I don’t know French and couldn’t say, but in the French language, one doesn’t use apostrophe-S to indicate the possessive. I did see it used in France, though, where they’re not so paranoid about their language (their stop signs all say “stop” for example).
So in bad French, maybe “Le place du Ed” or whatever it would be grammatically in proper French.
Chez Ed.
Or you just put the apostrophe in a different spot: Le Café d’Ed. 
And not all the old people. My grandmother was in her eighties at the time, and I remember her marvelling at it, and telling me that I should be reading the French on the cereal boxes to help improve my French.
The phrase “under federal jurisdiction” is a bit ambiguous, and I would also respectfully disagree with the suggestion that French is second elsewhere.
All federal government offices and services are required to be bilingual, under the Official Languages Act, which only applies to the federal government. All the signage and documents must be bilingual.
That doesn’t mean that every federal civil servant providing services to the public anywhere in the country must be bilingual, but there must be a way to provide spoken services in either language, for example by having a dedicated telephone line to contact head office.
Some businesses that are under federal jurisdiction may have bilingualism requirements, but not all businesses under federal jurisdiction will have to be bilingual.
For example, inter-provincial transportation companies (Air Canada, WestJet, Via Rail) are under federal jurisdiction. Parliament has passed laws requiring them to provide bilingual services, regardless whether they’re a Crown corp like Via or a private sector company, like Air Canada and WestJet. The policy reason for this is that there’s a good chance of different language speakers in groups of travellers, so they have to provide the services bilingually.
On the other hand, there are other types of businesses that are under federal jurisdiction, but Parliament has not created bilingualism requirements for them. The banks are the best example of this - they’re federally regulated, but since banks operate locally, it’s left up to each bank to determine its own language policy.
Where there are bilingualism requirements under federal law, the two languages are given equal prominence in the signage and written materials. This is unlike the situation in Quebec, where provincial law requires that French be given a primary position.
Desole. Ma mère dit «regardez! Comprende!>> aussi.
Yes.
No. It used to be, but it’s not longer a common complaint. However, we just had an Albertan bitching about this in another thread a few weeks ago. Still, most people are used to it.
Yes. Federal signage doesn’t really put either “first,” but yes, federal facilities are bilingual.
Yes, no, and no. French must be “predominant.” It doesn’t have to be “Twice the size” of English. There is no law against other languages; the only critical thing is the predominance of French.
Yes and yes.
“La Source” is actually probably borrowed from “The Source,” a line of Circuit City-owned stores in Canada.
“Ed’s” would be allowed under some circumstances, like “Home Depot.”
I think French language laws are stupid, but there’s a history there worth explaining, if you’re interested.
It doesn’t have to be twice the size, but that’s one of the ways to ensure that your signage meets the “markedly predominant” requirement.
Desolé! It works in Firefox on my Mac… it’s a link to Google Translate’s version of this page. However, I do have a Google Translate “French” button in my browser; maybe that makes a difference.
[sub]It looks even more interesting in Hindi.[/sub]
Kind of like Shelley Long and Ted Danson in the credits for Cheers.
To further refute the “common complaint in Alberta that they are ‘forced’ to read French on their cereal boxes” assertion, it may be of note that Alberta shelf stockers don’t care which side of the package faces out. Anecdotal evidence only, I’m afraid, but taking a look at the shelves in the supermarket and the local 7-11 over the past couple of days, there was no consistency in whether the English or French sides displayed. And, perhaps strangely, Alberta shoppers were happily buying *flocons de mais *and *biscuits aux brisures de chocolat *along with their chicken noodle soup and frozen pizza. Nobody was keeling over because they saw an acute accent, a grave accent, a circonflex, or a cedille.
Admittedly, it was an unscientific poll, but I’m going to conclude that Albertans don’t complain. If they did, then Albertan stockers of packaged goods would have to follow the lead of their Quebec counterparts and spend some of their time checking to make sure which side of the package faces the consumer.
Is the thread in French French or Quebecois French?
It’s in Google French. It reads pretty awkwardly! But I wouldn’t say it was more or less Québecois or French French; written French tends to be much more similar than spoken French between the two. The parts of the cereal boxes that people from France might find more humourous are simply the words and names we choose to use for something, but not the grammar or spelling itself. Naturally, I can’t think of any examples at the moment.
This wiki entry covers the Charter of the French Language, which would answer a few of the questions you might have about how Québec handles French signage (and many other things!)
If I wanted to open a restaurant named “Ed’s” in Québec, the usual way would be to drop the apostrophe, making it “Eds” (or “EDs” or “Ed s” on a sign maybe) or stick a little maple leaf, or fleur-de-lys or other logo where the apostrophe would be, so you have the visual separation of an apostrophe without actually having one.
As for the quality of French on signs and packaging here, it usually is very good, because it remains a touchy subject for a lot of Québecois, and someone will invariably point it out and it will be corrected. The quality of English will range from impeccable to incomprehensible (even in English neighbourhoods; I went to a restaurant in Westmount recently that had omelts, fruit coktails and weat bread on its menu!)
If they see a diérèse, though, you’d better watch out. Good thing maïs was misspelled.
To this Merkin, “weat bread” is still more comprehensible than “brown bread.” 
Getting back to the OP’s question about the adequacy of translation, a friend of mine showed me a real howler a few years ago on a no-name package of bread crumbs.
The bread crumbs were finely ground, so on the English side it said “Fine.”
On the French side, it said “Amende.”
Only problem is that “amende” means the fine handed out by a court… :smack:
That’s my fault, really–I have no idea how to create accents with this keyboard.
While formal written French is virtually identical on both sides of the ocean, there are a few differences in vocabulary. One that always kills French tourists is the use of the word préservatif. In Canada, it’s a calque of the English “preservative”, and it’s something you put in food to make it keep longer. In Europe, it means “contraceptive.” So, French visitors always laugh at labels that proudly claim that there are no condoms in the jam.
There are some atrocious French translations in Canada. The Montreal free paper Voir used to run a short column titled De kossé? (“WTF?” In heavy Quebec vernacular) which listed the silliest examples of the week. It’s especially a problem where the translations exist solely for legal purposes. One that I remember made the news several years ago had to do with federal employment centres in Ontario that had totally incomprehensible French versions of job postings that had obviously been made by a machine.
