Quebec recently passed Bill 32 (An Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment). It was a bill that sought to protect what it defined as “the right of everyone to engage freely and without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint” in higher education institutions. The same type of freedom of expression should be encouraged in the political sphere. Yet both we and other colleagues have been under constant attack in the French-language media in Quebec for opposing Quebec’s Bill 96 being included in the Official Languages Act. It is unfortunate, it should be possible to bring forward the concerns of the province’s minority language community without this kind of vitriol.
We both understand that French is under threat and that the French language must be promoted throughout Canada, including in Quebec. We recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. However, we do not believe that language is a zero-sum game. It is not the extremely bilingual English-speaking minority in Quebec that threatens the French language, and it is possible to promote French without reducing government services in English.
Almost none of the commentators who have spoken on the issue have discussed why references to the Charter of the French Language are necessary in the Official Languages Act and what effect this would have. This law covers the obligation of the federal government (and Crown corporations and a very limited number of private companies such as Air Canada) to offer services in French and English throughout the country and deals with the language of work in the federal public service. It does not apply to federally regulated private companies, which are currently covered by complementary legislation.
Nor does it address access to provincial or municipal government services. It is not a question of whether communities have newspapers, hospitals or theatres. Those who oppose our position keep referring to the many Anglophone institutions in the Montreal area. They avoid mentioning the reason.
Nearly 900,000 English-speaking Quebecers live within driving distance of downtown Montreal. The community has built institutions there for 250 years. This is not the case for English-speaking Quebecers who live in Gaspésie, Abitibi or Rimouski. English-speaking Quebecers have different needs and challenges depending on where they live in the province.
It’s the same thing for francophone communities outside Quebec. A French-speaking person living in northern New Brunswick can generally live in French and obtain all their services in French. The same is not true for Francophones in most other regions of the country. Each minority language community has its own experience and it is the role of the Government of Canada to try to offer all these federal services equally.
The criteria of the Official Languages Act for receiving services in French or in English are exactly the same across the country. When you go to a Service Canada counter, post office or other federally run establishment, the same rules are used to determine if bilingual services are offered or if services are offered only in French or in English.
What purpose ?
As such, what would be the purpose and effect of incorporating references to the Charter of the French language as proposed by the Bloc and the Conservatives? It is important to note that the Bloc representative on the committee clearly said that he does not recognize the anglophone minority in Quebec as a minority, despite this recognition in the Charter of the French language.
Referring to the Charter of the French language and saying that the federal government must consider Quebec’s language regime in the context of the Official Languages Act does not improve services in French to francophone minorities outside Quebec. Nor would it improve services in French in Quebec since all federal services are offered in French in Quebec.
The only substantial effect of some of these amendments would be to limit the services offered by the federal government in English in Quebec. This is unacceptable. Nor would it be acceptable for us to simply say that Bill 96 applies to federally regulated private companies. It would be tantamount to abdicating the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to a provincial legislature, regardless of how it ended up changing its law. It shouldn’t be done in almost every conceivable circumstance.
Therefore, references to Bill 96 in the Official Languages Act are unnecessary and, in our view, should be avoided.