French is a minority language in North America and is under constant threat from the widespread use of English internationally, both commercially and culturally. But the threats to French in Quebec are not caused by the English-speaking minority community. We believe that it is possible to foster the vitality and development of French across Canada by supporting both official language minority francophone communities outside Quebec and francophones in Quebec while ensuring the vitality and development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
As federal MPs, we closely followed the evolution of Bill 96 throughout its legislative process. We are very concerned that the law takes away certain fundamental rights of English-speaking Quebecers. Removing these rights does not seem to contribute constructively to the entirely laudable objective of protecting French.
For the first time in the history of Quebec, Bill 96 allows access to government services in English only to rights holders, that is to say those who can access English schools. This means that hundreds of thousands of English-speaking Quebecers can no longer access services in English, including many whose mother tongue it is. In addition, even those who can access English schools will no longer be able to obtain birth, marriage or death certificates in English, or file contracts in English with the land registry, or receive communications in English from organizations professionals.
We are also concerned about the impact Bill 96 will have on immigrants and refugees in Quebec. Think of a Ukrainian or Afghan refugee arriving in Quebec. She then speaks fluent English, but not French at all. Six months after her arrival, she will only be able to receive government services in French. Is it realistic or just for her?
That said, let’s focus on the parts of Bill 96 that affect the Federal Constitution and its protections. As MPs, we feel we have a responsibility to voice our concerns.
Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 protects the use of French and English in the federal Parliament, the National Assembly, as well as in federal and Quebec courts and tribunals. Bill 96 introduced measures that appear to contradict the safeguards in Section 133. For example, it now requires a certified French translation if a business or non-profit organization wishes to file pleadings in English. This could impact the ability of community groups and advocacy groups to intervene in cases involving vulnerable people, including refugees and asylum seekers.
Furthermore, the Quebec Department of Justice can no longer require candidates to be proficient in English who apply to be judges in the courts and tribunals of the province. The requirement for judges to be proficient in English will only be authorized at the discretion of Quebec ministers, which could politicize the process. At a minimum, these changes will create delays, complexity and costs for anyone who wants or needs to access justice in English.
The notwithstanding provision is a remedy that must be exceptional. It limits fundamental freedoms in a way that is unreasonable in a free and democratic society. According to many jurists, it can only be used following a judicial decision annulling a law. We are deeply concerned that Bill 96 uses the notwithstanding provision in a preventative and generalized manner. We believe that this type of use is a serious legal issue that must ultimately be resolved by the courts.
We believe that it is possible to promote French across Canada and recognize the threats faced by Francophones in Quebec while respecting the rights of English-speaking Quebecers. We will continue to work with both communities to find this balance.