This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
400 000 individuals as of December 2003 is impossible. According to demographer Michel Paillé, Quebec received only 167 700 immigrants under 18 years old between 1977 and 1999. In 2001, 103 600 were 18 or over. Paillé took into account mortality and out-migration of children, as well as female immigrants’ fertility. Rustine (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
^Michel Paillé, «L’enseignement en français au primaire et au secondaire pour les enfants d’immigrants : un dénombrement démographique», dans : Pierre Bouchard et Richard Y. Bourhis, éd., L’aménagement linguistique au Québec : 25 ans d’application de la Charte de la langue française, Québec, Les publications du Québec, 2002, p. 51-67.
I do not know where that information came from and for sure it needs a source. But one thing is sure in my mind, counting the number of immigrants under 18 years old between 1977 and 1999 is not the way to obtain a correct measure of the number of allophone children who where schooled in French in Quebec during the same period. Basically, it is a false assumption to assume they are all immigrants. The "Children of Bill 101" are young allophone immigrants or Quebec-born allophones (whose parents were immigrants but not them) who came to be schooled together with the majority of Quebecers in French-language schools. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill 101 has nothing to do with the mother tongue of the children. Basically, Bill 101 deals with the language of schooling of the mother or the father. So, Paillé took the number of all immigrants who arrived in Québec under 18 years old after Bill 101. Then, the Children of Bill 101 are all young immigrants and all Quebec born-kids from immigrant-women who arrived after Bill 101. In his paper, Paillé's sources and methodology are very clearly stated. Rustine (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with Paillé's study, methodology or conclusion. I am aware that Bill 101's main criterion is the language of schooling of the mother or the father. The issue here is the definition of "Children of Bill 101" which you introduced in your paragraph under the above Correction heading in this talk page. The Children of Bill 101 are by definition all those Quebec children (immigrant and non-immigrant) who were schooled in Quebec's mainstream French-language education system after 1977. Naturally, only the non-francophone among them are of interest if we are talking about language shifts from language x to French.
Paillé considers all international immigrants under 18 years of age (allophone or not) in table 2. These 167 700 immigrant children are only a subset of all children who came to be schooled in French as a result of Bill 101 (including or excluding francophones). Paillé is in addition counting only some of the Quebec-born children brought up by immigrant (and often allophone) parents after 1977. His focus is on international immigrants.
Also, the figures of 93 800 and 100 600 given by Paillé are for adults in 2001. That clearly means not all children of Bill 101, only those who have gone through the system and got out (with or without diploma). Regarding language shifts, the adoption of a language other than one's own native language is not something that magically occurs once you turn 18. Basically, neither of Paillé's figures are what we are looking for if were are going to quantity either a) the approximate total number of children of Bill 101 (regardless of mother tongue or not, still in school or not) or b) the part of them who shifted from language x to French at home. Paillé's study gives (as far as I know) accurate and certainly useful data, but only on a segment of the whole population.
Regarding the unsourced figure of 400,000 which was in the article before, I have found what might have been the source of it: . Maybe that figure was an approximation of all children of bill 101, regardless of their age in 1998, their place of birth, and their native or adoptive language? If that figure is totally wrong or bloated in any way, I of course support its being replaced by whatever is a more accurate one. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all your saying. According to WP’s rules, we have to give sources to all infos. Of course, the figure of 400,000 was unsourced. You have found a possible source. But in my view, Gousse is not credible. For example, saying in 1998 that “Ces quelque 400 000 jeunes aujourd'hui ont au plus 26 ans », means that they were born in 1972 and after. So, in Gousse’s mind, immigrants aged 10-14 who arrived en 1980 are not children of Bill 101 simply because they were born between 1966 and 1970. Then, Gousse has no credibility to me. In Bill 101, 1972 is not a threshold compare to August 26th 1977 which shares schooling according to language of teaching. Moreover, he gives no methodology to reach 400 000. His main purpose is elsewhere: how the PQ could do Québec’s political independence. Finally, I support your last sentence. Best regards Rustine (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that we agree. :-) I do not know where Gosse's takes his 400,000 children or his 26 years max: he is not quoting any serious document. That is a problem. Maybe the figure is in a study by Marie McAndrew? He does mention her. I would tend to trust her figures. I'll keep searching for a while. It must be possible to quote someone who counted all those children who went to school after 1977. The Ministère de l'éducation surely did. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Validity of the "Effects of Bill 101" section
The "Effects of Bill 101" paragraph makes the claim that "there has been no discernable loss of English after the bill". This is a dubious, open-ended statement that is not well explained, researched or referenced. The indisputable fact is that the implementation of bill 101 has resulted in a large exodus of anglophone Quebecers leaving Quebec for other provinces, while Quebec's anglophone school boards (such as LBPSB and the EMSB) continually lose funding and enrollment. A quick Google search for statistical data clearly shows the numbers. And, other pages with more rigorous research clearly illustrate this trend in Wikipedia. For instance, the more impartial page on English-speaking Quebecers states, and references the following: "The English-speaking population has shown an accelerated decline in population between 1971 and 2001. During this interval, the number of mother tongue anglophones has decreased from 788,830 to 591,365 representing a drop in its share of the Quebec population from 13.1% to 8.3%. This is attributed primarily to an exodus of anglophones to other provinces and raised questions about the sustainability of the community... ...Immigration from other countries and integration of allophones helped to partially alleviate the impact of this trend. In 2001, one in three immigrants to Quebec was English-speaking and settled in Montreal. This made the decrease in home-language anglophones less pronounced, particularly in the Montreal area. This situation is rapidly changing as the vast majority of immigrants now adopt French as their first language: three quarters of linguistic transfers of allophones arriving between 2001 and 2006 allophones arriving have been towards French instead of English." - The use of Michel Paillé's blog as the only reference for this Wikipedia entry makes for a dubious entry, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)