AngryFrenchGuy

Quebec’s Bizarre Segregated School System

with 161 comments

Montreal English Schools

In 1969, just a couple of years after the United States government had to send in the army to protect black students being integrated into Little Rock, Arkansas schools in spite of the violent opposition of a certain segment of the white population, the municipality of Saint-Léonard on the Montreal island went through it’s own episodes of violent riots over the integration of minorities.

The only difference is that in the case of Saint-Léonard, the white, French-speaking, majority was rioting against segregation, not in support of it.

Québec’s segregated school system is as old as Canada. It was a compromise of sorts between the Protestant industrialists of Montreal and the all powerful Catholic clergy who agreed that the province would have two completely separate and independently run school systems : one Protestant, one Catholic, which with time morphed into French and English-language systems. The dual school systems were constitutionalised in 1867 and, to this day, Québec is the only Canadian province constitutionally obligated to maintain « separate but equal » schools.

The Parti Québécois did it’s best in 1977 to create modern integrated system for all children, regardless of their origin, religion or home language.  Bill 101 established that all of Québec’s children would from now on study  and receive their education in French, the majority’s language.

Except for Québec’s English-speaking minority, of course, who’s right to it’s own parallel school system was protected.  To this day, anyone who has studied at least one year in an English school somewhere in Canada is allowed to opt out of the majority’s school system.

This, of course, is rationalised on the principal of some supposed right of children to receive education in their language.

That’s interesting because, at least in Montreal, the majority of English-speaking youth are not studying in English at all!

According to the English Montreal School Board as many as three out of four primary school students spend most of their schoolday in classes taught in French.  The so-called “core” program where the majority of classes are taught in English is the least popular of all the school board’s options and is being abandoned by parents who demand immersion and billitteracy curriculum for their children.

Even Québec’s stuffy English Private Schools that only a generation ago prepared kids in penny loafers to rule the world in English are now falling over themselves to provide rich people with the French the publicly-funded system can’t afford.  The students of Westmount’s Selwyn Housenow spend between 50% and 80% of their class time studying in French and have even added a French verse to their school hymn! (Which, I belive, was the number 3 demand in the FLQ manifesto.)

Outside Montreal the situation is even stranger with many English schools having a majority of French students and very few actual Anglos exercising their right to receive an English-language education in Québec.  In Québec City close to 60% of the students in English schools are Francophones.  This is possible because French-speaking, or for that matter, any family that has obtained a certificate of eligibility to English schools through, for example, a mixed marriage, can keep passing the privilege along to further generations until the End of Time.

(For example I posses one of the fabled Certificates of eligibility even though I was raised in a French-speaking household because my father was an alumni of the very English Lower Canada College. Had I exercised that right, I would have been able to pass it on to my descendants, regardless of the language they speak at home, as long as at least one kid from every generation studied for at least one year in an English school somewhere in Canada.

I, however, decided not to follow my father’s footsteps in the land of crew cuts (and also shattered my mother’s dream that I would study with the Jesuits of Brébeuf College like Pierre Elliot Trudeau) and once the ultra-nationalist unionized separatist teachers of l’École Notre-Dame-de-Grâce primary school were done thoroughly brainwashing my young impressionable mind, I decided to go to a multicultural French-language public High School instead.

So my family no longer belongs to the elusive society of the eligible…)

Hey, it’s not that it’s a bad idea for Québec’s English-speaking kids to take classes in French. What’s profoundly bizarre is the concept of English-speaking children immersing themselves in French in schools with no French kids two blocks away from an actual French school…

As even the Montreal Gazette reported, the result is technically bilingual kids who don’t know any French people and who are uncomfortable ordering a burger in French at McDonalds.

On the French side there is growing tension between proponents and opponents to the kind of bilingual programs that have become common on the English side.  While there is a lot of demand for them, opponents feel that the French schools’ mission of integrating immigrants into Québec society, especially in Montréal, could be seriously compromised if more English was introduced in the schools.

As a result, many French-speaking families in Montreal are massively abandoning the public school system for private schools that offer, among other things, better English classes.  Between 2001 and 2006 the number of students in Montreal’s private schools leaped by 30%.

All this together leads to a profoundly dyslexic school arrangement.  Immigrants to Québec are now intergrating themselves into Québec society in schools with no French-speaking Québécois, while Québec Francophones send their children to private schools.  Montréal Anglos are building their own parallel French school network with no French students while Francophones in the rest of the province are keeping an English school system alive even though there are no more actual English-speaking students.

Written by angryfrenchguy

August 18, 2009 at 3:04 pm

161 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “The dual school systems were constitutionalised in 1867 and, to this day, only Québec is the only Canadian province constitutionally obligated to maintain « separate but equal » schools.”

    This is simply not true. Ontario has a constitutionally protected separate Catholic School system, which originated at the same time as Quebec’s separate system.

    At least a separate system based on language makes a certain amount of sense, as you teach in a language but you do not teach in a religion.

    rww

    August 18, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  2. Ontario has four main school systems: English public, English Catholic, French public, and French Catholic.

    I was in Montreal on the weekend. It is bizarre to be asked a question in downtown Montreal in English first. I felt like I was in Luxembourg where all the signs are were in French but the locals spoke Luxembourgish. In downtown Montreal, people spoke to me in English first. Even the panhandlers begged in English.

    The school system as you describe it seems strange with allophones in the French school system, francophones in private schools, and the English school system being supported by francophones outside Montreal. It would be nice to have one school system. If I suggest one school system for Ontario, Franco-Ontarians would complain. So, too, would the Catholics. Nevermind that Catholic teachers teach in the public system.

    Skinny Dipper

    August 18, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  3. I know I’ve beaten this point to death here before, but how exactly would it benefit Quebec to have their kids exposed to even more English? The pro-single school system crowd seems to be advocating cutting off its tongue to spite its face.

    AS AFG wrote: “According to the English Montreal School Board as many as three out of four primary school students spend most of their schoolday in classes taught in French”

    So, anglo kids get to learn french without corrupting yours. It seems like a win-win. But something just doesn’t sit right about that. Anglos having something that belongs to them, so you want to take it away, consequences be damned.

    RoryBellows

    August 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  4. Et maintenant la question a 64,000$: Would kids in a unified Montréal school system speak English or French in the schoolyard and the lunchroom?

    littlerob

    August 18, 2009 at 5:31 pm

  5. On peut comprendre que, par sa pauvreté, une population puisse à la longue en venir à accepter d’être dirigée dans une autre langue que la sienne. On peut comprendre que la minorité qui possède l’argent et en maîtrise le mouvement puisse obtenir toutes les garanties constitu-tionnelles pour préserver ses droits linguistiques. Je n’ai cependant jamais admis que l’on fasse du bilinguisme institutionnel un idéal, un objectif moral, une sorte de vertu civique. On sait à quoi, en Belgique, a abouti une tentative de ce genre : une division claire du pays entre les deux communautés culturelles et linguistiques. Et en Suisse, trouve-t-on des écoles publiques allemandes dans le canton de Genève ou des écoles publiques françaises dans le canton de Zurich ? Non !

    http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/parizeau_jacques/pour_un_quebec_souverain/pour_un_quebec_souverain.pdf

    James

    August 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  6. Just wondering : couldn’t that be interpreted as a sign that the “two solitudes”, despite all the “scandals” that are brought up when there isn’t much to talk about in the news, are more open-minded than we might think? And if that’s the case, how is it bad? Weird, maybe… but bad?

    Vinster171

    August 18, 2009 at 9:15 pm

  7. Quebec’s education system is certainly bizarre but AFG’s explanation of it is, in places, even more bizarre.

    Although the piece gets better as we go along, AFG starts off with a peculiar black-is-white, up-is-down take on the situation when he writes:

    “The only difference is that in the case of Saint-Léonard, the white, French-speaking, majority was rioting against segregation, not in support of it.”

    First of all, the francophones were, largely, protesting against then-Union Nationale Premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand’s Bill 63 which created AS LAW the right to freedom of choice in language of education in Quebec.

    Freedom of choice is the OPPOSITE of segregation. We therefore have to assume that the francophone protesting against this reality were FOR segregation, not opposing it (unless, of course, they were for forcing all Quebec residents into French-speaking schools, regardless of constitutional guarantees to the contrary. This is, of course, a position that AFG has taken here on this forum and one that he probably thinks is wonderful, thus explaining his bizarre take on the situation).

    Thirdly, the BNA requirement of “separate” schools was separate in name only, at least as far as segregation was concerned. Yes, there were separate Catholic and Protestant schools. But it was up to each of the Boards that ran those schools as to whether they wanted to deny an applicant access to their schools. Catholics did so largely to Protestants and wholely to Jews whereas the Protestant schools accepted any and all into their schools (Jews were designated “Protestants” for the purpose of enrollment). Up until Bill 22 of 1974, over 90% of all immigrants chose to integrate into the English school system.

    That’s hardly segregation…but it would be once Bill 22 and Bill 101 came on the scene.

    So if there was segregation it was self-imposed by the Catholic schools, largely run by the clergy pre-Quiet Revolution. We — the English, largely Protestant, some Catholics, most Quebec Jews — were seen as “the other” and were not welcome into the francophone school system AND NEITHER WERE MOST IMMIGRANTS, although there were exceptions, such as the Italians who more than any other immigrant group attended French schools in large percentages (although that changed in the ’60s).

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 12:39 am

  8. Perhaps that’s what is called freedom of association and freedom of speech and should be left entirely up to the individuals in said schoolyard.

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 12:41 am

  9. Technical question for AFG:

    You say you have given up your right to attend English school because you didn’t go to one yourself (or, at least, not go the minimum number of years).

    Would it not have been enough just to get the certificate? That is, go down to whatever office you had to, prove that your father did his schooling in English, get the certificate, and that would be enough?

    And if you have or plan to have kids that the certificate could be handed down to them?

    I’m asking for real, not rhetorically as I’m not sure.

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 12:46 am

  10. I believe that a greater knowledge of English benefits Quebec because that will enable its francophone citizens to better compete and make money in this globalized economy where English is the language of commerce.

    That’s why I believe it necessary for Quebec to separate AND get rid of Bill 101 so that Quebec francophones are free to learn English.

    Take AFG for example. He speaks and writes English better than I do and most anglophones. Yet we wouldn’t in a million years even remotely suggest that he is less of a proud Quebecois because of it. If anything his knowledge of English makes him a stronger Quebecer and a stronger francophone.

    It is a lack of knowledge of English that will, ultimately, harm the French language and culture in Quebec because economic weakness is the #1 threat to French.

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 12:49 am

  11. Yes, but originally Ontario’s Catholic system entrenched in the BNA Act was not meant for the Franco-Ontarians, but for English-speaking Irish Catholics. The Franco-Ontarians, with some difficulty (the first fully French-language high school in Ontario only opened in the 1970s) used these legal provisions to push for and obtain some French (but technically Catholic as well) schools.

    In Quebec, the Protestant schools were destined to be English-language schools for the anglo minority from the outset in the 19th century.

    Acajack

    August 19, 2009 at 7:41 am

  12. I have a question. I work with an Australian and he sends his kids to the Francophone schools, but says once they reach secondaire, he will send them to Anglophone schools. Now, I have always thought that you had to be from CANADA and have done some of your schooling in English to be eligible, but he said that if you’re from an Anglophone country, you can also get in. Now, I don’t think (or have never thought) this to be true, but maybe I am wrong? The francophones in my office also say that his children can study in English if they want.

    Which is correct? Do Aussies, Kiwis, Yanks, and Brits have this right or not? (or maybe they technically don’t, but loi 101 is so weak now they can find a way around it?)

    Anonymous

    August 19, 2009 at 7:53 am

  13. “Freedom of choice is the OPPOSITE of segregation. We therefore have to assume that the francophone protesting against this reality were FOR segregation, not opposing it (unless, of course, they were for forcing all Quebec residents into French-speaking schools, regardless of constitutional guarantees to the contrary. This is, of course, a position that AFG has taken here on this forum and one that he probably thinks is wonderful, thus explaining his bizarre take on the situation).”

    Let’s say we create seperate school systems for Black people and for White people. Let’s say that both can go to each other system. We’re still in the presence of segregation – even with freedom of choice. Segregation can exist by law or throught social norms, as in my example.

    FX

    August 19, 2009 at 7:57 am

  14. You’re right and all the others are wrong.

    Section 23.1.a of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow immigrants from English-speaking countries whose “first language learned and still understood” is English AND become Canadian citizens to send their children to English publicly funded schools in Quebec.

    HOWEVER, section 59 of the Constitution Act of 1982 says that 23.1.a does NOT come into effect in Quebec until the Quebec government or a resolution by the Quebec National Assembly allows it.

    This has not yet been allowed.

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  15. P.S.

    Anonymous, email the following link to your Australian friend. It will explain the problem with section 23.1.a and section 59 and how it applies in Quebec:

    http://www.whycanadamustend.com/Chapter%205.htm

    .

    Tony Kondaks

    August 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm

  16. No they don’t as Tony Kondaks said. The problem was that if you extend it to these people from Oz, the US, etc., do you also extend it to people from places like India and Hong Kong, where English has official or quasi-official status? What about Pakistan? The Philippines? It potentially never ends.

    So the end result is that everyone who goes to public school in Quebec goes in French, except for (roughly defined) English-speaking Canadians.

    Acajack

    August 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  17. I disagree.

    First of all, a hypothetical situation as you describe it above is impossible to occur. However, even assuming it did, if nothing stopped anyone from any of the other groups from attending the other group’s schools, then there is no segregation.

    Tony Kondaks

    August 20, 2009 at 12:24 am

  18. Ontario has no constitutionally-protected french language school system. Heck, they closed all the french schools 97 years ago!!!

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 1:27 am

  19. I believe that a greater knowledge of English benefits Quebec because that will enable its francophone citizens to better compete and make money in this globalized economy where English is the language of commerce.

    Cue the rhodesian dopes who wants to shove his idiom down the throats of others because they’re too darn fucking stupid to learn any other.
    What should be done is simply close the english schools altogether, constitution notwithstanding. What is Canada gonna do? Send the mounties to tazer us?

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 1:31 am

  20. Ah, yes the freedom to bludgeon others…

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 1:31 am

  21. Up until Bill 22 of 1974, over 90% of all immigrants chose to integrate into the English school system.
    So if there was segregation it was self-imposed by the Catholic schools, largely run by the clergy pre-Quiet Revolution. We — the English, largely Protestant, some Catholics, most Quebec Jews — were seen as “the other” and were not welcome into the francophone school system AND NEITHER WERE MOST IMMIGRANTS, although there were exceptions, such as the Italians who more than any other immigrant group attended French schools in large percentages (although that changed in the ’60s).

    Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
    That’s the canadian disinformation at work here.
    Tony carefully avoids saying that the immigrants got the message that they ought to send their kids to english schools, to turn them into english, “to have better jobs”. And when immigrants came here, they saw that the french are the niggers, and who wants it’s children to turn into niggers?
    That’s how the english have managed the tour de force of turning the italians against the french!
    The wops didn’t want their kids to become niggers, so they sent them to english schools. (Yeah, I say “wop” because people who get used as tools against the french deserve no respect).
    And the scatholic clergy certainly didn’t want any strangers to pollute the cleanly-brainwashed brains of their scatholic sheeple; that’s why they refused all immigrants.
    “Self inflicted”, yeah, right, self inflicted with a generous help from the Britshit North American Act that gave the control of education in Québec to the scatholic church, so the french could be brainwashed into not becoming businessmen and compete against the incompetent family compact.
    We see how much Québec businessmen raise without the Bay Street ole’boys network and started kicking english arse once we ditched all the scatholic bullshit in the garbage heap of History.
    Tony Kondaks wants to get rid of law 101 because in his mind, he thinks that if he does business in french, he’ll do less money.
    He doesn’t give a hoot about our welfare! He just wants to be unbothered by french. Nothing else.

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 1:41 am

  22. Hmmm . . .my colleague is convinced he is right, but oh well, I would rather not start trouble here by insisting he is wronge. Thank you for clarifying this.

    Anonymous

    August 20, 2009 at 7:24 am

  23. RoryBellows,

    “So, anglo kids get to learn french without corrupting yours. It seems like a win-win. But something just doesn’t sit right about that. Anglos having something that belongs to them, so you want to take it away, consequences be damned.”

    Don’t you want anglo kids to go to the same schools as franco kids and others so that they can be part of the same society et cetera? It is not a win-win if they lead separate lives.

    It is silly to say that there will be a corruption of French if Anglos, Allos and Francos get together.

    Antonio

    August 20, 2009 at 8:44 am

  24. Jean Naimard

    “What should be done is simply close the english schools altogether, constitution notwithstanding.2

    I agree with you except for the part about ignoring the constitution. It is important to have law and order, so we need to respect the constition that Quebec is under, even if it was imposed on it. The best solution to this is independence so that Quebec can have its own constitution that calls for only a single-school system just like every other Western country in the world.

    Antonio

    August 20, 2009 at 8:50 am

  25. Seems to me like you’re fighting “canadian disinformation” with some “separatist disinformation” of your own…

    “…the Britshit North American Act that gave the control of education in Québec to the scatholic church, so the french could be brainwashed into not becoming businessmen and compete against the incompetent family compact.”

    Here’s a little piece of wisdom: judging the past with modern eyes is often a mistake. At a time when religion was very important in the lives of people, this “brain washing strategy”, as you see it with your modern eyes, was probably seen as a graceful act of compromise by the invader at the time. In those days, any action taken against the catholic church would have caused a rebellion (seeing how faith was very important in those days, it would have been a form of Holy War!), and the Brits clearly didn’t want that. Of course the catholic church took advantage of it! But blaming it on the Brits, who probably never foresaw what would happen, is a very long shot! But whatever: I still don’t see how you can blame anglophones and hold a grudge against them for actions that were done by the Brits 150-250 years ago.

    “Tony carefully avoids saying that the immigrants got the message that they ought to send their kids to english schools, to turn them into english, “to have better jobs”

    Do you mean to tell me that it is absolutely false to pretend that it is easier to get a good and well-paid job when you can speak English? The fact that North America is predominantly English should tell you otherwise….

    “That’s how the english have managed the tour de force of turning the italians against the french!”

    I believe this is called paranoia.

    “Tony Kondaks wants to get rid of law 101 because in his mind, he thinks that if he does business in french, he’ll do less money.”

    Sorry to burst your bubble… but chances are that if you are doing business ONLY in French, you’ll likely make less money. Of course, there are a few exceptions.

    “We see how much Québec businessmen raise without the Bay Street ole’boys network and started kicking english arse once we ditched all the scatholic bullshit in the garbage heap of History.”

    Getting pumped up for the next Patriote walk? Of course we have very competent businessman in Québec. I believe that most of them are bilingual however… Anyways, aren’t we drifting away from this school subject?

    Vinster171

    August 20, 2009 at 9:51 am

  26. Just a though here about the following statement :

    “Hey, it’s not that it’s a bad idea for Québec’s English-speaking kids to take classes in French. What’s profoundly bizarre is the concept of English-speaking children immersing themselves in French in schools with no French kids two blocks away from an actual French school…”

    Don’t you think, AFG, that when you want to learn a new language, you have to start somewhere? I mean, would it be realistic for kids that have been raised in English to start their elementary school in French? Isn’t it better for them to start learning the language slowly, gradually? And if that’s the case, isn’t it great that they are insisting on getting more French classes as time goes by?

    I think that the point you are raising is that you find it odd that these young people that are learning the language don’t have real occasions to speak and live in French in their everyday life. How is it different from a kid from Chibougamau who’s learning English as a second language in school?

    Personally, I think that what The Gazette and you are reporting is in fact a very good sign: anglophone parents want their kids to be fluent in French, and kids are all for it. I don’t find it weird at all.

    Vinster171

    August 20, 2009 at 10:06 am

  27. I’m having my popcorn machine on hot standby for when he finds out he’s wrong…

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 10:15 am

  28. Indeed. This is the perverse effect of Canada on Québec that will not be solved until Québec gets independent. Because there is absolutely no chance in hell that Canada will ever accept that Québec ditch english schools altogether.
    Only then it’s going to be a matter of course that everyone goes to the same school.

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 10:17 am

  29. Seems to me like you’re fighting “canadian disinformation” with some “separatist disinformation” of your own…

    Being the colonized/conquered makes us **RIGHT**. Period. (Yes, this means you are **WRONG**). And I’m not the one who says that, that’s the judgement of History.
    “…the Britshit North American Act that gave the control of education in Québec to the scatholic church, so the french could be brainwashed into not becoming businessmen and compete against the incompetent family compact.”

    Here’s a little piece of wisdom: judging the past with modern eyes is often a mistake. At a time when religion was very important in the lives of people, this “brain washing strategy”, as you see it with your modern eyes, was probably seen as a graceful act of compromise by the invader at the time.

    No fucking way. The britshit never did anything for free. Every single move of them was carefully calculated to bring the maximum immediate reward. To them.
    The “graceful act of compromise” was just to avoid being kicked back into the sea by the majority of the french and their indian allies.
    And just to see how the britshit are so shortsighted, the necessary accommodation of the scatholic religion in Canada by softening their anti-scatholic discrimination laws scared the shit out of the US colonies and was a factor that pushed them to rebellion.

    Of course the catholic church took advantage of it! But blaming it on the Brits, who probably never foresaw what would happen, is a very long shot! But whatever:

    The incompetent family compact that rules Canada didn’t take long to notice that the devout scatholics would refrain from engaging in commerce, because for scatholics, making profits is a one-way ticket to hell (I still recall being taught at school that “money is the devil’s dung” — yes, that was actually written in a schoolbook of mine — «L’argent, c’est le crottin du diable»). This was a godsend for the britshit merchants that were too incompetent to make a living in Britain and got washed ashore here; an economically virgin territory where the natives would not engage in competition was a godsend. It didn’t take them long to figure that if they could brainwash the majority of french into never wanting to go in commerce, they would be advantaged.
    And during the Patriotes’ rebellion, the church clearly sided with the britshit. 30 years later, satisfied by the utmost fidelity of the scatholic church to help impose britshit rule, the church was rewarded by the constitutionalization of their monopoly on education for the french.
    It was a win-win situation: the church gained a steady supply of sheeple it could fleece (witness the magnificent churches they have built all over the place — where do you think the $170 million the grey nuns were swindled from with the Marché Central affair came from? From the pockets of us, sheeple!!!) and the incompetent family compact was guaranteed that no french would get in business and prove to be competition.

    I still don’t see how you can blame anglophones and hold a grudge against them for actions that were done by the Brits 150-250 years ago.

    Reality check: it was done until 12 years ago, when the britshit north america act was amended to allow Québec to kick the scatholic church out of the control of education.
    12 years ago, that’s AFTER the second referendum, you know, the one we almost won?

    Do you mean to tell me that it is absolutely false to pretend that it is easier to get a good and well-paid job when you can speak English? The fact that North America is predominantly English should tell you otherwise…

    I mean to tell you that the only reason why we are forced to speak a strange language in our native land in order to earn a good living is that the english are too fucking stupid to learn french. And I’m not talking about a job where you deal with the US, I’m talking about any friggin job above the janitor or shipping clerk level.
    In all of the jobs I had, I never had to deal with the USA. But I had to deal with plenty of english who did not speak french, and I just would not have had those jobs if I didn’t speak english because they are too darn fucking stupid to learn french.

    “That’s how the english have managed the tour de force of turning the italians against the french!”
    I believe this is called paranoia.

    No, it’s called observation of the facts.

    “Tony Kondaks wants to get rid of law 101 because in his mind, he thinks that if he does business in french, he’ll do less money.”
    Sorry to burst your bubble… but chances are that if you are doing business ONLY in French, you’ll likely make less money. Of course, there are a few exceptions.

    Well, you believe the canadian kool-aid, obviously. What can I say? Obviously you cannot be educated.

    “We see how much Québec businessmen raise without the Bay Street ole’boys network and started kicking english arse once we ditched all the scatholic bullshit in the garbage heap of History.”
    Getting pumped up for the next Patriote walk? Of course we have very competent businessman in Québec. I believe that most of them are bilingual however… Anyways, aren’t we drifting away from this school subject?

    Yes, we are drifting and you will obviously soon run out of arguments…

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 10:36 am

  30. But why can’t they then send their kids to french school?

    When I was a kid, I went to a french private school, and there were about 10% of english kids whose parents wanted them to learn french.

    No, the reason is that there are some rhodesians, à la Kondaks here, who want to stay in their little english ghetto.

    Jean Naimard

    August 20, 2009 at 10:38 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: