Documents on the Controversy Surrounding the Language
of Commercial Signs in Quebec (Bill 178) December 1988
French
Everywhere But without infringing on the rights of the other communities
Benoit Lauzière, Publisher, Le Devoir. The
temptation is great to jump on the bandwagon of the notwithstanding
clause, lest one be found wanting on the simplistic scale of nationalism. But
fear of seeming to be for it and to be accused of should
not be taken as a base for the positions taken by this newspaper. The nationalism
of Le Devoir has always sought to reconcile the respect of rights, the
relentless defence of the cause of French, from one end of the country to the
other, generosity toward minorities and efficient support to the desire of Quebec
to develop and to express its identity. This we have done in the name of superior
values and with independence of character. Following
the judgement of the Supreme Court on the exclusive use of French on commercial
signs, the political problem is as follows: is Quebec justified to derogate from
the recognition of freedom of expression to reach the legitimate objective of
having a French face in this province, one that would permit the Quebec people
to express its identity? A
political problem This
is truly a political problem as the judgement having been rendered; the time of
reckoning has now come for the government. The Supreme Court has done its job
well; it is now the turn of the National Assembly to do so as well. As we write,
this means that on the subject of commercial signs one must take into consideration
the right of freedom of expression as was clarified in law by the Court as well
as the right of Quebec, also confirmed by the Court, to derogate from the exercise
of this fundamental freedom. Contrary
to what some contend, the historic failure of 1982 was not caused by the refusal
in Quebec to have enshrined into the Constitution fundamental rights: it was firstly
to Quebec that the special protection of rights was aimed by inscribing them into
a constitutional law. Let
us imagine that Quebec is independent, with no doubt the Charter of Rights it
has currently and a Quebec Supreme Court. Given the decisions already rendered
by Quebec judges, we can likely state, without risking to be wrong, that we would
be faced with the same conclusions. But we would then be among ourselves, without
the possibility of blaming somebody else. That
is what the whole thing is about. According to the Quebec Charter (of the French
Language), as enacted by the National Assembly, we can impose French everywhere
but there is incompatibility between the prohibition of other languages on commercial
signs and the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter (of Rights). The
rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights have priority over all other laws,
including over Bill 101, unless a notwithstanding clause has been specifically
included. And the National Assembly, as much under the Parti Québécois as under
the Liberals, has not wished to eliminate the priority given to the rights. And
it is worth to say it and to repeat it; this is about our rights. On
the other hand, it is not because in a specific case freedom of expression annoys
us that it ceases to be a right. Freedom of expression is a front-line right.
It includes the right to express yourself in the language of your choice and applies
to the field of commerce decided the Supreme Court. Thus the exercise of this
right has priority over the stipulations of Bill 101 relative to the exclusive
use of the French language on commercial signs. This having been clearly affirmed,
one must not forget that the same Charters anticipate that reasons may exist to
limit the exercise of this right, however much it may have priority otherwise.
The objective pursued by the exclusive use of the French language on commercial
signs could be one of these. The
Supreme Court examined carefully the reasons raised by the Attorney General of
Quebec to justify the exclusive use of the French language and, consequently,
the exclusion of all other languages. It recognised that the documents submitted
establish strongly the importance of the legislative objective of the Charter
of the French language and sought to respond to real and pressing needs
and that the linguistic policy underpinning the Charter aim at an important
and legitimate objective. Despite
these important precision for the future of our national identity - the high court
recognised the need for a legislative solution to this problem and
the validity of a clear preponderance for the French language on signs
and posters - nevertheless the Court concluded that the restrictions imposed by
the banning of a second language were not justified. Does
any of that prevent Quebec from taking action? Not at all as the same Charter
of Rights gives the province the power to make laws notwithstanding some dispositions
of the Charter, among which is found the provision for freedom of expression.
This is where the real political problem emerges. The government can act. Will
it wish to do so? After
the studious demonstration and the clarification given to freedom of expression
by the highest tribunal of the land, and taking into account the other provisions
of Bill 101 and the other means available, it is difficult to adhere to the solution
of the notwithstanding clause. Yes, French everywhere, but not at the expense
of freedom of expression and not if it prevents others from being seen. The
linguistic face Evidently,
the linguistic facade has a symbolic dimension and is loaded with emotions, but
it is not just in the face that it must be reflected but throughout the entire
body. As well, would the fact that there would be other traits on this otherwise
very francophone face, negate what we are, or would it not be instead a better
reflection of ourselves? Although
important, and deserving of being preserved and ameliorated, the French
face of Quebec must not be isolated from the other means to achieve the
objectives of the Charter of the French language. We should beware of the far
too great importance that is ascribed to a visage whose traits are foreign.
What is more pressing is to vigorously, and without delays, tackle the much more
determining factors for the future of a francophone Quebec that the selection
and welcoming policies of immigration are, as well as the francisation of the
language of work, and the right of francophones to be served in their language. Are
we strong enough to impose the respect of the French language everywhere in Quebec,
and especially in Montreal, an international city in North America? With French
everywhere, while permitting other Quebecers to show their presence on commercial
window panes, at the same time as we demand to be able to work and be served in
French and while integrating the maximum of immigrants? This is the wager that
Le Devoir believes is worthy of what we have become. A passion to live
in French tempered by the respect for fundamental rights should help us achieve
these goals. The
temptation shall be great for the Prime Minister to put forward a solution that
decides nothing but tears everybody apart. For Mr. Bourassa, the time is not to
shuffle the deck but to show his hand. Source:
editorial in Le Devoir, December 17, 1988, p. A-8 ©
For the translation, 1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College |