Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy

Last updated

The legal dispute over Quebec's language policy began soon after the enactment of Bill 101, establishing the Charter of the French Language, by the Parliament of Quebec in 1977.

Contents

The Charter, enacted under the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque, expanded upon Quebec's previous language legislation, Bill 22, also known as the Official Language Act, enacted in 1974 under the Liberal Party of Quebec government of Robert Bourassa. Earlier language legislation in Quebec had included An Act to promote the French language in Quebec in 1969, and the La Vergne Law of 1910.

Both statutes were drafted in an attempt to follow the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on the Situation of the French Language and Linguistic Rights in Quebec (the Gendron Commission).

Unlike the (Quebec) Official Language Act of 1974 (not to be confused with the federal Official Languages Act), the Charter of the French Language is a legal framework defining the linguistic rights of Quebecers, and a language management policy giving the Government of Quebec the power to intervene in many sectors of public life to promote French as the common language of all citizens. Its enactment sparked a legal battle that still goes on today.

Before 1982

In 1867, the British Parliament passed the British North America Act, 1867, now known as the Constitution Act, 1867 , which became the supreme law of the Dominion of Canada (although it was modified several times, it is still part of the Constitution of Canada). This act contains only one section (section 133) dealing with language. It reads: [1]

"Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec."

"The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages."

Language of legislation and justice

Three Quebec Lawyers, Peter Blaikie, Roland Durand and Yoine Goldstein first challenged the constitutionality of the Charter of the French Language under section 133.

In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Chapter III of the Charter of the French Language unconstitutional, citing it contrary to section 133 of the British North America Act of 1867. The highest court in Canada judged that the enacting and passing of laws had to be done in both French and English in the parliaments of Quebec and Canada.

Sections 7 to 13 of the Charter of the French Language had made French the only language of legislation and only provided for a translation of laws in English at the end of the legislative process.

The Quebec government responded by re-enacting the charter (and all other acts enacted since 1977) in French and English. Sections 7 to 13 of the charter were however left untouched.

In 1981, another Supreme Court decision (Quebec (Attorney General) v. Blaikie (No. 2)) declared that section 133 also applied to government regulations.

After 1982

The patriation of the Canadian Constitution occurred as the British Parliament passed the Canada Act 1982. This act enacted the Constitution Act, 1982 for Canada (including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), which has two provisions which have provided the basis for further constitutional disputes concerning Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Section 2 of the Charter guarantees freedom of expression, which opens the door to challenges to laws which restrict an individual's ability to use a particular language, while section 23 introduced the notion of "minority language education rights".

Alliance Quebec, an Anglophone rights lobby group was founded in May 1982. It is through this civil association that various anglophone lawyers challenged the constitutionality of Quebec's territorial language policy. [2]

Language of instruction

Quebec (A.G.) v. Quebec Protestant School Boards

In 1984, the Supreme Court invalidated Chapter VIII of the Quebec Charter of the French Language on the basis of its incompatibility with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter reads:

(1) Citizens of Canada

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or

(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.

Section 73 of the Charter of the French language had recognized the right to English language instruction to Quebec residents alone. Canadian citizens from outside Quebec are forced to send their children to French primary and secondary schools, in direct violation of S26.(3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, [3] which states that "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. [4]

On July 26, 1984, the Supreme Court invalidated part of Section 73. Judged retroactively unconstitutional, the section had to be modified so that it no longer clashes with the Canadian charter's definition of a linguistic minority. The current Section 73 of the Charter of the French language reads:

The following children, at the request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:

1) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;

2) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada;

3) a child whose father and mother are not Canadian citizens, but whose father or mother received elementary instruction in English in Québec, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Québec;

4) a child who, in their last year in school in Québec before 26 August 1977, was receiving instruction in English in a public kindergarten class or in an elementary or secondary school, and the brothers and sisters of that child;

5) a child whose father or mother was residing in Québec on 26 August 1977 and had received elementary instruction in English outside Québec, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received outside Québec.

In 2005, a Supreme Court ruling upheld Section 73 of the Charter of the French language and its corresponding subsections (1 through 5). See Maclean's 5 April 2005, an article by John Geddes entitled "Tweaking the Language Laws". It maintains that the court upheld S.73 yet provided for flexibility in matters dealing with English-speaking Canadians and immigrants from other countries.

Bill 104

In August 2007, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that a section of the province's language legislation is unlawful. [5] The judgment stated that Bill 104, an amendment to the Charter passed in 2002 that stopped children of francophone and newcomers from using the English educational system, was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [5] The amendment was passed to thwart entry to English schools by pupils who had gone to at least one year of an unsubsidized private institution. [6] It had been passed unanimously (by all parties) in the provincial legislature. [7]

The Appeal Court verdict disallowed a segment of Bill 104, [6] suggesting that students can be present English public establishments if they have been at an English private academy for a minimum of one year or have been permitted a special dispensation. [5] The Quebec government immediately announced it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, [6] which it did.

A judgment was given that delayed use of that conclusion until the Supreme Court of Canada judged on a provincial administration request. [8]

The challenge to Bill 104 continued but with funding from the English school boards affected, [9] as the federal Court Challenges Program established for such minority language rights was cut by the Conservative minority government. [10] There was a precedent for having the government pay the fees of the challenging side, or appointing an amicus curiae . [10]

A representative of the Quebec Association of Independent Schools proclaimed its goal to strike the delay,[ clarification needed ] and Brent Tyler, the advocate for the 26 families in the case, said he would pull together an appeal. [8]

The Quebec English School Board Association (QESBA) suspected the volume of probable English-system learners who might be affected by this result to be 500 annually, the majority of whom would enroll in Montreal schools. It said such a loss to the French school enrollment of almost 1 million would be unimportant. It asked that the decision be respected until it can be referred to the Supreme Court. [11]

About half of all enrollment decline in the English Montreal School Board since 2002 has resulted from Bill 104, a low fertility rate and urban sprawl being other reasons, said a spokesman in 2007. [8]

A coalition of groups for defending French supported the Quebec government in its venture to overturn the Quebec Appeal Court ruling. [5] Former CSN leader Gérald Larose, chairman of the Conseil de la souveraineté, commented negatively on this "undermining" of the Charter of the French Language by an "English judge" (the decision was handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeals, which is not an English body). Larose was also the Parti Québécois–appointed president of a commission on the future of the French language and advocated that Quebec be granted unshared supremacy over language legislation, despite the Canadian constitution which divides such power between the national and provincial governments. [12] Jean Dorion, president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal , said that Appeals Court judges are appointed by the national government and said that they should not have the power to overrule Quebec's language laws. [12] Other commentators remonstrated that Justice Hilton had previously served as legal counsel for Alliance Quebec, an anglophone rights group. Le Devoir reported, however, that the Quebec department of justice did not ask Hilton to recuse himself from the case. [12] Through a spokesperson, the Ministry of Justice said that such a recusal was not necessary and that the government trusted the Court of Appeal to be fair. [13] Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois suggested in 2007 that the ruling could be "catastrophic" and described it as unsatisfactory. Over the 30-year life of Bill 101 "about 4,000 children have used this to get into the English network," she said, as opposed to the French network. [14]

Language of commercial signs

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General)

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the sections of the Charter of the French Language enforcing the exclusive use of French on outdoor commercial signs were unconstitutional. The Court-based this decision on the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court remarked that the Quebec government could legitimately require French to have "greater visibility" or "marked predominance" on exterior commercial signs, however it could not enforce the exclusive use of French.

With the Act to amend the Charter of the French language, S.Q. 1988, c. 54 (also known as Bill 178), the National Assembly (under a Quebec Liberal government) made use of the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and amended the Charter by allowing English provided that the letters are no larger than half the size of the French.

Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada

The use of the notwithstanding clause led to formal complaints by three Quebecers: John Ballantyne, Elizabeth Davidson, and Gordon McIntyre, who own businesses in Sutton, Quebec and Huntingdon, Quebec. In 1993, they brought their case before the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations.

They challenged sections 1, 6 and 10 of Bill No. 178 enacted by the Quebec legislature on 22 December 1988. They alleged to be victims of violations of articles 2, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the federal government of Canada and by the Province of Quebec, due to the act's prohibitions on the use English in advertising or in the name of their firms.

After hearing both parties, the Committee gave its opinion on what it believed to be the three major issues:

  • (a) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates any right that the authors might have by virtue of article 27;
  • (b) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates the authors' right to freedom of expression;
  • (c) whether the same provision is compatible with the authors' right to equality before the law.
  • 1. The Committee observed that "provisions of article 27 refers to minorities in States", which English-speaking people in Canada are not. It stated that the "authors therefore have no claim under article 27 of the Covenant".
  • 2. The Committee disagreed with the Government of Quebec which asserted "that commercial activities such as outdoor advertising do not fall within the ambit of article 19." The Committee stated "Article 19, paragraph 2, must be interpreted as encompassing every form of subjective ideas and opinions capable of transmission to others, which are compatible with article 20 of the Covenant, of news and information, of commercial expression and advertising, of works of art, etc.; it should not be confined to means of political, cultural or artistic expression." The Committee believed that "it [was] not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English." It suggested that "This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English." It concluded that "A State may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice. The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2."
  • 3. Regarding the right to equality, the Committee found that "the authors have not been discriminated against on the ground of their language, and concludes that there has been no violation of article 26 of the Covenant."

There were 5 concurring and dissenting opinions, signed by eight Committee members.

Internet

The Court of Quebec rendered a number of decisions regarding the applicability of the Charter to advertising over the Internet. The court found that commercial websites of businesses that operate from Quebec and sell to Quebec need to conform to the provisions of the Charter regarding the rights of Quebecers to receive services in French. In A.G. of Quebec (Procureur Général) c. Stanley John Reid et Frances Muriel Reid (JE 2002-1266), the defendant raised the argument that the content of Internet is of exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, and thus its regulation is ultra vires of the Quebec Government. The court confirmed the applicability of the Charter on advertising over the Internet.

Compliance

With the Act to amend the Charter of the French language, S.Q. 1993, c. 40 (also known as Bill 86), the National Assembly (under a Quebec Liberal government) amended the Charter of the French Language to make it comply with the Supreme Court rulings. The amending law introduced the "Canada Clause" which replaced the "Quebec Clause". That is, the recognized right to English language education was extended to all Canadian citizens. It also introduced the current regulations on the "marked predominance" of French on outdoor commercial signs in conformity with the Supreme Court suggestion.

As suggested by the Supreme Court ruling, the current law specifies that commercial outdoor signs can be multilingual so long as French is markedly predominant. The current provisions regarding exterior commercial signs were confirmed as constitutional by the Quebec Court of Appeal in R. c. Entreprises W.F.H.[2001] R.J.Q. 2557 (C.A.) (also known as "The Lyon & the Walrus Case"). Today, many businesses choose to put up French-only signs, and at times, even change their registered trademarks to adapt to the Quebec market.[ citation needed ] Nevertheless, English–French bilingualism quickly returned on exterior signs after 1993, especially on the island of Montreal.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2015-07-30). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Access to Information Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-19.
  2. ↑ Esman, Milton J. (1982). "The Politics of Official Bilingualism in Canada". Political Science Quarterly. 97 (2): 233–253. doi:10.2307/2149477. ISSN   0032-3195. JSTOR   2149477.
  3. ↑ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
  4. ↑ David E. Short, Restrictions on Access to English Language Schools in Quebec: An International Human Rights Analysis, 4 Can.-U.S. L.J. 1 (1981)
  5. 1 2 3 4 "Quebec gets support in bid to overturn language-law ruling". CBC. 2007-08-23.
  6. 1 2 3 "Charest 'no friend of anglos,' group says". The Gazette. 2007-08-24. Archived from the original on 2007-12-08.
  7. ↑ "Families win challenge of Quebec language law". CBC News. 2007-08-22.
  8. 1 2 3 Zaccagna, Remo (2007-09-05). "Families to appeal ruling". The Suburban.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. ↑ Branswell, Brenda (2007-11-30). "Teachers union steps into court case on language of education". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2012-11-04.
  10. 1 2 Macpherson, Don (2007-09-06). "Anglo rights cash squeeze". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2007-12-09.
  11. ↑ "Statement from Marcus Tabachnick, President of the Quebec English School Boards Association, on today's decision of the Quebec Court of Appeals on Bill 104" (Press release). Montreal. 2007-08-22. Archived from the original on 2007-10-26.
  12. 1 2 3 "Challenging judges is unfair and unwise". The Gazette. 2007-08-25. Archived from the original on 2007-12-07.
  13. ↑ "Quebec justice's imparitality questioned in language case". CBC News. 2007-08-24.
  14. ↑ Block, Irwin (2007-08-26). "Bill 101 turns 30". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2012-11-04.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Canada</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in Canada

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada. It outlines Canada's system of government and the civil and human rights of those who are citizens of Canada and non-citizens in Canada. Its contents are an amalgamation of various codified acts, treaties between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples, uncodified traditions and conventions. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

<i>Ford v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ford v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 SCR 712 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court struck down part of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as "Bill 101". This law had prohibited the use of commercial signs written in languages other than French and required businesses to use only the French versions of their names. The court ruled that Bill 101 violated the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.

The Charter of the French Language, also known in English as Bill 101, Law 101, or Quebec French Preference Law, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the official language of the provincial government. It is the central legislative piece in Quebec's language policy, and one of the three statutory documents Quebec society bases its cohesion upon, along with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec. The Charter also protects the Indigenous languages of Quebec.

The children of Bill 101 is the name given to the generation of children whose parents immigrated to Quebec, Canada after the adoption of the 1977 Charter of the French Language.

The Victoria Charter was a set of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada in 1971. This document represented a failed attempt on the part of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to patriate the Constitution, add a bill of rights to it and entrench English and French as Canada's official languages; he later succeeded in all these objectives in 1982 with the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982.

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> Primary constitutional document of Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. However, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Official bilingualism in Canada</span> Policy that the English and French languages have equal status and usage in Canadian government

The official languages of Canada are English and French, which "have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada," according to Canada's constitution. "Official bilingualism" is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws that ensure legal equality of English and French in the Parliament and courts of Canada, protect the linguistic rights of English- and French-speaking minorities in different provinces, and ensure a level of government services in both languages across Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</span> Linguistic equality in New Brunswick

Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality between English-speaking and French-speaking residents of New Brunswick. Enacted in 1993, it is the most recent addition to the Charter.

Before 1982, modifying the Constitution of Canada primarily meant amending the British North America Act, 1867. Unlike most other constitutions, however, the Act had no amending formula; instead, changes were enacted through Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom called the British North America Acts.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec. The section may be particularly notable, in that some scholars believe that section 23 "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned." Trudeau was the prime minister who fought for the inclusion of the Charter of Rights in the Constitution of Canada in 1982.

Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Charter that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section 17 right to use either language within the Parliament of Canada repeats a right already anchored in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 17 also guarantees the right to use both languages in the legislature of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the Charter. Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case Mahe v. Alberta (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada also had to reconcile denominational school rights with minority language educational rights under section 23 of the Charter.

Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must be available in both official languages. Section 133 places a similar obligation on the legislature of Quebec, and this is reaffirmed by section 21 of the Charter. Section 18 of the Charter places a similar obligation on the legislature of New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

Because the country contains two major language groups and numerous other linguistic minorities, in Canada official languages policy has always been an important and high-profile area of public policy.

The equal authenticity rule is a rule of judicial interpretation developed by Canadian courts as a way of interpreting laws written in parallel French and English texts. The constitution of Canada requires that both versions of each bilingual law be treated as equally authoritative, which can result in problems when the English and French versions are incongruent. The equal authenticity rule is derived from section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that "The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education. It gives the provinces a broad legislative jurisdiction over education. Section 93 also contains guarantees of publicly funded denominational and separate schools for Catholic or Protestant minorities in some provinces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 93A of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 93A of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada, extinguishing the right to publicly funded denominational and separate schools in the province of Quebec. It was enacted as a bilateral constitutional amendment in 1997.

References

In English
In French
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.