From: gordon@maxwell.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan)
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:13:21 GMT

In article <Btnv6o.Hw4@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <BtLJ61.JAx@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
>>
>>This is a pretty vapous argument.  There is no way you can make the claim that
>>laws prevented people from migrating there.  And then to go on to claim that
>>this forced them to be assimilated is also suspect.  At worst it would have
>>prevented their leaving Quebec, it would do nothing to force assimilation.  It
>>didn't even force assimilation of the French that were in the west.
>
>This is one part of the problem : if Canada was that generous with francos,
>why is the west almost unilingual anglo?  Why does it take one century

Well, as I said in another post I am not trying to defend what happened in the
west.  But I also pointed out that during the period that Manitoba was
officially bilingual, English migration to the province greatly out numbered
French migration.  If you combine this with the massive immigration from
eastern Europe that occured then there is no reason to believe that the west
would be any less predominately English than it is today.  But, of course,
all either of us can do is express an opinion since neither of us can prove
what might have happened.

>to change the illegal law in Manitoba that make it unilingual?
>Just look some historical books and you'll see that a lot of people
>tried to redirect to west the migration to south.  Would the Manitoba

Actually this is new and unknown to me.  I would be interested in learning
more if you can provide me with some references.

>
>But, we can redo the history.  We just can remember.
>

Very true and we should also make sure we don't repeat it.  There are many
people that fell that Quebec is doing now exactly what Manitoba did in 1890
with its Bill 101 and 178.  I know you would not agree with that statement
and will argue that these measures were necessary.  I don't want to debate
that yet again, that is not my reason for bringing this up.  But I would like
for you to consider the outcome of what happened in Manitoba.  You say these
laws were insulting to the French because they outlawed their language and
tried to force them to assimilate.  And these laws did insult and hurt people
and them angry.  Its an anger that they still aren't over.  But most
importantly the laws didn't work.  The French language is still alive in
Winnipeg and the surrounding towns.  I beleive in 100 years people will look
back at Bills 101 and 178 with the same way they look at the Manitoba French
Schools act.  You can not force the English in Quebec to assimilate and all
these laws do is create ill will.  So yes, we all should remember our history.

>>Yes there was an agreement in principle about what should be in the
>>constitution itself.  But, this is a different matter.  The repaitriation of
>>the consistution was unilateral by Treadeau himself.  The point is that there
>>never was a need for a province to sign the constitution and no province
>>ever did.  If you don't beleive me go look.  Read a copy of the constitution
>>and try and find anywhere where a representative of any province signed it.
>
>In that case, what was Meech Lake agreement?  If Quebec was in the
>constitution as any provinces, Meech Lake is totally useless, just like
>the current discussions!

As Tom said in another posting, the constitution has legal weight in Quebec
but the failure of the Quebec government to agree to the repatriation reduces
its *moral* weight in Quebec somewhat.  Meech Lake was about addressing
Quebec's concerns.  Personnally, I beleive Meech Lake was nothing more than
Mulroney paying off the political dues in owed to his Quebec caucus for
getting him elected.  But that is just my view (I also think you are right,
it was useless :-) )

>
>>The point of what I am trying to say is that it is simply too easy to blame
>>the people outside of Quebec for what you preceive as all the problems.  I
>
>I don't blame people out of Quebec!
>

My mistake, when you use the global term anglo's I tend to widen the borders
a little I guess.

>>don't accept your aguements that somehow all English speaking people are
>>evil oppressors bent on dominating the French people.  It is too simple to
>>say that.  The government and system we live in today, the one you seem to
>>disagree so strongly with, is just as much a result of the French in Quebec
>>as anyone else.  You must remember that Quebec itself is not a monolithic
>>entity and there are French people with different views on how the country
>>should be structured.  And it is those people, more than anyone, who had a
>
>A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.  In national days
>celebration, most Quebecois will celebrate Quebec National Day while
>_anglo-quebecois_ will celebrate Canada days.  I think this is meaningful.

I will agree that Quebec is more monolithic that most provinces and is
certainly more inward looking.  However, this does not translate to *one* view
of the world.  Now it is true you only said a wide majority which does leave
room for other opinions but one must guard against assume more people agree
with you than really do.  I mean most people in Canada (I think this applies
to Quebec as well) really don't give a damn about the consistution beyond a
few basic principles such as freedom of speech and equality before the law.
Beyond that it really doesn't matter.  Take for example this division of
federal/provincial powers in the latest constitutional proposals.  Do you
think the average man on the street really cares which government sends him
his unemployment check?  I can't imagine it would make much of a difference
as long as the money shows up.  Now granted he may have a preference but would
it really be that important?  That is what makes me really angry over this
constitutional debate.  Most of it is about petty power grabs by civil servants
and nothing to do with the people.

>
>>large hand in writing our current constitution.
>>
>>What I am trying to say is that you should not see the people around you as one
>>of enemies but rather as people trying, but always succeeding, to do what they
>>think are best for everyone.
>
>Some error in that phrase?  isn't it ... but never succeeding ... ?
>I'm not sure at all anglos are working for the best of francos' interest.
>Indeed, it was not before 1976 that the situation began to change in a
>deep manner.

Sorry, I meant not always (although perhaps never fits as well).  Besides
do you think anything has changed?  It seems we are still fighting over the
same things as in 1976.
>-- 
>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca

Gordon

Newsgroups: can.politics