Documents
in Quebec History
Last
revised: 23 August 2000 | Documents on the Controversy Surrounding the Language
of Commercial Signs in Quebec (Bill 178) December 1988
Debates
in the National Assembly [December 20, 1988] M.
Claude Ryan, Minister of Education, Liberal Party. [translation] "Madame
President, as were all of the members of the National Assembly, I was profoundly
moved by the events of the last few days. >>From the strictly rational point
of view, I refused, and I continue to refuse to believe that the question of commercial
advertising has all of the importance for our [collective] future that the present
debates seem to assign to it. It is within itself, in a profound contact with
its sources, and while developing its essential interior values, that a people
finds and enriches its pride, confidence in itself and hope. "Nobody
will make me believe that, from a strictly objective point of view, commercial
advertising and its concrete applications could be so vital to the future of a
people as some would like us to think and proclaim. I am equally not convinced,
I tell you this in all simplicity, by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada
which establishes a vital and essential link between the commercial discourse
and the intellectual, political, cultural social or religious discourse. The commercial
discourse, that is to say the promotion and publicity of commercial products,
goods and services for purposes of profit, is in my mind much more clearly linked
to freedom of trade than to freedom of expression properly speaking. Freedom of
trade, while a very important element in the liberal vision of society, is not
at the same level as the great fundamental freedoms that the charters of rights
have proclaimed since the Second World War. "Nowhere
in the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms is freedom of trade
found. Rather, this type of freedom is part of social and economic rights that,
while very important, have not acquired the same degree of development and clarity
in the modern charters of rights as the rights that are properly fundamental.
[...] The right to a fair trial, for example, cannot suffer exception anywhere
in the world. The right to privacy is another fundamental right that cannot accept
exceptions. However, when we speak of the right of commercial advertising, and
even of the commercial discourse, I think that we can introduce many nuances,
and that the Supreme Court of Canada on page 75 has not said the last word on
this [...] [...]
"We must also guard ourselves against confusing fundamental rights and linguistic
rights [...]. Freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, the
right to a fair trial, these are fundamental rights, and we find them in all of
the great charters of human rights. On the other hand, it is much rarer to find
in the charters precise linguistic rights. Charters speak frequently of the rights
of linguistic, cultural and religious minorities, of the maintenance and the development
of their identity, but they rarely go very far in the definition of these rights,
and, when they do so, they do it in specific sections, and apart from the sections
on fundamental rights, as if their authors wanted to establish that these are
not the same thing. [...]
"By arguing this, I do not wish to say that linguistic rights have only secondary
importance. Not at all. We, who speak French, have paid dearly in our Canadian
country the price for our attachment to our language and we know how much linguistic
rights are vital in our eyes. [...]. "In
these matters there does not exist a unique and uniform model that one could apply
everywhere [...] [...]
"In Quebec, we have long lived as if the rights of the anglophone minority
were not a matter of discussion [allaient de soi]. For a long time we have recognised
to this minority more rights, and applied them sincerely and fully, than all of
the other provinces put together. But, while generous, we have come to realise
that in some respects we did so in a manner that went beyond what is reasonable
and just. In the field of education, for example, we practised for a long time
freedom of choice between English and French schools. We continued to do so until
we realised, in the years following the Second World War, that our generosity
and openness ended up injuring in the most primitive of manner our collective
interest as the newcomers opted in vast majority to go to the schools of the anglophone
minority. [
] [
]
"Many contended at the time, and I was among those that did so, that Bill
101, by imposing French unilingual signs was going too far and violated individual
rights. However, many, including myself, have discovered along the way
I did it thanks to ten years of political activities in all the corners of Quebec
two realities that I had underestimated, I admit it with frankness, the
first being the deep attachment of francophone Quebecers for Bill 101, and the
other being the identification in the mind of the francophone population between
the respect for Bill 101 and the defence of the French language in Quebec. [
] "In
invoking, as it has done, the notwithstanding clause to maintain outside advertising
in French only, the government has only manifestly followed the will of the population.
At this stage of our evolution, and given public opinion, the government has merely
registered that the Quebec population cares deeply to maintain the French face
of Quebec, a face that is always fragile and threatened in Quebec. The government
has expressed, in acting the way it did, a conviction that is largely held in
Quebec. [
]
"Contrary to the views expressed by Herbert Marx] "I believe that the
presence of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian constitution was justified,
and continues to be so, so as to prevent some questions with a strong political
or social incidence I am not just thinking about the linguistic issue
to be decided far too exclusively, and in a preponderant manner, by judges, especially
considering the relative young age of these charters and their recent proliferation
[
]. [
] "In
the case at hand presently, if the government had only thought of its immediate
popularity, it could have invoked the notwithstanding clause and maintained, purely
and simply, the status quo on the subject of signs. This was the easy way out,
the way that would have extirpated us from the immediate situation created by
the decision of the Supreme Court. However, given the convictions of the Liberal
Party of Quebec, the government did not wish to remain unmoved by voices within
the party, and within Quebec society, where everybody regardless of their origin,
their religion or their language are fundamentally equal. The government has not
wished to remain aloof from openness, and thus the second part of the government
decisions: to allow a relative presence to another language on signs inside of
commercial establishments. This was not an easy decision to make and it is not
easy to explain it today [
]". ©
For the translation, 1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College |