AngryFrenchGuy

Paging Galganov! Canada’s Got a New Native Language Police!

with 78 comments

In a move sure to confuse the hell out of some self-righteous language activists in Canada who try to justify their opposition to Québec’s language laws by claiming to be fighting for the rights of native canadians, Nunavut’s lawmakers unanimously adopted their own version of bill 101 yesterday.

The citizens of Nunavut adopted a Language Law inspired by Québec’s French Language Charter in order to protect the rights of the citizens of the booming territory to live and work in their own language.

The law, Bill 7, will make Inuktitut mandatory in all schools and it will become the language of work in the public service by 2011.

The law includes the creation of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit a.k.a. the Inuit Language Authority and of a Language Commissioner.  This commissioner will have “investigative tools for securing the compliance of the public and private sector organizations that have not had Inuit Language duties in the past”, including taking matters to the courts.

Unlike the Office Québécois de la Langue Française which can only act upon citizen complaints, the Nunavut Language Commissioner will have the power to initiate investigations.  Fines for violators of the law could be as high as 5 000$ for individuals and 25 000$ for organizations.

From now on all signs, inclusing those of a commercial nature, will have to be in Inuktitut and the Inuktitut will have to be of at least equal size to any other language used.  Businesses will also be legally required to be able to serve all customers who demand it in the Inuit language.

According to the Canadian Press, although 91% of Inuit said they could speak the Inuit language, only 64% used it at home, a dramatic 10% drop in only 12 years.

Written by angryfrenchguy

September 19, 2008 at 9:09 pm

78 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “AFG, could you please elaborate on what a “more fair” notion of territoriality is? Thanks.”

    Switzerland, as Acajack has described better than me elsewhere on this blog.

    In Switzerland, the four linguistic communities have their own territory which functions in their own language.

    There are NO publicly funded German-language schools in Geneva, for example, because it is in a French canton. If you really really really want your kid to get a German education, you don’t go tearing your shirt crying that you are a victim of racist xenophobic laws. You go live in a German canton and you shut the hell up.

    angryfrenchguy

    September 22, 2008 at 10:53 am

  2. “For everyone congratulating Nunavut on protecting Inuktitut, how would you feel about these same laws for the same language in Nunavik, on Quebec territory?”

    I would be 100% in favour of it. Actually, I was just working on a post where I was going to suggest something similar be crafted for Quebec’s Nunavik region.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 11:00 am

  3. “The Inuit, by the way, don’t live on federal reservations.”

    That was kind of my point in the question. There are a few “southeners” who live in Nunavik as well who would presumably be required to learn the language as well.

    “Switzerland, as Acajack has described better than me elsewhere on this blog.

    In Switzerland, the four linguistic communities have their own territory which functions in their own language.

    There are NO publicly funded German-language schools in Geneva, for example, because it is in a French canton. If you really really really want your kid to get a German education, you don’t go tearing your shirt crying that you are a victim of racist xenophobic laws. You go live in a German canton and you shut the hell up.”

    Well, I will take your word for it that Acajack has described Switzerland well somewhere else on this blog. But from you last paragraph, you seem to be saying that territorial fairness means among other things (I assume there are other things) that there is no minority language education in Switzerland. Am I right in inferring that?

    AM

    September 22, 2008 at 11:51 am

  4. “But from you last paragraph, you seem to be saying that territorial fairness means among other things (I assume there are other things) that there is no minority language education in Switzerland. Am I right in inferring that?”

    As far as I know, no. As far as I know, Canada is the only country that has raised “minority language education” into a “human right”, a policy that has not slowed the assimilation of Francophones outside Québec one bit while it has favored the decline of French in Montreal.

    Bill 101 is a massive dam against that decline, without which few can dispute that Francophones would be the minority in need of protection in Montreal today. But then, if Montreal’s anglophones weren’t a “minority” in need “protection”, there most likely wouldn’t be bilingualism or constitutional protection of minority education rights in the first place…

    BTW, can you defenders of bilingualism and the Canadian way tell me why YOU never included native language rights in the Official Languages Act?

    angryfrenchguy

    September 22, 2008 at 11:59 am

  5. “As far as I know, no. As far as I know, Canada is the only country that has raised “minority language education” into a “human right”, a policy that has not slowed the assimilation of Francophones outside Québec one bit while it has favored the decline of French in Montreal. ”

    AFG, many of your arguments seem to go along the lines of “well, it does not exist anywhere else in the world, so it shouldn’t exist in Quebec” or “it does exist somewhere else, so it is OK for it to exist in Quebec”. Why should the right or wrong of what we do depend on what goes on elsewhere?

    But with respect to minority language education, I seem to remember going through it and finding a bunch of countries that provide it. Finland for one, which from what I have seen is considered to have one of the top pre-university educational systems in the world, offers Swedish language education to its Swedish minority.

    “BTW, can you defenders of bilingualism and the Canadian way tell me why YOU never included native language rights in the Official Languages Act?”

    I am not a defender of bilingualism in Canada, but I do think that issue of natives is a black mark on this country.

    AM

    September 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm

  6. Linguistically speaking, Finland is what Quebec might be if ever it became independent from Canada. Finland was part of Sweden for a long time, and a powerful Swedish-speaking minority emerged there with much influence in business, politics, etc. Much official stuff in Finland took place in Swedish for a long time, and Swedish was in fact the dominant language in Helsinki and several other cities. In spite of being a minority, the Swedish speakers were of course richer than the Finnish speakers. When Finland became independent, some Swedish speakers left for Sweden but Finland did guarantee language rights to those who stayed, including minority schooling, legal proceedings, etc. A whole bunch of stuff really, including bilingualism on all public signs in Helsinki (though few commercial signs in Helsinki are bilingual) to this day. Over the years, the Swedish-speaking population in Finland has been very slowly dwindling, but they’re still there. Although Finnish has of course come to dominate all spheres of public life in the country and has supplanted Swedish in almost all areas where it was dominant.

    Regarding Switzerland, there is no minority language schooling in the Swiss cantons, except for two exceptions: the small towns of Biel/Bienne and Fribourg/Freiburg. Even the bilingual cantons like the Valais and Bern are split up into single language zones. Everywhere in Switzerland, including the larger cities like Geneva, Zurich, Lausanne and Lugano, all schooling and public services takes place in the single local language only.

    Consider that “Non-francophones” in Geneva are close to half the population there yet everything is in French only. Other large cities are also diverse yet unilingualism still rules the day.

    In the 1970s, there was an interesting court case in Zurich where a group of francophone parents (since it is the largest city in the country, there is a community of francophones in Zurich) wanted to set up a private French school with their own money. The canton objected and the parents took it to the highest court in Switzerland, which ruled in favour of the canton, which as an autonomous entity was found to have the right to unilaterally determine how its linguistic character can best be preserved.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  7. Another interesting aspect of cohabitation in Switzerland is that communication between communities is increasingly done in English. This actually is not very controversial since English is a neutral language over there that is equally foreign to all concerned.

    Perhaps Canada needs it’s own neutral language for federal affairs. Spanish or Mandarin?

    angryfrenchguy

    September 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  8. Acajack writes:

    “Federal official language policies that have made French more present in areas of the ROC where there are next to no francophones are a direct result of the federal government’s obsession with propping up (or “not abandoning”) the anglo minority in Quebec, a propping up which could not be done without at least some token reciprocal nods to French in the ROC. ”

    Can you name one instance, Acajack, since the passage of Bill 22 by Quebec in 1974 in which the federal government did something for the anglos in Quebec?

    T.K.

    September 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  9. Acajack and AFG,

    The example of Switzerland is pretty interesting. My question to you is, are you proposing the Swiss system only for Canada or for an independent Quebec as well?

    Because from what I can tell, the population of Quebec is comparable to Switzerland and it has 26 cantons, some of which are quite small (30-40 thousand people). Now all these cantons have quite a bit of autonomy and -as mentioned- control education, but also taxation, health care and other things.

    If you tell me that this is the kind of system you are proposing for an independent Quebec where municipalities and regions of Quebec can choose their level of taxation, I would be all for it.

    AM

    September 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  10. AM: I am not proposing anything. I’m just pointing out what the situation is in other countries because some people were wondering about them.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  11. “T.K.: Can you name one instance, Acajack, since the passage of Bill 22 by Quebec in 1974 in which the federal government did something for the anglos in Quebec?”

    The tone of your reply suggests that I said something outrageous (like “Palestinians just love Ariel Sharon!”) but it’s actually not that difficult to find examples.

    In 1996, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, a lobby group for French speakers outside Quebec, issued a study called “Où sont passés les milliards?” in which they found that between 1970 and 1987, the federal government contributed almost twice as much funding to English-language education in Quebec as it did to French-language education outside the province. This in spite of the fact that the minority language communities are of comparable size, and that also that the francophone minorities didn’t have a fully established education system (like the Anglo-Quebecers did), a situation that in and of itself might have justified, in the interest of fairness, some “catch-up” money for the francophones.

    Other examples are university research grants to places like McGill and Concordia which appear to be way out of proportion and have been for decades, or even the fact that the Meech Lake Accord was largely torpedoed politically because certain important people were afraid of what the evil Québécois francophone majority would do their anglo neighbours if ever they got their hands on the distinct society clause…

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  12. “The example of Switzerland is pretty interesting. My question to you is, are you proposing the Swiss system only for Canada or for an independent Quebec as well?”

    In Canada I feel this is a deal-breaker. In the case of an independent Québec, it should be considered, I think. The case of the Inuit is easy, because it is so remote and homogenous, but if we allow nunavik to be an autonomous Inuktitut region, I understand some will start making the case for a West Island Canton.

    Whether within or without Canada, downtown Montreal is always problematic. On one hand, it is very Anglophone and the home of many Anglo institutions. On the other, it is the economic and cultural heart of all of Québec and cannot be thought of as just another community…

    angryfrenchguy

    September 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  13. “T.K.: Can you name one instance, Acajack, since the passage of Bill 22 by Quebec in 1974 in which the federal government did something for the anglos in Quebec?”

    Article 23 of the Charter of Rights, designed specifically to undermine bill 101 and to put Québec’s English school system out of reach of Québec’s National Assembly despite a century of constitutional law saying education was of provincial jurisdiction. That was something.

    angryfrenchguy

    September 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  14. Just being speculative here, but Riga (almost 60% Russian at the time) didn’t separate from Latvia and join Russia when that Baltic country became independent.

    I agree that people living in a place do have rights that should be considered but at some point history has to enter into the equation as well. The Inuit have inhabited the area now known as Nunavik for how long? Whereas the West Island was largely francophone, Catholic and rural until the 1960s.

    Plus, don’t forget the West Island isn’t homogeneously anglophone. And it isn’t institutionally distinct either, since everything that is there is part of the institutions of Greater Montreal, the province of Quebec and the federal government of Canada, in that order. It’s not as if it was a rogue region on Quebec territory where everything is run covertly by Ontario.

    Anyway, it’s all about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because there won’t be any change in the structure of the province of Quebec and any future measures, be they federal or provincial, taken to accommodate Quebec’s aspirations will surely apply to the entire territory of Quebec (and certainly all of Montreal), just as they always have (including ones that are unpopular with anglos like Bill 101).

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  15. “Article 23 of the Charter of Rights, designed specifically to undermine bill 101 and to put Québec’s English school system out of reach of Québec’s National Assembly despite a century of constitutional law saying education was of provincial jurisdiction. That was something.”

    Good point. The English school provisions in the original Bill 101 required parents to have been educated in English in *Quebec* in order to have the right to public English schools here. When challenged in court using Section 23, that provision was struck down and was eventually replaced with what was called the “Canada clause” (the invalidated clause was known as the “Quebec clause”), effectively allowing free access to English Quebec schools to English-Canadians from the ROC who move to Quebec.

    I suspect that there would be substantially fewer anglophone families living in a place like Gatineau if the Quebec clause were still in effect today.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  16. “Good point. The English school provisions in the original Bill 101 required parents to have been educated in English in *Quebec* in order to have the right to public English schools here. When challenged in court using Section 23, that provision was struck down and was eventually replaced with what was called the “Canada clause” (the invalidated clause was known as the “Quebec clause”), effectively allowing free access to English Quebec schools to English-Canadians from the ROC who move to Quebec.

    I suspect that there would be substantially fewer anglophone families living in a place like Gatineau if the Quebec clause were still in effect today.”

    Wait, so Anglo-Canadians from the ROC who move to Quebec DO in fact have access to the English school system? I didn’t know that. I thought it was only the Quebec Anglophones who had one parent who went through the English system IN Quebec. Hmmm . . .I don’t know why Quebec would pass these laws, then let them be trampled all over, and then continue to stay in Canada. I know it’s complicated. I guess I’ll find out soon enough for myself, first hand.

    Thomas Dean Nordlum

    September 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  17. Acajack:

    All you could come up with was that the federal government came up with twice the funding for anglo educational institutions over francophone institutions outside Quebec?

    And research money for McGill?

    And the defeat of Meech Lake?

    Gosh…not much there. But let’s deal with them.

    Educational funding: as we’ve discussed here already, the anglo colleges and universities in Quebec are a result of the concentration of 95% of all Quebec anglos within a 25-mile radius of Place Ville Marie. The francophones outside Quebec are thinly scattered over a 4,000 mile area, making it very hard to have the same number of universities. Therefore, more universities for the anglos, more funding.

    No special treatment there.

    As for the grant money for McGill? I must assume it is on the basis of meritocracy.

    Meech’s failure? Oh, Acajack, you mischievious little imp, the federal government WANTED Meech to pass, not fail. Meech had passed by a resolution in the House of Commons, as per the amending formula. Meech failed because of the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Manitoba (and perhaps New Brunswick?) withholding their consent.

    You were supposed to provide instances of the federal government doing things for anglos, not AGAINST them!

    And just as I thought, you couldn’t come up with anything. Why do you say such things if you can’t back it up with facts?

    Now, I ‘ll have to move on to AFG’s claims…

    T.K.

    September 22, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  18. AFG writes in response to my request to Acajack to provide examples since Bill 22 in 1974 in which the federal government did something for the anglos:

    “Article 23 of the Charter of Rights, designed specifically to undermine bill 101 and to put Québec’s English school system out of reach of Québec’s National Assembly despite a century of constitutional law saying education was of provincial jurisdiction. That was something.”

    Minority education — for the largely English-speaking protestants — existed in Quebec for a century as a result of article 93 of the BNA Act. Despite Quebec doing everything it could to undermine individuals’ access to English schools, they couldn’t because of article 93.

    What article 23 of the Canadian Charter that you refer to did was STRENGTHEN Bill 101, NOT undermine it! It entrenched into the constitution the very worst part of Bill 101, which was the parent/child discrimination regime of articles 71 and 72 of Bill 101.

    Indeed, when article 23 of the Charter was written into the constitution, it was based upon and inspired by Bill 101.

    So it was the OPPOSITE of what you say, AFG.

    T.K.

    September 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  19. Thomas writes:

    “Wait, so Anglo-Canadians from the ROC who move to Quebec DO in fact have access to the English school system? I didn’t know that. I thought it was only the Quebec Anglophones who had one parent who went through the English system IN Quebec. Hmmm . . .I don’t know why Quebec would pass these laws, then let them be trampled all over, and then continue to stay in Canada. I know it’s complicated. I guess I’ll find out soon enough for myself, first hand.”

    Oh, Thomas, you are being propagandized, of course. The discrimination is the OPPOSITE of what you suppose.

    Although it is true that anglos from other parts of Canada who did the majority of their education in English in one of those provinces can come to Quebec and, constitutionally, attend publicly-funded English schools, the same is true for francophones from Quebec that go to ANY other province.

    But there is something else that Acajack and AFG have conveniently omitted from their little diatribes.

    Here is the reality:

    Anglophones from English-speaking countries such as the United States or Britain can come to Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and they do NOT have the constitutional right to send their children to publicly-funded English schools in Quebec.

    BUT: francophones from French-speaking countries, such as France or Haiti, can come to ANY province outside Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and have the constitutional right to send their children to publicly-funded French schools in ANY of those provinces.

    T.K.

    September 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  20. “Educational funding: as we’ve discussed here already, the anglo colleges and universities in Quebec are a result of the concentration of 95% of all Quebec anglos within a 25-mile radius of Place Ville Marie. The francophones outside Quebec are thinly scattered over a 4,000 mile area, making it very hard to have the same number of universities. Therefore, more universities for the anglos, more funding.

    No special treatment there.”

    The education funding in question was elementary and secondary, not post-secondary. In any event, I fail to see why francophones in Gravelbourg, Sask. or Ile-des-Chênes, Man., are less deserving of an education in their language than anglos in Westmount just because their towns are a few thousand km away from, say, the larger minority francophone concentration in Ottawa. (BTW, as a matter of fact the first public francophone high schools in Ottawa only opened in the 1970s.)

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  21. “Meech’s failure? Oh, Acajack, you mischievious little imp, the federal government WANTED Meech to pass, not fail. Meech had passed by a resolution in the House of Commons, as per the amending formula. Meech failed because of the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Manitoba (and perhaps New Brunswick?) withholding their consent.

    You were supposed to provide instances of the federal government doing things for anglos, not AGAINST them!“

    But Meech failed precisely because it went against the Canadian political tradition of always siding with the anglo minority rather than the franco majority of Quebec. So sure, technically the federal government of the time, which was an unlikely coalition to begin with, was for Meech, but its ultimate downfall was largely the result of political fallout from much of the ROC’s political elites over Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa’s use of the notwithstanding clause around the same time to maintain at least some of the Bill 101 provisions on signage.

    As someone who was active with the Equality Party, you cannot possibly be unaware of this, and are quite obviously glossing over these facts in order to win the argument.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  22. “BUT: francophones from French-speaking countries, such as France or Haiti, can come to ANY province outside Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and have the constitutional right to send their children to publicly-funded French schools in ANY of those provinces.”

    Ontario, for one, has about the same requirement as Quebec with respect to access to minority language schools: that a parent of the child has to have been educated in the minority language (French in Ontario) in Canada in order to have access to French schools. In practice, however, the decision on who to let into French schools is devolved to the school boards and schools themselves. Whether non-francophones get in is often related to local circumstances, e.g. how desperate a French school is for enrolment (the doors are wide open in Toronto French schools) vs. how finicky they are about maintaining a francophone environment in the hallways and schoolyard (it’s tougher for non-francophones to get in in the Ottawa area, because there are already lots of local francos sending their kids to French schools).

    Of course, only a tiny fraction of non-francophone students go to French schools in Ontario at the moment. If you had 70% of immigrant kids in Toronto (or perhaps Ottawa, for a more realistic example) all of sudden in French schools, then I am pretty sure we’d see the province of Ontario try to set things straight by changing its Education Act to reflect a stricter interpretation of Sec. 23 of the Charter.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  23. “Wait, so Anglo-Canadians from the ROC who move to Quebec DO in fact have access to the English school system? I didn’t know that. I thought it was only the Quebec Anglophones who had one parent who went through the English system IN Quebec.”

    As I mentioned, that was what was in the original Bill 101, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill 101’s creators put that clause in there in order to prevent Quebec from being hypothetically swamped by migrants from the ROC who could automatically demand English-language rights by virtue of their status as Canadians. It was felt that not being able to send one’s children to an English school would be enough to dissuade most anyone from moving to Quebec unless they were prepared to integrate into a French-speaking society.

    In actual fact, the threat has never really materialized even in the absence of this “protection”, as all of the negative press about Bill 101, separation, etc. meant that anglo migration to Quebec from the ROC was almost negligeable from the 1976 through to the early years of the 21st century. At the moment though, anglo migration from the ROC to Quebec does seem to be making a modest comeback.

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 10:03 pm

  24. “Minority education — for the largely English-speaking protestants — existed in Quebec for a century as a result of article 93 of the BNA Act. Despite Quebec doing everything it could to undermine individuals’ access to English schools, they couldn’t because of article 93.”

    Wait a minute here. I thought that up until the 1970s, Quebec did all it could to encourage open access to its English schools for non-francophones and non-Catholics? Isn’t that what we hear from anglophones and anglicized allophones all the time?

    If you’re going to paint the Québécois francophone majority as evil… geez guys, you’re going to have to at least be consistent on what they were being evil about!

    Acajack

    September 22, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  25. Acajack wrote:

    “The education funding in question was elementary and secondary, not post-secondary.”

    If that was the case, then the only possible explanation would be that anglos in Quebec live in an urban environment which is almost always more expensive than rural areas, which may characterize francophones outside Quebec. Barring that then, yes, I would have to agree with you that there is an inequity.

    As for Bourassa’s invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause as the cause for ultimate failure of Meech: Yes, I agree with you. But it was several provinces, NOT the federal government who went against Meech. You were claiming the federal government was always doing things for the Quebec anglos which is NOT the case here.

    Regarding minority education and your response about non-francophones in Ontario: you really need to go back and read my post because you aren’t understanding what I wrote. You’re way off the mark.

    T.K.

    September 22, 2008 at 10:33 pm

  26. I can’t believe anyone honestly supports the adoption of Inuktitut as a serious language of commerce in the modern world.

    French, at least, is international and relatively easy for an English-speaker to learn. Neither is true, to say the least, of Inuktitut. But then none of us presumably has any intention of moving to Nunavut, eh? Nor, I’m sure, will any outsider want to in the future, if this is seriously implemented.

    You can see, then, that such language laws are really about shutting out the world and curling up inside the cave. There must be better ways to promote the health of a language, or at least I hope so — the curling up approach is doomed.

    Sweet FAll

    September 23, 2008 at 1:20 am

  27. “You can see, then, that such language laws are really about shutting out the world and curling up inside the cave. There must be better ways to promote the health of a language, or at least I hope so — the curling up approach is doomed.”

    You gotta feel totally at home inside the cave before you invite visitors in, otherwise it’s just a free-for-all with everyone rummaging through your fridge and sleeping in your bed. Small peoples that are the most open to the outside world are usually those that are the most secure in their identities on their home turf.

    Acajack

    September 23, 2008 at 8:36 am

  28. “Regarding minority education and your response about non-francophones in Ontario: you really need to go back and read my post because you aren’t understanding what I wrote. You’re way off the mark.”

    How can I be off the mark when I described exactly the way things are for francophone schools in Ontario?

    The schools I personally attended in my youth. And all of my friends attended.

    How can you say I don’t know what I am talking about when I have many friends and acquaintances who are teachers, principals, directors of education and trustees with the two francophone school boards in Ottawa? Do you think I am just pulling this out of my hat?

    Acajack

    September 23, 2008 at 8:41 am

  29. “If that was the case, then the only possible explanation would be that anglos in Quebec live in an urban environment which is almost always more expensive than rural areas, which may characterize francophones outside Quebec.”

    How can costs for the maintenance of existing English schools in Montreal that have been there for many decades be more expensive that building French schools from scratch (land acquisition, construction, equipment) in places like Windsor or Saskatoon or Halifax in the ROC?

    Acajack

    September 23, 2008 at 8:45 am

  30. “Anglophones from English-speaking countries such as the United States or Britain can come to Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and they do NOT have the constitutional right to send their children to publicly-funded English schools in Quebec.”

    That was not my question, tony. That part was very clear to me. I only thought that the clause also extended itself to Anglos in the ROC as well (as it should). The law was to protect anglo montrealer “rights,” they say. I know that I do not have the right to send my children to English language schools in Quebec because I am from the United States. And I wouldn’t want to anyway. If I lived in Quebec, they would go to the French schools.

    And by the way, why shoulding francophones attend French language schools in the ROC when they are from Haiti or wherever? As we have said a thousand times before, French is in no way a threat to English in the ROC. If you give free access to English schools in Quebec, everyone will go. But your laissez faire attitude would welcome that, I suppose.

    Thomas Dean Nordlum

    September 23, 2008 at 9:05 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: