't fight it any more; and 2) their rate of bilingualism has skyrocketed over those decades.

What does bonjour/hi have to do with Bill (or if you prefer Law 101). Nowhere in the law is any greeting mentioned? I do have issues with certain parts of the law. Specifically the section that prevents non anglophones from sending their children to english public school, which has resulted in 28 English schools being shuttered in the last 20 years (btw this section of the law is opposed by a majority of anglophones, allophones and in fact francophones according to a Leger poll, yet not a single politician. 0% of the national assembly represents the majority on this question.)

Also the law has nothing to do with Quebec still being in Canada, I hear this argument all the time that after the implementation of 101 it made francophones feel less urgency to leave Canada because french was protected, but the numbers don't bear that out.

101 is enacted in 1977.

1980 First referendum fails 40-60

1995 Second referendum fails 49-51

If 101 was responsible for a decrease in support for sovereignty, then why did support for sovereignty increase? Now I'm not saying that 101 caused an increase of support for sovereignty, I'm saying that it was irrelevant to that question. It was other issues that caused support to increase and decrease.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/emsb-files-legal-challenge-again...

Glad the EMSB is contesting Bill 21. Bravo

Pondering

Hello and Allô sound so much alike that decades ago some would just say it halfway between the two. French has a more formal register that is regularly used whereas English has blurred the difference. Hi/Hello are used without regard to register. 

Montreal is a tourist city. Probably 99.9% of our tourists are English speaking. Retail businesses are in the business of trying to sell. They want English speaking people customers to feel comfortable asking questions. 

I support Bill 101 to an extent particularly when it comes to immigrants entering the French educational system but there is such a thing as going too far. Requiring that French be larger on signs, requiring that French be the working language of business, is one thing. Outlawing the speaking of a language is another. 

If Francophones themselves want to learn English there shouldn't be any law against it.  If French dies without laws against English then it deserves to die. New Brunswickers have kept their French communities and grown them without outlawing English. Indigenous peoples are reviving their languages without laws forbidding the use of other languages. Apparently French Quebecers have to be forced to speak French. 

Saying businesses must use metric is to help consumers. They are free to use imperial too. They just have to provide metric so consumers can compare products more easily. 

English in stores has nothing to do with serving the anglophone population in Quebec. I don't know any Quebec anglophones under 60 or 70 that can't manage to do their shopping in French or order from a French menu or follow French safety or road signs. 

If the purpose of all these laws was really to promote French then they are doing a crappy job. Quebec should be teaching online French the way the BBC teaches English only better. Quebec heavily subsidizes entertainment media so should get more out of it. There should be entertaining TV programs specifically targeting 3 or 4 levels of French proficiency. Some could be like Tout le Monde en Parle, others could be more entertainment oriented, sit-coms etc. Sports on TV would be fairly easy to have modified commentary for. French is a beautiful language and Quebec culture is fun and fascinating. 

Bill 101 was needed but there are limits. What language people choose to speak at home is their business not that of the state. Requiring the use of French in a greeting is one thing, outlawing the use of another language along side it is going too far. 

Focusing on the sin of an English word being used following the French greeting is petty. You would think we didn't have any real problems. It's sole purpose is to stir up animosity. Quebec should be embarassed. 

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

If Francophones themselves want to learn English there shouldn't be any law against it. 

Has anyone proposed a law against the teaching of English in Quebec?? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If Francophones themselves want to learn English there shouldn't be any law against it. 

Has anyone proposed a law against the teaching of English in Quebec?? 

I think she means they should be educated in English speaking schools, which from the Left Coast, seems like defeating the purpose of the  Charter of the French Language

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If Francophones themselves want to learn English there shouldn't be any law against it. 

Has anyone proposed a law against the teaching of English in Quebec?? 

I think she means they should be educated in English speaking schools, which from the Left Coast, seems like defeating the purpose of the  Charter of the French Language

It was against the law for French schools to begin teaching English before 3rd grade or was. There have also been attempts to prevent French citizens from attending English CEGEP though it has failed. 

This may not rise to the technical definition of teaching English being against the law but it is awfully close. I can see demanding that immigrants move through the French system but the descendants of people educated in English in Quebec have more rights than French people. 

I support Bill 101 with reservations because outlawing the use of a language is fascist. It is ironic to me that there is such an issue over French and English and who was there first and who took what from whom when neither are a part of the First Nations of Quebec. Two colonizers arguing over who gets to do the exploiting. Nobody is on moral high ground here. 

pietro_bcc

http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/loi_101_juillet_2017.pdf

This was the poll I was refering to on page 7. The majority of anglophones, allophones and francophones are against the provisions of Bill 101 that ban francophones and allophones from sending their kids to english primary and secondary schools.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/loi_101_juillet_2017.pdf

This was the poll I was refering to on page 7. The majority of anglophones, allophones and francophones are against the provisions of Bill 101 that ban francophones and allophones from sending their kids to english primary and secondary schools.

I don't claim a lot of knowledge about Quebec politics but despite this poll I doubt if any major party is going to run on a platform that includes repealing the Charter of the French Language. From afar it looks like opening up the Charter for debate about what stays and what goes in any major amendments will be as productive as the debate around Bill 21.

pietro_bcc

Oh I agree with you, no major party will run on it. Doesn't change the fact that its the view of the majority in regards to language of instruction sections of the law. But it really goes to show that the Liberal party being "the party of anglos" is nonsense, if they were their stance wouldn't be "keep 101 the same" it would be at the very least "loosen unpopular parts of it".

I have no hope of any party ever daring to represent the majority at this point. If anything the Liberals will become CAQ-lite in the coming years.

pietro_bcc

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/bill-40-discriminates-against-fr...

The FCSQ is against Bill 40 because it discriminates against Francophones and creates 2 classes of Quebecois with different rights for Anglophone and Francophone (specifically anglos will be allowed to elect service center bureaucrats while francophones won't.)... This is a comedy routine right? Or has this guy been in a coma for the past 40 years? Whether you agree with the law or not, it is indisputable that Anglos have the right to send their children to an English school, a right not held by Francophones. That's not a value judgement, its a statement of fact.

If he thinks Bill 40 will create 2 classes of citizen each with different rights, he's 40 years too late... wow.

Sean in Ottawa

The news today is that the CAQ wants to limit the ability of newcomers to deal with the government in English-- for example getting Hydro bills that are bilingual and a range of government services.

In government inspections it has been found that unilingualism policies are not fully in place and some Quebec ministries are allowing some English language communications with the public. One complaint is that there are even phone systems that allow English options for people calling in. The CAQ are seeking to fix that.

Today they say they want to allow only the "historic Anglophone community" to access English and newcomers would not be allowed. Perhaps they will use the same test -- that if your parents went to school in Quebec you can have the right to, say, file your tax in English.

Maybe those who have the right to speak English with the government will have to get some kind of identity card that proves this right. Problem is of course that these are services "where numbers warrant" which means that by pealing off the allophone group numbers won't warrant. this might make application of the policy easier over time as people get the message.

One problem is that they are losing young Allophones in droves (Anglophone youth in recent polls say 60% plan to leave but they won't matter as only about 1/3 of them leave with each generation). There are economic problems with Newcomers leaving though, due to rapid population aging in Quebec.

Quebec policy has at times been to invite as many people as they can to Quebec to meet the need for immigrants and falling population but when population aging is less in fashion and protecting French language is more important, it has become difficult to get them to leave. Perhaps the CAQ will be able to make it clear that they are not welcome if their French is not good enough before they arrive in the future. To that end, the government of Quebec has helped things by cancelling many applications where people have been waiting years to get a chance to come.

pietro_bcc

The term "historic anglophone minority" is disturbing because it creates two classes of anglophones. I have the right to send my future kids to an english school because I went to an english school. But I am clearly not a part of this "historic" anglophone minority. My parents came here in the 60's. So according to this policy I would be able to send my kids to an english school, but would not be able to receive other services in english because I am not a part of the "historic english minority", only the contemporary english minority.

A government that is completely centered around division. I hope that this infantilization of the Quebec population at the hands of the CAQ will result in a backlash in the opposite direction. Completely sickening, but the logical conclusion of the government's language policy over the past 40 years, its just been sped up with the CAQ.

Sean in Ottawa

pietro_bcc wrote:

The term "historic anglophone minority" is disturbing because it creates two classes of anglophones. I have the right to send my future kids to an english school because I went to an english school. But I am clearly not a part of this "historic" anglophone minority. My parents came here in the 60's. So according to this policy I would be able to send my kids to an english school, but would not be able to receive other services in english because I am not a part of the "historic english minority", only the contemporary english minority.

A government that is completely centered around division. I hope that this infantilization of the Quebec population at the hands of the CAQ will result in a backlash in the opposite direction. Completely sickening, but the logical conclusion of the government's language policy over the past 40 years, its just been sped up with the CAQ.

Had I remained in Quebec I would be in the same position. I went to school there but not my parents.

 

Sean in Ottawa

It is important to recognize that in many cases the services that will be withheld in English are ones that relate to essentials including health and safety.

It is also about making an admission that services are available and translations exist but they will not be shared based on the status of the recipient.

It is not a statement that a government employee would not be required to provide services in English. They are not allowed to do so.

think: if there is a form that is not translated (understandable if numbers did not warrant a translation) and then an employee who wants to help a person by explaining it in English - they would not be allowed to. and now the ministry would not be allowed to give the English language copy -- even if they had it under the desk.

This is not about people who are just Allophones. This includes shutting out people who are Anglophones who did not have a parent go to school in Quebec -- Legault clarified today.

Just imagine if a person who spoke Russian as a first language and was working for government saw an old person come in who was Russian and then tried to help them in Russian. We would say the person was lucky. If we were speaking of English they could lose their job after this policy in Quebec.

I do not think this comes from any groundswell of desire by the population nor does it come from any study showing this protects French.

Protection of French when it comes to immigrants does not need to come from oppression -- it comes from changing the language requirements so that the province stops accepting people without enough French as Quebec immigrants.

I am speaking these days to people who came to Quebec in their immigration program from the Middle East not long ago and were told then that Quebec wanted them despite poor proficiency in French. Quebec wanted to increase the population and tax base for economic reasons. Now it wants to change the rules for those people -- A previous government told thousands of people that their French was good enough to come to Quebec and that they would have access to services. Now -- becuase they are immigrants --  it is withdrawing that.

Another point is that Legault is lying when he says this will not affect the English language historical community. Based on the principle (which is reasonable) of service where numbers warrant, many will lose access to what they technically may still have a right to get but is no longer justifiable based on the numbers. The calculation of where numbers warrant will change radically by this. The government is now producing its own method of establishing background rather than a declaration and identification from the population getting services. People who identify as Anglophone will not be allowed to do so unless they prove a pedigree -- the fact that they speak English and not French would not be sufficient.

The reaction in the rest of Canada will be predictably negative. Demographically for Quebec, it will be negative. Hard to see how Quebec wins. The perhaps politically the CAQ could benefit by creating division and profiting from it.

Again this is not a policy proven to be wanted by the people of Quebec. People expect to see the French language protected and promoted. They expect to see English limited in many areas relating to employment and business. But this is nationalism and populism at its ugliest -- trying to whip up a reaction that is not based on public need, benefit or desire.

The direct targeting of immigrants is something that a previous generation of Quebec nationalists, I think, would have fought hard against.

This is very much a populist immigrant fighting intolerance ripped from the Trump playbook and translated into French.

 

Pondering

I will be curious to see how this idea is treated by the French press. 

I use French almost exclusively in day to day activities and interactions with government and even most medical interactions as well. I could foresee a medical situation in which I may need to speak English or request information in English. The idea that I wll have to register as a historic anglophone or be denied service outrages me. It gives me the creeps. I'm surprised he isn't requiring us to wear a symbol in case we need to be rounded up.

I'm glad my daughter moved to Toronto. I think there will be a rapid increase in the number of immigrants just passing through. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Quebec's values test is not just xenophobic — it's misogynistic, too

True or false: in Quebec, women and men have the same rights and this is inscribed in law?

The question is at best aspirational, and at worst a trick. It’s also a question the Quebec government plans to pose to potential immigrants before they can complete the process to immigrate here.

Last week, Quebecers finally got a glimpse at some of the questions from the Coalition Avenir Québec’s long-anticipated policy. The example questions they circulated demonstrate that the policy is less about identifying what our common values are, and more about what the CAQ thinks our values ought to be.

The first question is curious. Women don’t have the same rights as men in Quebec or anywhere in Canada. This can be seen in many measures, from rates of violence against women to the gender wage gap. The first part of the question is false, unless they want potential immigrants to answer with what should be true. The second part — as inscribed in law — is more true, but if the effect of gender discrimination makes men and women less equal, what is the point of this question?

On Le Canal Nouvelles, Haroun Bouazzi, spokesman with the organization Muslims and Arabs for a Secular Quebec, argued that the existence of the values test implies to Quebecers the threat to women’s rights or LGBTTQ+ rights comes from outside the province. The problem, of course, is these rights are under attack by Quebecers.

In the interview, Bouazzi says that maybe a values test, and commensurate education, is actually needed for everyone.

Especially, it would seem, at the National Assembly, where a member’s Halloween costume has created a crisis among the parties that strongly believe women must dress a certain way when they’re elected.....

lagatta4

Here is Catherine Dorion disguised as a 'madame straight'. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-politician-hoodie-1.5351816

CBC commentators are almost all right wing, for some reason.

lagatta4

By the way, anyone who is a Canadian citizen and who went to school in English anywhere in Canada is entitled to send their children to an anglophone school. However, Jamaicans, USAmericans and Brits may not.

Personally, I think they are better off sending the children to a French school in most cases, although there are some English schools that actually have a 50-50 programme. And yes, it is a problem that the ESL teaching here is generally the pits.

voice of the damned

lagatta4 wrote:

Here is Catherine Dorion disguised as a 'madame straight'. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-politician-hoodie-1.5351816

CBC commentators are almost all right wing, for some reason.

There's the theory that the right-wingers go to CBC to see what "the enemy"(from their perspective) is up to, and then hit the comments section to vent their spleen and trash the site.

But I think it's more just that, for a lot of people, the default assumption is "CBC = news", so they just go there as part of their regular news consumption regimen. And right-wingers generally are probably more likely to post comments than left-wingers, for whatever reason.

Pondering

I have no problem with the hoodie. To me it is a declaration of equality. After seeing the Halloween photo I wonder at what she is trying to accomplish. In my view she represents women in politics very poorly. She comes across as the stereotypical secretary that seduces the boss to get ahead not a capable woman who deserves to be a lawmaker. 

I loved this: https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/kim-campbell-qc/ It isn't what they expose but the attitude with which they expose it. 

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

By the way, anyone who is a Canadian citizen and who went to school in English anywhere in Canada is entitled to send their children to an anglophone school. However, Jamaicans, USAmericans and Brits may not.

Personally, I think they are better off sending the children to a French school in most cases, although there are some English schools that actually have a 50-50 programme. And yes, it is a problem that the ESL teaching here is generally the pits.

Is not just went to school it also requires proving that it was a majority of their schoolin English and in other provinces -- specifically you have to provide number of hours in French immersion if applicable.

It is not a simple process and certainly affects people who came to Canada during their school years and attended only some of their education here and it is a potential problem for those whose parents attended French immersion

https://www.emsb.qc.ca/emsb/admissions/eligibility/standard-criteria

There are other sites but this one is accessible to most people here

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

By the way, anyone who is a Canadian citizen and who went to school in English anywhere in Canada is entitled to send their children to an anglophone school. However, Jamaicans, USAmericans and Brits may not.

Personally, I think they are better off sending the children to a French school in most cases, although there are some English schools that actually have a 50-50 programme. And yes, it is a problem that the ESL teaching here is generally the pits.

By the way I agree generally with your comments about second language schools and education.

I would like to add that while ESL is the pits in Quebec, FSL is the pits in the rest of Canada.

There are some critical considerations if we actually care about the kids at all and these come from the science of education:

People learn their first language through memory and correction. Particularly in English it is a significant struggle for people to learn how their language straucture works. second language instruction very much depends on the structure of language. this is one of only a few reasons that proficiency in the first langauge improves with second language instruction.

There have been controversial studies about the proficiency of English among kids in French immersion. It averages higher. Much higher. For a while they just presumed that the issue was with selection -- stronger people in English were choosing French immersion and it was not hurting them. However, there have been studies that controlled for this and they found that children who learned a second language improved in their first (over a longer term) even though they had recieved less first language instruction.

Another issue that has come up in many parts of Canada is how this affects children coming to Canada from non English or French speaking backgrounds. Boards of education at first thought that confusing them with a third language was a problem but then made a fundamental discovery: A child who is ESL is better off going into an immersion program than going to an English program. In the immersion the learnign of French suypports English and it also is done from a second language perspective and this assists with kids who are ESL in programs designed for teaching English as a first langauge. There is the added advantage that these kids are able to compete and have success more easily in French immersion where they are not so far behind their peers as they are in English classes with kids who learned English at home.

Then there is the issue of making sounds. Children are best learning a second language early as their mouths literally adapt and can make the sounds more easily when they are growing. Having a third language actually increases flexibility.

All this is apart from the studies that show that new languages provide numerous mental and psychological benefits with additional flexibility in concepts.

All this to say that language instruction is not always as simple as you think.

If we did what was best for the kids most children would be in an immersion school early in their education in all of Canada.

Sean in Ottawa

An interesting point has come up regarding the budget deficit in Alberta and the budget surplus in Quebec. This is a longstanding problem with the lack of understanding around equalization payments.

Generally equalization seeks to level the playing field for the provinces to some degree so they can make equivalent decisions. This is around the fiscal capacity of the government.

The misunderstanding comes from the tendency by the public to use budget deficits to measure fiscal capacity.

A budget deficit is a political decision: the government decides who and how much to tax and where and how much to spend. The federal government does not police this and the equalization formula does not try to do it for them. Instead equalization looks at the capacity of the province to raise taxes and the capacity of the province to provide programs and equalize that so they can make their own decisions.

This is a critical distinction becuase Alberta has made the decision to tax less despite there being more wealth there. It is spending more than it is taxing of its own accord. The political focus of the right of centre Alberta government is on tax reduction. Quebec' right of centre government is focused on reducing debt rather than taxes. Both are restraining spedning but one for the purpose of reduced taxes and the other for the purpose of reduced deficit. Of course there are many historical differences including the decision by Quebec to provide childcare and tax more to do so. Alberta is not paying for Quebec's childcare like many claim, Quebec is taxing for it and the people of Quebec are paying for it.

Most people here know these things but we are seeing the political reality of this play out in national media and social media and this is leading to greater division in the country as governments and the media are not spending much effort to explain this to the public who confuse budget debt and financial decisions with a province's capacity to raise revenue.

I wonder to what degree this will play out in national politics over the next few years.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This has got to be the height of bureaucratic insanity.

A French doctoral student has been denied residency in Quebec after officials in Canada’s francophone province ruled that she had an inadequate command of her mother tongue.

Emilie Dubois, a graphic designer who has lived and studied in Quebec City for eight years, was stunned to find her recent residency application denied on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of French.

“I have a diploma from a francophone university, the first in Canada. I’m a French citizen, too, and I did all of my studies in French,” she told Radio-Canada.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/08/quebec-denies-frenchwoman-...

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This has got to be the height of bureaucratic insanity.

A French doctoral student has been denied residency in Quebec after officials in Canada’s francophone province ruled that she had an inadequate command of her mother tongue.

Emilie Dubois, a graphic designer who has lived and studied in Quebec City for eight years, was stunned to find her recent residency application denied on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of French.

“I have a diploma from a francophone university, the first in Canada. I’m a French citizen, too, and I did all of my studies in French,” she told Radio-Canada.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/08/quebec-denies-frenchwoman-...

 

Indeed -- you have to wonder why this decision was made. It cannot possibly help the government.

But you cannot under-estimate incompetence and stupidity with any decision made by anyone.

voice of the damned

Actually, looking at the details, it doesn't seem that absurd to me...

“The first letter said you are not proving you know how to speak French because your thesis is considered to be written in English,” Dubois told the National Post.

The letter read: “You did not complete program of study in Quebec entirely in French, including the dissertation or thesis.”

Presumably, part of proving command of French is completing the "program of study in French", but one chapter of her dissertation is in English. Which the minstry presumably thinks renders the French-study requirement incomplete.

Now, some people might think that's overly legalistic, but then, what happens if someone else comes along with a disseration that has two chapters in English? Three? Four?

All that said, if it is a hard and fast requrement, maybe someone could have notified her of this before she completed the disseration? Not sure if she could have written two intros, one in English, for publication, and a translation in French for the ministry.

 

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Actually, looking at the details, it doesn't seem that absurd to me...

“The first letter said you are not proving you know how to speak French because your thesis is considered to be written in English,” Dubois told the National Post.

The letter read: “You did not complete program of study in Quebec entirely in French, including the dissertation or thesis.”

Presumably, part of proving command of French is completing the "program of study in French", but one chapter of her dissertation is in English. Which the minstry presumably thinks renders the French-study requirement incomplete.

Now, some people might think that's overly legalistic, but then, what happens if someone else comes along with a disseration that has two chapters in English? Three? Four?

All that said, if it is a hard and fast requrement, maybe someone could have notified her of this before she completed the disseration? Not sure if she could have written two intros, one in English, for publication, and a translation in French for the ministry.

 

It is absurd:

“The first letter said you are not proving you know how to speak French because your thesis is considered to be written in English,” Dubois told the National Post.

Think about that statment -- it is a nonsequitor.

Is there a legal requirement that her program of study or thesis would be in French? The legal requirement the letter speaks to is to prove she knows how to speak French. An entire program of study being in French is one way to prove it. It is not the only way.

Also, speaking of absurd: her program of study was in French. One paper used to complete the thesis being in English does not mean her program was in French: including class work, etc. One paper having 20% English does not mean her program was not in French. It was accepted by a French language University. If the government of Quebec was not being absurd it would have at least considered asking her to translate that chapter not obviously punish her for its existance.

As well, the fact that she comes from France with all the rest of her education in French also proves the existence of her French capacity. No way you slice it: an immigrant from France who went to a Quebec University in French, produced a paper 80% in French, having had a background living in French and prior education in French, being labeled as one without proven French is absurd. You do not need to get into the weeds on this. Put bluntly the French language spoken in France can be sneered at by people in Quebec (and visa versa) but it is certainly not different enough that you could say it is not adeqaute to function in the other country. The civil servant who made this decision was either incompetant, a smart ass or following a an inflexible and very stupid guideline and we really cannot tell which without more information.

voice of the damned

an inflexible and very stupid guideline

That's the theory I was entertaining, my point being that if "Disseratation 100% in French" was part of the requirement, I wouldn't blame the civil-servant for refusing her application. You can't just ignore rules because they seem ridiculous to you.

But if the decision is discretionary on the part of the civil servant making the decision, based on weighing all the pros and cons in the case, then yeah, I'd agree, it was pretty ridiculous.  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Damn good thing Chiac speakers from Moncton don't have to apply for residency.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

an inflexible and very stupid guideline

That's the theory I was entertaining, my point being that if "Disseratation 100% in French" was part of the requirement, I wouldn't blame the civil-servant for refusing her application. You can't just ignore rules because they seem ridiculous to you.

But if the decision is discretionary on the part of the civil servant making the decision, based on weighing all the pros and cons in the case, then yeah, I'd agree, it was pretty ridiculous.  

 

I hope someone uses access to information to find out. 

lagatta4

Learning two languages while young also makes it far less difficult to learn a third or fourth later in life.

Émilie Dubois is also a very common name in Québec. This apex of bureaucratic stupidity meant the CAQ  had no choice but to backtrack on its sill restrictions, on top of the very idea of refusing to streamline the candidacies of young, highy-educated French-speaking people.

lagatta4

Québec solidaire's response to Simon Jolin-Barrette's regulation withdrawal: https://quebecsolidaire.net/nouvelle/retrait-du-reglement-de-simon-jolin...

Sorry, I don't have time to translate this today; I'm translating something else, for $$$. I did like the barb: "humility or humiliation"...

Pages