In 1992, the report of a committee chaired by Gretta Chambers had recommended to open access to English -speaking schools to "all the children of immigrants who were educated in English or whose parents come from a country of the world wherewe speak English ".
The Minister of Education at the time, Michel Pagé, had applauded the relationship with enthusiasm.Prime Minister Bourassa was well kept from following it.Since then, no government, neither liberal nor piquist, has considered it.This would have had the effect of completely canceling the effects of Law 101.
In its original version, the law authorized only children whose father or mother had received his primary education in English in Quebec to frequent English -speaking schools.The Charter of Rights that Pierre Elliott Trudeau had enchanted in the Constitution in 1982 extended this right to children from any Canadian citizen whose English is "the first language learned and still understood" or who have received their primary education in English n'I don't care in Canada.
In reality, the individual rights of English -speaking Quebecers have not been shown: what they have never accepted is that law 101 prevents their community from increasing by assimilating immigrants.
The objective of the law was indeed to ensure that the latter rather integrate into the French -speaking majority.The English attraction force is such that it only succeeded in part, but it is easy to imagine what would have occurred if the recommendation of the Chambers report had been applied.
Over the decades, the substance of the debate has not changed.Anglophones now criticize Bill 96 for violating their rights, but it is still the right to assimilate immigrants, the majority of whom are not better.
The difference lies simply in the place of this assimilation, at CEGEP rather than in primary and secondary."Linguistic peace" of which Quebec Community Groups Network denounces the end consisted in letting things go.
Bill 96 provides for a limitation of admissions to the English -speaking college network, but it grants a priority to access students from the historic English -speaking community, which will not be deprived of anything since they are already a minority ofits customers.
The way see mary people subtweet stories about me from back in the day.I Know i wasn’t shyt lol it doesn’t hart my feels… https: // t.CO/Z8UCRMAJIV
— Elle Fri Mar 16 15:12:38 +0000 2018
This will still leave many places available for non-English speakers who wish to register.Caquis deputies, who seem unconscious of linguistic dynamics in Montreal - or who don't care - hold on to the French speaking in English at Cégep.That the Montrealer who is Prime Minister Legault is insensitive to it or prefers to play the ostrich more surprises.
One wonders how to do all those who, all over the world, manage to master English while teaching is only offered in their national primary language at university.
Francophones registered with the English -speaking CEGEP will not necessarily get angry, but the risk is very real in the case of immigrants whose French is not the language.The problem is that you cannot authorize access to college education in English to some and prohibit it from others.
Anglophones have perfectly the right to challenge Bill 96, as they have systematically challenged (and generally successfully) all linguistic laws since Law 22.If Quebecers believe that the Canadian Constitution imposes limitations incompatible with the affirmation of their identity, they know what they have to do.
Juxtapose pell-mell the law on the secularism of the state, Bill 96 and the drama of Joyce Echaquan, as did the liberal deputy of Jacques-Cartier, Greg Kelley, was however an insulting amalgam that the headDu PLQ, Dominique Anglade, has deplored herself, even if Prime Minister Legault has chosen a very bad time to indignant it.
The Minister responsible for the French language, Simon Jolin-Barrette, also gathered by including in his bill an article making the insufficient mastery of French "an act derogating from the dignity of the profession" in the same way as corruptionor embezzlement, sanctioned by the Code of Professions.
The College of Doctors rightly considers that such a provision testifies to a displaced aggressiveness, especially since law 101 already provides that "professional orders can only issue permits of people who have official languageAppropriate knowledge to the exercise of their profession ”.The debate is already difficult enough to avoid unnecessary provocations.
