A topic that effects almost every immigrant to Quebec is "The Charter of the French Language" widely known as Bill 101. The Bill basically says that if you are an immigrant to Quebec then your children, if under the age of 16, MUST attend a French school. On the face of it this seems crazy and raises serious question concerning human rights.
What do you think? Is this Bill crazy or a perectly reasonable measure to protect French culture in Quebec? Did you fight the Bill and win or are you of the opinion "When in Rome do as the Romans do"?
Below is a brief synopsis of the Bill for your information.
The Charter of the French Language, an important statute adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1977, is popularly known as "Bill 101" from its designation on the order paper when it was first introduced by the Parti Québécois government.
Concern for the future of the French language began to be expressed in Quebec during the 1960s after the birth rate declined abruptly during the Quiet Revolution. Immigrants tended to adopt English rather than French and to send their children to English schools, and some demographers predicted that Montreal would again become a mainly English-speaking city, as it briefly had been in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1973, the Gendron Commission recommended measures to encourage the use of French, especially in the economy, and the Liberal government introduced an Official Language Act ("Bill 22") in 1974. The Parti Québécois, deeming the latter measure inadequate, replaced it with "Bill 101", which makes French the “normal” language of municipal, public and para-public administration, imposes stringent French language tests for admission to the professions, requires most businesses with more than fifty employees to operate mainly in French, and requires collective agreements to be drafted in French. Originally it restricted the use of English in the National Assembly and the courts, but these provisions were contrary to section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1979 (see Quebec (A.G.) v. Blaikie, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016).
The most controversial sections of "Bill 101" were those restricting access to English schools and prohibiting the use of English on commercial signs. Both became vulnerable after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms took effect in 1982. Soon afterwards the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "Bill 101" must be brought into conformity with section 23(1)(b) of the Charter, which guarantees Canadian citizens who received an English education in Canada the right to educate their children in English (see Quebec (A.G.) v. Quebec Protestant School Boards, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66). In 1988 the provision relating to signs was struck down as a violation of freedom of expression (see Ford v. Quebec A.G., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712), but the Bourassa government promptly used the notwithstanding clause to re-enact it in a modified form, a measure that caused three anglophone cabinet ministers to resign. In 1993 a further modification allowed English to appear on signs posted outdoors provided the French words were more prominent.
Although it has been amended several times and is resented or ridiculed by many Quebec Anglophones, "Bill 101" remains an important symbol of Quebec’s determination to maintain French as a viable language in a continent that speaks mainly English.
The children of Bill 101 (les enfants de la loi 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 (aka Bill 101).
One of the Charter's articles stipulates that all children under 16 must receive their primary and secondary education in French schools, unless one of the parent's child has received most of their education in English, in Canada, or the child themselves has already received a substantial part of their education in English, in Canada.
Mostly because of this, the children of Bill 101, numbering roughly 400 000 individuals as of December 2003, have adopted French as their primary language of communication in a much greater proportion than the previous generations of immigrants, who had adopted English.
Someone is not happy!
Below is an extract from a letter of complaint from a local resident that was sent to the Prime Minsiter, Steven Harper, recently:
Dear Sir,
What has happened to the ideas of freedom and liberty in Canada?
My family and I are distraught and, for the first time since settling in Canada, we feel totally alone. We arrived here as temporary residents at the end of July 2003 and settled in St-Lazare, Quebec. Our only goal was to emigrate to Canada and the only reason we are in Quebec is that we were offered employment in Montreal. Since arriving we have become an integral part of the local economy, have started a small business, volunteer to coach local children, and have always paid our taxes in full and on time. Our children have settled into the local schools and are very happy.
In February 2007, and after trying for two years and three months, we were finally granted permanent residency in CANADA. We had always looked upon Canada as a developed nation who laws were based on the basic ideas of freedom and liberty
However, we are rapidly finding that this is not the case and are up against a clear contravention of our rights as human beings.
We are being forced, against our will, to unsettle our children once again by pulling them out of their present schools. We have then got to send them to schools where the language spoken is not their mother tongue.
This absurdity is going disadvantage my eldest son tremendously; he will be 14 years old in October. He is facing the prospect of being forced into grade 9 at a new school, trying to maintain his excellent academic record, whilst at the same time learning a completely different language. How can this be right? How do the Canadian government justify this human rights abuse? I could fully understand if we had moved to a country where there are no English schools. However, there are English schools close by but we are forbidden to send our children to these schools. Why?
The other absurdity of the situation that we are facing is that, if we had settled 20 minutes west of St-Lazare, just over the Ontario border, or in any other part of Canada, this would not be an issue. I am shocked, astounded and disgusted that we are being treated this way.
This is discrimination for the sake of it. I understand that Francophones felt discriminated against in the 50's and 60's and I believe this was wrong. But what has happened is Francophones are now fighting discrimination with discrimination. Have the government of Quebec never heard of the saying "Two wrongs do not make a right"?
My neighbours who are both French Canadians, born in Quebec, also feel aggrieved at the situation. They understand fully the benefits of being able to speak English, the business language of the world. They too must send their children to French schools, again infringing on their rites as human beings to choose.
Why the concept of bi-lingualism is not perused in such a vigorous manner is beyond my comprehension. Instead Quebec is almost Orwellian in its approach to language and employs the likes of "The language police" to enforce the law. I have never seen anything like it in a developed country. These sort of draconian laws are more akin to a third world dictatorship than a country that promotes freedom and liberty.
Discrimatory and Unfair to All
Yes I agree that Quebec is French and therefore we should all learn the
language. But the language laws are discrimatory and unfair to all. The law
should say all children must go to a BILINGUAL school so that they do 50% of
their time in each language. Then by the time they leave they would be
completely bilingual. What an advantage that would be.
What happens if a child has problems with languages like our son? He is
very bright and excels at school. However he cannot get his head around
French. We are trying, he is trying and gets help so he will eventually
learn it, at least to a certain degree but why does the law force him to
move to a French only school once we get permanent status? Its positively
mad. I understand the need to protect the language and have no problem with
it but why restrict the indigineous population as well as immigrants from
the enormous advantage that bilingualism offers? Is it to keep the lesser
educated in Quebec? Sounds like a typical socialist party policy to me. Oh
yes I forgot, that is exactly what the PQ is. Silly me. Social engineering
so that the voters for the PQ cannot speak English so they have to work and
stay permanently in Quebec.
And by the way we have been here 6 years, have fully integrated and love it
here. I run a business employing 50 people mostly francaphone Canadians (and
a few anglos and brits). I have paid an enormous (!) amount of taxes here
which of course cheeses me off but I love it and have no desire ever to
return to Britain (my family all feel the same).
Common sense is often something politicians lack and Quebec is like Scotland
in that regard - Separation to solve all problems and blame the English for
everything. Unfortunately that is crap and anyone with any education knows
what would happen if we did - a poor backwater anyone. Look at the
similarities - higher taxes, poorer service and a population that is
leaving. Shame as Quebec actually offers more than any other place in
Canada. Great food, people (and I dont just mean the large amount of Brits
here!), a great place to live, summers that are not measured in hours AND
where else can you hear people in McDonalds on minimum wage with perfect
bilingualism. The provice should celebrate that instead of pushing for
unilingualism. I speak, read and write French but not nearly as well as I
would like but I try. We should all try but we should also be able to
actually properly participate without the law being an ass.
Mark, St Lazare
Home
