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
The
Language of Signs Editorial in The Globe and Mail, Toronto,
December 16, 1988, p. A-6 If
Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa is willing to take it, the Supreme Court of Canada
has given him sound guidance on the language of commercial signs in his province.
The court has ruled that Bill 101, by prohibiting Quebeckers to post signs in
languages other than French, violates their freedom of expression. At the same
time, it accepts Quebec's objective of giving the province a French face, and
says it is permissible to "require the prominent display of the French language,
even its marked predominance. " This
is essentially what the Quebec Liberal Party adopted as its platform before the
1985 provincial election. Polls have shown that most Quebeckers would accept this
compromise. Premier Bourassa, who faces dissension whichever way he turns, should
amend Bill 101 to permit bilingual signs where French is given prominence. In
an interesting touch, the court did not have to rely on the constitutional Charter
of Rights to shoot down the offending section. Yes, the guarantee of free expression
in the charter makes such violations unconstitutional, but the former Parti Québécois
government had invoked the "notwithstanding" clause in the charter to
exempt Bill 101 from its protections. The clause, which must be renewed every
five years to remain in force, will not expire until February. Instead,
the court turned to Quebec's own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, an admirable
piece of law which also guarantees freedom of expression. Quebec's national assembly
could, if it wished, override that charter as well, since it is a provincial law.
Happily, the government has so far chosen to give the charter precedence over
Bill 101, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there are insufficient grounds
to challenge that precedence. "In the opinion of this court, " the judges
declared unanimously (including those from Quebec who heard the case), "it
has not been demonstrated that prohibition of any language other than French [
]
is necessary to the defence and enhancement of the status of the French language
in Quebec. " (It
thus upheld the appeal of five Montreal-area businesses which fought for bilingual
signs, but rejected the appeal of stationer Allan Singer, who sought to post signs
in English only) The
court's reliance on Quebec's own charter may take some of the wind out of Mr.
Bourassa's opponents. It is one thing to rail against the intrusion of a national
Charter of Rights which was adopted in 1982 without Quebec's approval. It is another
to condemn a national court for using Quebec's own law to identify Bill 101's
egregious excesses. The PQ is certain to protest in any case, but it has lost
some political ammunition. Mr.
Bourassa says he will announce his plan of action on Sunday. This is no time for
clever attempts to evade the ruling, by allowing bilingual signs only when indoors
or in certain parts of the province. It is no time to pass a law giving Bill 101
precedence over the provincial charter, or to renew the "notwithstanding"
exemption from the constitutional charter. That would amount to a repudiation
of Quebec's English-speaking minority; it might lead to the resignations of English-speaking
ministers in Mr. Bourassa's cabinet; it would certainly antagonize many Canadians
who have so far supported the Meech Lake constitutional accord. And it would offend
many French-speaking Quebeckers who believe strongly in a code of basic civil
rights. These
are not easy days for Mr. Bourassa. But his best and most honorable way out is
to follow through on his party's position to assure Quebeckers that French
will remain, and predominate, on all signs and to restore to minority-language
groups the freedom to use their languages as well. ©
1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College |