The Parti Québecois came to power after winning the election of 1976 promising the Francophone population that the French language would become the dominant language within the province of Quebec. French speaking Quebeckers voted for the Parti Québecois giving them forty-one percent of the popular vote and increased the party’s seats from seven to seventy-one.[1] The Liberals only kept twenty-eight seats. Many blamed the Liberals, under the leadership of Robert Bourassa, for failing to protect and preserve the French language within Quebec. Many criticized the Bourassa government’s Bill 22 as having too many exceptions and loopholes to make a difference. René Lévesque, the leader of the Parti Québecois, had promised during the election of 1976 to implement a new language law that would guarantee the protection and promotion of the French language within Quebec as well as “a referendum on Quebec sovereignty before the end of his term.”[2]
The newly formed government quickly got to work on the promised language legislation. A white paper on language in the province of Quebec was presented in March 1977. It justified the creation of language legislation on the basis of the government’s vision of the future of the province. The forward of the paper can best describe the government’s vision of the future when it states:
The Quebec we wish to build will be essentially French. The fact that the majority of the population is French will be clearly visible – at work, in communications and in the countryside. It will also be a country in which the traditional balance of power will be altered, especially in regard to the economy; the use of French…will accompany, symbolize and support reconquest by the French-speaking majority in Quebec of all that control over the economy which it ought to have. To sum up, the Quebec whose features are sketched in the Charter is a French-language society.[3]
The Parti Québecois government wanted to ensure that the French-speaking people of the province of Quebec were able to seize control from their Anglophone counterparts and eventually lead the province into nationhood itself via the promised future referendum.
The white paper led to the creation of Bill 1 which was introduced on the 26th of April 1977. After the first reading of the bill, the legislation was sent to the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Education, Cultural Affairs and Communications for public hearings and submissions. As William D. Coleman writes, Bill 1 was saw extensive research and revision. “The Committee began the hearings on 7 June 1977, and held its final session one month later. In its 21 sessions spanning 114 hours and 24 minutes, it heard 62 briefs out of a total of 270 submitted.”[4] The Committee study of Bill 1 was unlikely to be completed before September and the beginning of the new school year. This timeline went against the government’s intentions of the legislation because Premier Lévesque wanted the legislation implemented before the coming school year. Therefore, Bill 1 was withdrawn and re-introduced as Bill 101 in the Quebec National Assembly.
On the 26th of August of 1977 the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec passed the ‘Charte de la langue francaise,’ otherwise known as Bill 101, by a vote of fifty-four to thirty-two.[5] Bill 101 protected and preserved the French language for Quebecers while antagonizing Quebec Anglophones. The legislation stated that only French would be the official language of the province of Quebec and did this by defining the roles of both public and private institutions in the areas of governance, business and education.
Reaction for and against the law came quickly. Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau “denounced Bill 101 as a ‘bad law’.”[6] The bill’s author, Quebec’s Minister of Cultural Development Dr. Camille Laurin, “argued that it was necessary to protect the French language.”[7] Reaction to Bill 101 came from across the country from academics, former and current politicians, and editorialists. However, in order to understand the reasoning behind Bill 101 and why it caused conflicting reactions amongst Canadians, an investigation of the legislation needs to be undertaken.
The areas of governance were bound by the government’s vision of creating a fully functional French-language society and were dealt with in Chapter four of Bill 101. To this end the Parti Québecois government attempted to make sure that all administrative functions at the municipal and provincial levels of government would be delivered in a Francophone atmosphere. Laws regarding civil administrations also applied to the administration and delivery of services in the fields of health, social services, the judiciary and education. The Francophone atmosphere, according to the legislation, could best be encouraged and enhanced through the planning and implementation of a ‘francization’ program. In other words, each government department at both the provincial and municipal level “were to undertake a systematic analysis of all communication taking place within their organization and then formulate a program for francizing all the operations involved.”[8] The programs had to ensure that: both internal and external communications were in French and that “promotions, hirings and transfers could only be done if the employee had an ‘appropriate’ knowledge of French.”[9] Thus, French could only be used, for example, to advertise programs, in the names of government departments, in departmental messages, published documents, in court rulings and on traffic signs.
The ‘francization’ programs would have to be approved by the newly created ‘Office de la langue francaise.’ The Office was created in order to implement and regulate the provisions of Bill 101 throughout the province of Quebec. Article 100 of Bill 101 gives the best description of the intentions of this office. The article states that the:
office de la langue francaise is established to define and conduct Québec policy on linguistics research and terminology and to see that the French language becomes, as soon as possible, the language of communication, work, commerce and business in the civil administration and business firms.[10]
The Office completes this work by issuing ‘francization’ certificates to both government departments and commercial institutions that have completed their francization programs in accordance with Bill 101. If a government department or commercial institution fails to meet the terms of the language legislation, the Office de la langue francaise must approve a new ‘francization plan’ or assist in instituting one of the Office’s own design.
Reaction to this section of Bill 101 came even before the legislation had been passed. Article nine of Bill 101 stated that only the French version of all court cases would be legal. This caused two opposition Liberal members John Ciaccia and Fernand Lalonde to point out these clauses would “place to much responsibility in the hands of translators.”[11] Ciaccia backed up his claim by using a court case from James Bay as an example. Ciacca said in this case the judge himself translated his English ruling into French. However, Ciacca noted, there remained differences between the French and English interpretations. Therefore, Ciacca claimed, it was necessary to have the original judgements be the legal rulings no matter if they were in English or French. Cultural Development Minister, Camille Laurin, dismissed this argument stating that their had been a significant number of “judicial appointments in past years…so that the judges had sufficient knowledge of French”[12] and that “Quebec has the right to be as massively French as other provinces have the right to be massively, English.”[13] The significant arguments made by the Liberal opposition members would go unheeded as article nine would be passed unchanged.
The sections of Bill 101 in regards to governance were not that controversial because of the simple fact that the vast majority of the civil service were mainly francophone. The civil service was already mainly francophone because of the fact that this was where the majority of the newly graduated francophone social science students originating from the Quebec universities of the Quiet Revolution were employed. During the Quiet Revolution the government of Quebec chose to heavily expand the provincial civil service in order to provide its citizens with services in French. Thus, the civil service required thousands of French-speaking workers in order to provide these services. Also, previous French-language legislation from both the preceding Union Nationale and Liberal governments had virtually saw the ‘francization’ of the provincial and municipal civil services. The only major change between Bill 101 and previous language legislation was that the quota for Anglophones to receive governmental services in English had been removed and replaced with a term stating that another language can be used if both parties agree. Therefore, Bill 101 was mainly to entrench in legislation a guarantee to French-speaking citizens the right for them to receive governmental services in French and to reduce the amount of English used within and outside of government to a minimum.
The educational system within the province of Quebec would undergo restructuring in order to try and slow the falling enrolment figures for Francophone schools. The restructuring under Bill 101 began at the top and worked its way down as the school boards themselves, like other government departments, had to go through a ‘francization’ process. School boards had to draft all their official documents and written communications in French. Also, the boards had to “undertake a systematic analysis of all communication taking place within their organization”[14] to ensure that all operations adhered to the guidelines set out in Bill 101. The only exception to the ‘francization program’ were the Anglophone school boards who, according to the law, could use both French and English if the majority of their clienteles were Anglophone.[15]
The existing English school system saw declining enrolment as a result of Bill 101. Under the language legislation, the only children that could attend English language schools had to adhere to at least one of the four guidelines. These guidelines, as set out under Article 73, were: “Children whose mother or father had received their primary schooling in Quebec in English”; “Children whose father or mother lived in Quebec at the time of the promulgation of the law and who had received their primary instruction in English outside Quebec”; “Children who in the previous school year had legally received instruction in English outside Quebec”; and “younger brothers and sisters of the latter.”[16] The section dealing with education was drafted so as to not upset the existing Quebec voting population. The above terms of legislation do not remove children from their existing English educational setting in order to move them into the French language system. Also, the very last clause of the above list allows the siblings of a child already enrolled in the English school system to receive his or her education also in English.
There were some stipulations that upset Anglophone Canadian parents. As Kenneth McRoberts notes in his book, Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis, the legislation “used the boundaries of Quebec as a point of reference, in effect denying access to children from other parts of Canada, even if English should be their mother tongue.”[17] The fact this clause meant that if a parent had been educated in the province of Ontario in English, their children would have to enrol in the French school system. However, if a parent had been educated in the English school system within Quebec, they could send their children to an English school system. This stipulation angered employers’ associations and groups who represented new Canadians. Employers’ associations argued that Anglophones moving into Quebec from elsewhere in Canada should be able to educate their children in English. The groups representing new Canadians who spoke neither English or French were upset that their were no clauses in Bill 101 for the instruction of second languages as their had been under the former Liberal government’s Bill 22.[18]
The stipulation that allowed only Anglophone parents to enroll their children in French schools was an easy way for the provincial government to reduce the costs of providing Anglophone education. The provincial government could make this promise because the Anglophone population of the province was in a severe decline. As historians Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English note in their book, Canada since 1945, “those with English as their tongue declined from 14 per cent of the population in 1941 to 10 per cent in 1986.”[19] Thus, the provincial government could easily afford to allow current Anglophone students, their siblings, and other children whose parents were educated in English, to be educated in the English school system
The reaction to this section of the bill can be seen in several ways. The legislation resulted in a sharp decline in registrations in the Anglophone school system in Quebec when “enrolment fell by 15.6 percentage points”[20] in the first two years under Bill 101. Another reaction to the new language legislation can be seen by the resignation of Sylvester White, an associate deputy minister within the Quebec Education Department. White resigned from his position because, he “simply found certain aspects of Bill 101 indigestible.”[21] White pointed out that he was against the article that “prevents English-speaking parents from other parts of Canada from registering their children in English schools if they move to Quebec.”[22] Sylvester White’s resignation over Bill 101 is most significant because, according to the Montreal Gazette, he held the highest-ranking post by an English-speaking Quebecer.[23] However, the biggest reaction came from Anglophone and Francophone parents who sought to have their children enrolled in English language schools illegally.
Thousands of students were illegally enrolled in the in the English language schools within the province of Quebec. Many school boards refused to enforce the language situation and allowed the parents to choose which language they felt their children should be educated in. Perhaps the largest of these boards to admit illegal children was the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal (PSBGM) who “decided to leave it up to parents themselves to decide whether their children qualify for English-language education and not demand proof.”[24] The PSBGM would admit as many as 800 illegals[25] of the estimated total of 2,100 children in the Montreal area alone by the Quebec Education Department.[26] The Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, responded to the admission of the illegal enrolments by saying the offending school boards had participated in “administrative civil disobedience…[which] cannot be tolerated.”[27] The situation only got worse for the school boards as Quebec Education Minister Jacques-Yvan Morin threatened school boards that the provincial government would not provide the $1,200 grants for students to school boards.[28] Morin also stated that his department would not grant credits or diplomas to students who were registered illegally.[29]
Both parents and students from a variety of backgrounds disliked the reasoning behind the need for the educational stipulations within Bill 101. They even went as far as to illegally enrol their children in English-language schools despite threats by the provincial government to not grant them credits or diplomas. However, Bill 101 easily accomplished its goals of increasing enrolment in the French educational system considering that the English language system, despite the illegal enrolments, saw its enrolments drop by over fifteen percent within the first two years alone.
The areas of business and commerce were also expected to ‘francize’. Several studies had found that French-Canadians living within the province of Quebec were earning less their Anglophone counterparts. Also, the provincial government found that the main language of business was English and they believed this needed to be changed. Therefore, Bill 101 layed out several clauses that business francization programs would have to adhere to by 31 December 1983 in order to receive a certificate from the ‘Office de la langue francaise’ and not face fines.[30] The clauses that affected signage were the most detailed. Commercial signs displayed externally had to be in French, while, interior signs could contain English, but the English had to be less prominent than the French.[31] Workers also had the right, under Bill 101, to not be fired, layed off, or displaced because they only spoke French. Also, all contracts had to be drawn up in French unless the two parties agreed the contracts could be drawn up in another language, not necessarily English. Under articles 57 and 58 of Bill 101, businesses are required to have applications for employment, order forms, invoices, receipts, signs, posters and commercial advertising solely in the French language.[32] Also, every firm name had to be in ‘francized’ by the 31st of December of 1980. However, an exception was made for businesses that were registered under the incorporation laws that do not allow a company name to be changed. The clauses affecting businesses and commercial institutions were estimated to have cost Quebec firms $107,150,000.[33] There is little doubt as to why the Anglophone business community protested Bill 101 right from the bill’s drafting.
Under pressure from the business sector, the Parti Quebecois was forced to make changes to Bill 101. As historian Richard Jones points out, the Parti Quebecois exempted “head offices and research centres…from the laws provisions. [Also,] professionals who had no contact with the public would not have to pass a test of French proficiency.”[34] However, the Parti Quebecois did not want the head offices to be dominated by anglophone businessmen alone. Thus, head offices and research centres that were to be exempted from Bill 101 were to negotiate with the Office de la langue francaise on which clauses they could be exempted from. However, the clauses of Bill 101 affecting internal communications, advertising and terminology amongst employees would not be exempted.[35] Even these exemptions created by amendments to Bill 101 did not satisfy many in the Anglophone business community as a number of businesses and head offices chose to leave Quebec because of the language laws.
Bill 101 did accomplish the Parti Quebecois’ goals of increasing the earnings of French-Canadians workers. The main idea of Bill 101 was to increase the demand for French language skills in the workplace and reduce the demand for English language skills. With the increase in demand for French language skills, the Parti Quebecois hoped that the Quebec economy would increase it’s demand for francophones in managerial and other occupations. Economists Daniel M. Shapiro and Morton Stelcner completed a study in 1997 that showed the earnings differential between Francophones and Anglophones between 1970 and 1990 had indeed closed. The earnings gap between unilingual francophone men and unilingual anglophone men in 1970, according Shapiro and Stelcner’s study, saw an earnings gap of between 17 to 20 percent. While in 1980 “the earnings gap between unilingual francophone men and anglophone men declined to between 5 to 7 percent. In 1990 the results for the same groups showed an increase in the income earnings to between 8 and 9 percent. These numbers are in sharp contrast to the income disparities between bilingual francophone and anglophone men who, according to the study, saw their income disparities during this same time period vanish.[36] Therefore, despite Bill 101, the demand for the English language still remained high enough to maintain and eventually increase the income disparities between unilingual Anglophones and Francophones. However, the new language law, according to their study, did increase the demand for French-language services within the Quebec economy.
Anglophone businessmen were deservedly upset with the passing of Bill 101. The language legislation that the Parti Quebecois instituted cost the Anglophone businesses millions of dollars to implement. However, some Anglophone businesses, even today, refuse to adhere to the language stipulations of Bill 101. These businesses, for example, quite often post illegal English only signs on the exteriors or interiors of their establishments. This causes the ‘Office de la langue francaise’ to enforce the law, under article 205 of Bill 101, to hand out fines of between $250 to $7,000 depending on the infraction. Bill 101, however, was successful in increasing the number of positions that required a knowledge of the French language and, thus, reducing the income disparities between Anglophone and Francophone Quebecers.
Bill 101 antagonized Anglophones from across including both former and current politicians, academics, and even Anglophones Quebeckers themselves. Within the political field, responses were mainly the same from politicians outside of Quebec over Bill 101. Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker characterized Bill 101 as “a stroke against the Canadianism I’ve spent a lifetime trying to bring about” and called it “a complete denial of the rights of individual Canadians.”[37] However, others were more diplomatic in their opposition to Bill 101. For example, Ontario Conservative Leader and Premier of Ontario, William Davis reacted to Bill 101 with optimism. Davis hoped that the Parti Quebecois would “re-think…Bill 101, particularly in light of initiatives being taken in French-language education across Canada.”[38]
Anglophone academics were opposed to Bill 101. Historians Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English in their book, Canada since 1945, claim that “in protecting the language of the majority against the imagined terrors, the Parti Québécois saw fit to negate the rights of a minority of close to one million persons, to treat them as non-citizens, and their language as a non-entity. In doing so it violated the basic individual rights and appealed for the first time to the power of the state to coerce private citizens with respect to language they speak in their private and business lives.”[39] These views were quite typical of Anglophone academics and not just in the historical field. Associate Professor of Education at the UniversityMontreal, Alison d’Anglejan, denounced Bill 101 in her article in the Journal of Communication stating that Bill 101 attempted to diminish the status and prevent the growth of the historically important English-speaking community of Quebec by placing it on the same footing as “Italian, Greek, or Portuguese.”[40] Anglophone academics were heavily against the passing of Bill 101 and the bill’s intentions of protecting and promoting the French-language.
The biggest indicator that Bill 101 antagonized Anglophone Quebecers was the migration patterns that followed the implementation of the language legislation. Following the passage of Bill 101, some 50,000 people left Quebec. In comparison, 28,000 and 33,000 people left during the same time period of both 1975 and 1976 respectively.[41] The migration may have been due in part to the departure of several hundred of businesses from Quebec because of the language laws. Bill 101 caused severe antagonism and, thus, caused a severe outward migration of both people and commerce to other provinces.
The reaction to Bill 101 by Anglophones is what should be expected. However, some sacrifices by the Anglophone population of Quebec were needed in order to protect, preserve and promote the French language within the province. The changes under Bill 101 have stabilized and improved the usage of the French language within the sectors of governance, education, and business. Within the area of governance, Bill 101 ensured Francophones could receive governmental services at both the provincial and municipal levels as well as from the crown corporations associated with these levels of government. Also, the provincial level of government created the ‘Office de la langue francaise’ that would oversee the implementation and enforcement of Bill 101. The Office is also responsible for studying and making recommendations on what changes need to be made to Bill 101. In the area of governance, Bill 101 has successfully enshrined the rights of Francophones to receive services from government and, thus, preserve the French language.
In the area of education, Bill 101 has successfully preserved the French language, as well as allow Anglophones within the province to receive education in English. However, in order to encourage the development of French-language skills and the promotion of the French language within the province, the government required that new immigrants study the French language. The new immigrants were required to learn the French language in the province because that is what the language of business, under Bill 101, was. The Parti Quebecois had promised to the Francophone people that French would be the language of Quebec society, therefore, it was not unreasonable for the majority of the population to learn and study in French.
The areas of business and commerce required a balancing of Anglophone and Francophone interests. The government wanted to make French the language of business within an Anglophone dominated continent. The majority of the corporate head offices that were located in Quebec were owned by Anglophone firms and worked in by Anglophone workers. This created the need for legislation that would see the local economy use French as the main language of communication while allowing the head offices of the corporations to use English. Bill 101 was changed to allow the English provisions in order to keep needed corporate investment within Quebec. The Parti Québecois successfully balanced these linguistic interests by allowing the head offices to communicate using the English language while legislating the use of the French language within the Quebec economy. The successful balancing allowed the government of Quebec to keep the investment of the large corporations within the province and ensure the French language would become the language of business and commerce within the province.
The Parti Québecois’ new language laws were so successful that the French-speaking majority of the province became uninterested in separating from Canadian Confederation. Therefore, when the results were returned from the 1980 referendum showing that a majority of Quebecers wanted to remain Canadian, Bill 101 was partly to blame. Francophone Quebecers voting in the referendum were not worried about Anglo domination because the English language had virtually disappeared and the jobs of leaving Anglophones were now available for Francophone workers.[42] Bill 101 was so successful that the legislation cost René Lévesque the goal of separation that he had promised Quebecers in the election campaign of 1976.
Bibliography
“2,100 pupils flaunting 101 Quebec says.” The Montreal Gazette. 8 September 1977: 1 & 3.
Bain, Christopher. “Parents face paperwork in kindergarten sign-up.” The Montreal Gazette. 20 August 1977: 3.
Bain, Christopher. “Stand against Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 3 September 1977: 1.
Behiels, Michael. “Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois, 1968-84.” University of Ottawa. 2 April 2001.
“Bill 101: Charter of the French Language.” Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Ed. Richard Y. Bourhis. Clevedon, Avon,England: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1984: 262-284.
“Bill 101 not reality – UN chief.” Ottawa Citizen. 29 August 1977: 8.
Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. Canada since 1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.
“Civil disobedience threatens confusion at Que. schools.” Ottawa Citizen. 3 September 1977: 5
Coleman, William D. “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québécois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings. Ed. Michael D. Behiels. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 1987: 241-262.
Coleman, William D. The Independence Movement in Quebec 1945-1980. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
d’Anglejan, Alison. “French in Quebec.” Journal of Communication. 1979. Vol. 29, No. 2: 54-63.
“Dailies ask PQ to drop job ad rule in Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 17 August 1977: 2.
“Dief blasts bill: ‘Denial of rights.’” Ottawa Citizen. 29 August 1977: 8.
Ernhofer, Ken and Hubert Bauch. “Protestant schools aim to raise$1 million.” The Montreal Gazette. 3 September 1977: 1 & 2.
Ernhofer, Ken. “School’s back as parents prepare to defy Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 6 September 1977: 1 & 3.
Freeman, Alan. “Changes in Bill 101: Concessions for head offices.” Ottawa Citizen. 25 August 1977: 10.
“French-only judgments jeopardize courts: MNAs.” The Montreal Gazette. 17 August 1977: 4.
Gillmor, Don, Achille Michaud and Pierre Turgeon. Canada: A People’s History. Vol. 2 Toronto: McLelland & Stewart Ltd., 2001.
Goldbloom, Michael. “Diefenbaker back in form Trudeau, Horner on hit list.” Montreal Gazette. 15 August 1977: 3.
Hunter, Iain. “Bill 101 defied: Civil Disobedience alleged by Premier.” Ottawa Citizen. 31 August 1977: 9.
Jones, Richard. “Politics and the Reinforcement of the French Language in Canada and Quebec, 1960-1986.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings. Ed. Michael D. Behiels. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, Ltd., 1987: 223-240.
Karon, Dan. “’Not problem area:’ ‘New’ pupils admitted in West Quebec” Ottawa Citizen. 7 September 1977: 8.
“La Chart de la langue francaise.” Office de la langue francaise. 2000. On-line. Internet. 30 Nov. 2001. Available: http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/index.html
Mackey, Frank. “Basic principles unchanged.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 5.
Mackey, Frank. “Federal action likely: Cheers for Bill 101 victory.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 1.
MacMillan, C. Michael. “Language Issues and Nationalism in Quebec.” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism. 1987 Vol. 14, No. 2: 229-245.
McRoberts, Kenneth. Quebec: Social Change and Political Crises. 3rd ed. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Morton, Desmond. “Strains of Affluence.” The Illustrated History of Canada. Ed. Craig Brown. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2000.
“No hard feelings, says educator who quit top position over Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 6 September 1977: 6.
“Pressure on federal govt. expected.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 5.
“PSBGM denies breaking Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 1 September 1977: 3.
“Que. school officials to PM: kill Bill 101.” Ottawa Citizen. 26 August 1977: 2.
"School rule is ignored in Montreal.” Ottawa Citizen. 7 September 1977: 8.
Shapiro, Daniel M. and Morton Stelcner. “Language and Earnings in Quebec: Trends over Twenty Years, 1970-1990.” Canadian Public Policy. 1997 Vol. 23, No. 2: 115-140.
“Supreme Court test studied for Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 30 August 1977: 1 & 2.
“Warning: Grants will be withheld.” Ottawa Citizen. 3 September 1977: 5.
Winter, Hal. “The talking’s over – Bill 101 is now law.” The Montreal Gazette. 27 August 1977: 1 & 2.
[1] Desmond Morton. “Strains of Influence.” The Illustrated History of Canada. Ed. Craig Brown. (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2000): 530.
[2]Don Gillmor, Achille Michaud and Pierre Turgeon. Canada: A People’s History. Vol. 2. (Toronto: McLelland & Stewart Ltd., 2001): 290.
[3]C. Michael MacMillan. “Language Issues and Nationalism in Quebec.” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism. 1987. Vol. 14 No. 2.: 232.
[4]William D. Coleman. “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québecois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings. Ed. Michael D. Behiels. (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., 1987): 244.
[5]Frank Mackey. “Federal action likely: Cheers for Bill 101 victory.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 1.
[6]Gillmor, Michaud and Turgeon, 290-291.
[7]Ibid. 291.
[8]William D. Coleman. The Independence Movement in Quebec: 1945-1980. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984): 198-199.
[9]Coleman, “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québécois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings, 245.
[10] “Bill 101: Charter of the French Language.” Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Ed. Richard Y. Bourhis. (Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1984): 272.
[11] Dr. Camille Laurin qtd. in “French-only judgments jeopardize courts: MNAs.” The Montreal Gazette. 17 August 1977: 4.
[12]Ibid., 4.
[13]Dr. Camille Laurin. qtd. in “French-only judgements jeopardize courts: MNAs.” The Montreal Gazette. 17 August 1977: 4.
[14]Coleman, The Independence Movement in Quebec 1945-1980, 199.
[15]Ibid. 198.
[16]“Bill 101: Charter of the French Language.” Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Ed. Richard Y. Bourhis, 269.
[17]Kenneth McRoberts. Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis. 3rd ed. (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 1993): 276.
[18]Coleman, “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québécois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings, 248.
[19]Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English. Canada since 1945. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989): 379.
[20]Coleman, “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québécois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings, 249.
[21]“No hard feelings, says educator who quit top position over Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 6 September 1977: 6.
[22]Ibid. 6.
[23]Ibid. 6.
[24]Iain Hunter. “Bill 101 defied: Civil Disobedience alleged by Premier.” Ottawa Citizen. 31 August 1977: 9.
[25]Ken Ernhofer. “School’s back as parents prepare to defy Bill 101.” The Montreal Gazette. 6 September 1977: 3.
[26]“2,100 pupils flaunting 101 Quebec says.” The Montreal Gazette. 8 September 1977: 1.
[27]Hunter, 9.
[28]“Warning: Grants will be withheld.” Ottawa Citizen. 3 September 1977: 5.
[29]“Ken Ernhofer and Hubert Bauch. “Protestant schools aim to raise $1 million. The Montreal Gazette. 3 September 1977: 2.
[30]Frank Mackey. “Basic principles unchanged.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 5.
[31]Daniel M. Shapiro and Morton Stelcner. “Language and Earnings in Quebec: Trends over Twenty Years, 1970-1990.” Canadian Public Policy. 1997. Vol. 23, No. 2: 117.
[32] “Bill 101: Charter of the French Language.” Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Ed. Richard Y. Bourhis, 268.
[33]Coleman, “From Bill 22 to Bill 101: The Politics of Language Under the Parti Québécois.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings, 254.
[34]Richard Jones. “Politics and the Reinforcement of the French Language in Canada and Quebec, 1960-1986.” Quebec Since 1945: Selected Readings. Ed. Michael D. Behiels. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, Ltd., 1987): 233.
[35]Alan Freeman. “Changes in Bill 101: Concessions for head offices.” Ottawa Citizen. 25 August 1977: 10.
[36] Shapiro and Stelcner, 120-121.
[37]“Dief blasts bill: ‘Denial of rights.” Ottawa Citizen. 29 August 1977: 8.
[38]“Pressure on federal govt. expected.” Ottawa Citizen. 27 August 1977: 5.
[39]Bothwell, Drummond and English, 381.
[40]Alison d’Anglejan. “French in Quebec.” Journal of Communication. 1979. Vol. 29, No. 2: 60.
[41]Bothwell, Drummond and English, 381.
[42] Morton, 536.