BILL 96 — RIGHT OR WRONG?
By: Julius H. Grey, constitutional lawyer
Is Bill 96 justified? Its proponents claim that its purpose is to preserve the French language for the generations that follow us. In principle, this is a reasonable and laudable goal, but it is not sufficient in itself. Three questions must be asked in order to determine whether the bill is justifiable.
1) Is French really in danger?
2) Could the proposed measures help French, assuming that such a danger exists?
3) Are the adverse effects of the legislation acceptable in the present circumstances?
IS FRENCH REALLY IN DANGER?
It has become a mantra in nationalist circles to assert that French is in danger and that Bill 101 has failed to prevent its decline. Certainly, English has become the dominant language throughout the world and nothing can remedy that, at least in the short term, but where are the signs of the decline of French here?
Bilingual signs, the use of English by citizens seeking public services, and the use of English alongside French can never serve as proof of decline. It is forgotten that Montreal has been a bilingual city for two centuries, that Montreal was once predominantly English, and that Montreal is an international center of commerce and technology which requires the presence of English.
Those old enough to remember the beginnings of the Quiet Revolution can tell us about commercial signage that was entirely in English, about the absorption of almost all immigrants into English schools, and about a downtown where it was difficult to get service in French. Decidedly, by all these standards, Bill 101 is a resounding success, not to mention the influence of Quebec culture around the world.
We will be told that immigrants, who are essential for our economic development, do not make the linguistic transfer to French in sufficient numbers. This is not true. Immigrants attend French schools and they learn and use French. Of course, like Francophones, they also learn English. Anyone who wants to live in Quebec, no matter where they come from, must master both languages for their careers and for their cultural development in America. It is true that the first generation of immigrants remain distinct from the Francophone majority or from Anglo-Quebecers, but the fusion always takes some time and it should be noted that in English Canada, where there are no linguistic debates, immigrants also remain distinct, partly because of the ideology of multiculturalism that Quebec, rightly, does not share.
Often the heralds of decline lament that the percentage of people who speak French at home has declined slightly. This is a natural phenomenon in a country of immigrants and it should be noted that English is also less often used at home. Moreover, it is undeniable that English speakers have lost much of their demographic weight. Indeed, it is illogical for nationalists to want to cut the number of bilingual institutions under the pretext that they no longer serve a majority of Anglophones and at the same time to predict the fall of French.
A brief survey of modern history confirms that there is no existential danger to French. Indeed, one can find no example of the disappearance of a majority language in a territory where a free and compulsory school system was in place in that language. This is the case in Quebec. The implementation of a system in another language can indeed harm a language. For example, the English Education Act of 1857, which established a network of English-language schools in England, dealt a severe blow to the Welsh language. This is pretty much what happened in Manitoba and Ontario after the abolition of French schools. It is therefore clear that Bill 101 of 1977 was justified and necessary and that freedom of choice is not an option. On the other hand, the explanation given for the adoption of Bill 96 is based on an imaginary fear that can never be realized.
While this is sufficient to demonstrate the futility of the bill, we will examine the other two questions for those who are not convinced that French is safe as a majority language.
IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT A DANGER EXISTED, WOULD THE PROPOSED MEASURES HELP FRENCH?
If, like many Quebecers, one assumed that there was a danger if only because of the dominant position of English in the world, the law would only be justified if it were likely to remedy the situation. However, there is no connection between the provisions of the law and the health of French at home.
The most significant result of this law will be the reduction of services offered in English by the public sector. We already know that both anglophones and allophones learn French even if they do not always adopt it as their home language. So the law will not increase the number of citizens who can speak French. It may affect some recent immigrants and visitors in their dealings with the public sector, but it will have no effect on integration. On the other hand, it will reduce the freedom of citizens. Being French or English speaking is not an immutable and uniform social condition. Some will prefer health services in English but other services in French. Some will be more Anglophone or Francophone at different stages of their lives. Everyone, including bilingual francophones, will be impoverished by inflexible unilingualism in the public sector.
The restrictions on the use of English in the judicial system are likely unconstitutional, but in any case they do not protect French, which can already be used at any time.
Only the sections on the teaching of French could be useful. This is clearly the way to promote not only the language, but also the literature and culture that no longer have the place they deserve in our schools. It is on this and not on restrictions on English language services that we must spend our resources.
ARE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE LAW ACCEPTABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES?
When a law produces adverse effects, they must be weighed against the beneficial effects to determine whether the whole is worthwhile. In this case, the adverse effects are serious.
Let’s start with the creation of a vast bureaucracy armoured by immunity clauses with unlimited or reserved powers of inspection and invasion of private spaces. In many areas, Quebec, which has never been a police state, is becoming an inspector state with such violations of rights and freedoms. This is particularly dangerous for a law that explicitly invokes the notwithstanding clause.
The experience of the Secularism Act shows us that when the government decides that a law is important, it refuses to allow the Charter to apply. Yet the purpose of the Charter is precisely to protect the individual against majorities and authorities! Clearly, Quebec has decided to put constitutional guarantees on the back burner.
Another harmful and particularly unfortunate effect of this law is the discouragement of bilingualism. This is an injustice especially to francophones who will not be able to find a place in English CEGEPs, while anglophones will continue to enjoy the choice. Also, knowledge of English will no longer be an asset in the search for employment, privileging those who have not taken the trouble to learn it. Not only is English essential for any job in Montreal that requires contact with the public, but it is an essential tool for understanding the modern world. In fact, learning a second language is as much a part of a good education as math and science. Why reward the less educated? Quebecers are fortunate to be able to master two of the world’s great languages and cultures. It is obscurantist to try to slow down their development. Instead, we must facilitate high quality education in both languages.
Finally, it is odious to create classes of citizens — Francophones, historical Anglophones, “non-historical” Anglophones, allophones. Bill 101 recognized acquired rights, but never defined linguistic status. In countries with liberal democracies, identities are a matter of individual choice, not of state decree. Yet Bill 96 turns its back on this principle.
Given the weakness of the arguments in favour of the bill, the presence of major disadvantages should lead us to abandon this reform project altogether.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator software from the original French language version
