Most of the opponents of Bill 96 “on the official and common language of Quebec, French”, whether it be Marlene Jennings of the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), or the Liberal leader, Dominique Anglade, recognize the importance to ensure the vitality of the French language in Quebec.
In its brief presented during the public consultations on Bill 96, the QCGN reiterates almost word for word the objective of Bill 101 when it was passed in 1977: to ensure that French, whose vitality we must be concerned about and influence, being the language of government and laws, as well as the normal language “in work, education, communication, commerce and business”. But when it comes to taking concrete steps to get there, the QCGN balks. It will not be satisfied with anything other than the status quo: the Quebec State communicates in French or in English, depending on the choice of the person to whom the service is provided. He denounces the distinction introduced by the CAQ government between the historical minority made up of rights holders who have received or who have the right to receive their education in English in Quebec, and the others, notably immigrants, with whom the State does not communicate only in French.
The QCGN, along with other opponents, has looked for lice in Bill 96, which certainly harbors lice. But, in reality, it is against its very economy, against one of its fundamental objectives, that it opposes, that of transforming a government that practices institutional bilingualism into a government that operates in French, except in exceptional cases. provided for by law. This objective is no different from that of Bill 101, as conceived by Camille Laurin and Guy Rocher, an objective never really achieved, it must be said, and from which we are moving away.
Let’s start by recalling what the bill does not change, despite the scarecrows that have been brandished. This is the case of health services, where patients will continue to be able to be treated in English or even if possible in third languages. Moreover, the Act respecting health services and social services, which affirms the right of every English-speaking person to receive services in English, continues to apply in full. At the request of Liberal MPs, an amendment adding suspenders to the belt was even adopted.
We also noted the fact that government employees will not be able to communicate with immigrants in a language other than French after a period of six months following their arrival. There, the government shot itself in the foot. Set arbitrarily, this period is perceived as the time the government gives a newcomer to learn French, which in many cases is too short. In the field of education, there is concern for these parents who come from elsewhere who do not understand French and who will not be able to obtain the relevant information that teachers or educational support professionals would like pass on to their child.
It is now too late to make amendments to the bill before its passage, scheduled for next week. However, harm can be avoided and common sense prevails. The legislative framework must be supplemented by policies and directives, in particular to specify the cases where another language may be used when “the principles of natural justice so require”. Furthermore, and this is perhaps the most important, the minister has the power to make regulations.
English CEGEPs will welcome the same number of students as before. The controversy raised by the addition of French courses only underlines that many students have a poor knowledge of the supposedly common language. Mixing up the files, the CAQ government has however shown itself to be petty – we understand the basely political gains it was pursuing – by canceling the expansion of Dawson. This expansion, like those of French CEGEPs in Montreal, meets the minimum standards of the ministry, which authorized it.
The fact remains that the opponents have often paid into the lawsuits. The CAQ government has all the cards in hand to avoid aberrations. Bill 96 is necessary, although its finicky character can sometimes put off. One would like to say like René Lévesque, who, in a meeting of the Parti Québécois after the adoption of Bill 63, of sad memory, launched this cry from the heart: “I am sick of talking about language. In a normal society, it speaks to itself, the language. Fifty years later, Quebec is still not a normal society and remains a nation that fears dissolution.