Legal experts are criticizing a full-page ad by the CAQ government published this week in French and English newspapers aimed at correcting the “falsehoods” circulating about the new law to protect the French language, commonly known as Bill 96 .
“The advertising campaign is misleading,” Constitutional attorney Julius Gray told CBC in an interview.
Frédéric Bérard, co-director of the National Observatory for Linguistic Rights, which is part of the Center for Research in Public Law at the University of Montreal, was less diplomatic.
“It’s shit on shit. That’s what it is. I mean, it’s lying to people with public money,” Berard told CBC.
This is the English version of the full-page announcement that the Quebec government has published this week in the newspapers that seeks to correct the “falsehoods” circulating about the new law to protect the French language, Bill 96. (Government of Quebec )
The advertising campaign responds to critical stories that were published in national and international media, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, following the passage of the new language law last week.
The government’s announcement begins with this preamble: “Various falsehoods have circulated about the impact of the legislation on English-speaking communities. Here are the facts.”
He then lists five things about the new law that the government says have been misrepresented.
In addition to Gray and Berard, CBC also asked Robert Leckey, dean of McGill University Law School, and Pearl Eliadis, an associate professor at McGill’s Max Bell School of Public Policy, to comment on each of the five. ” facts “exposed. published by the government in its announcement.
Health care
From the government’s announcement: “English-speaking citizens will continue to have access to health services in their language in the same way.”
This first statement in the CAQ announcement is a message that Prime Minister François Legault and French-speaking Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette have often repeated in recent weeks.
“I’m not entirely convinced about that,” Leckey said.
Robert Leckey, dean of the McGill University School of Law, said that since law 96 prevented health care providers from requiring bilinguals to be bilingual, over time, the number of health care workers able to provide attention in English or any language other than. The French will decrease. (Submitted by Robert Leckey)
He noted that the law prevents all government institutions, including health institutions, from making bilingualism a requirement for the people they hire.
This means that in the future, there will be fewer health workers who are fluent in English or any language other than French to provide services to clients who are not comfortable with French.
“If, over time, the resources of the institutions are reduced, the guarantees will also be reduced,” Leckey said.
Bérard said Legault and Jolin-Barrette can say that access to the service will not be affected, but this is not easy, because the legislation does not explicitly exclude the health system.
“If you don’t want to apply it to health services, I mean, just make sure you exclude them from the bill,” Bérard said. “It’s pretty simple. It’s pretty basic.”
Gray and Eliadis said the law only seems to guarantee access to English-language health services for so-called “historical English speakers”, that is, people who received their primary and secondary education in English in Canada and who have the government. issued. certificate accrediting it.
They point out that there are tens of thousands of English speakers here that do not fit into this category.
“They have divided English-speaking citizens into two groups: Old English and New English. And it is not true that the new ones get anything,” Gray said.
“The bottom line is, I think, there are legitimate concerns that people will be restricted in their ability to access health services,” Eliadis said.
Compared to the rest of Canada
From the government’s announcement: “English-speaking communities will continue to benefit from a quality English-language school system, colleges, universities and hospitals at an unparalleled level among French-speaking minorities elsewhere in Canada.”
This statement exasperated legal experts consulted by CBC.
“That’s the kind of statement I hate,” Bérard said.
“Comparing the rights of Anglophones in Quebec with the rights of Francophones outside of Quebec is pathetic, because it’s obviously not the same. It’s a different story,” he said.
Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Montreal, Professor Frédéric Bérard, said it was “pathetic” for the government to compare services available in English in Quebec with services available in French in the rest of Canada. (Submitted by Frédéric Bérard)
“At the end of the day, what’s your point? Are you saying you can violate the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec just because they do the same in other provinces?”
Eliadis agreed.
“That’s just provocative,” he said.
“There are far fewer concentrations of francophones outside of Quebec compared to the English minority in Quebec.”
“In Quebec there are established and much more extensive service networks, including education and health services,” Eliadis said.
Gray and Leckey said that while English educational institutions will continue to exist, some will be weakened by the new law.
For example, Law 96 limits the number of students who can enter universities in English, known as CEGEP. This means that fewer students who have received primary and secondary education in French will have the opportunity to enroll.
Leckey and Gray said this hurts everyone.
“I suspect that students attending CEGEPs in English benefit from being there with their French-speaking siblings,” Leckey said.
“There will be a shadow over the universality of these institutions,” Gray said. “Everyone’s getting worse.”
Justice
From the government’s announcement: “Quebec’s English-speakers will continue to enjoy the same constitutional guarantees as to their access to justice in their language.”
All legal experts consulted by CBC denied this claim.
“The possibility that they will continue to respect the constitutional guarantee seems to me to have certainly been reduced,” Leckey said.
He noted that Bill 96 requires that all legal documents be filed in French or with a certified translation into French.
“Even a small corporation that litigates from now on to submit documents in English will have to provide translations into French,” Leckey said.
Constitutional lawyer Julius Gray said that by failing to demand that most judges be bilingual, the government is attacking a part of the justice system in Quebec that really works well. (CBC)
“Anyone who knows anything about translation costs knows that these procedures are extremely expensive,” Gray said.
“This will cost a fortune for companies that want to file documents in English,” Bérard said.
“In my opinion, this is a restriction,” Eliadis said of the translation requirement.
Leckey and Gray also point out that the law reduces the requirement for all judges to be bilingual, which means there will be fewer judges available to hear court proceedings in English.
Gray said this is like fixing something that isn’t broken.
“The justice system in Quebec has a lot of problems. Accessibility is terrible. No one can afford it. The bureaucracy is very bad,” Gray said.
“But one thing that worked perfectly was their bilingual nature. There was no problem. So they’re attacking the only thing that worked.”
Indigenous rights
From the government’s announcement: “Legislation will continue to be applied in accordance with the rights of First Nations and Inuit communities while ensuring the existence and development of indigenous languages and cultures.”
This restraint caused Bérard to change his mind and shake his head.
“Go ask any Aboriginal person in Quebec. Everyone will tell you the same thing: Law 96 is an invasion. [on] their right to education, “he said.
“I think the statement is disrespectful,” Eliadis said.
“You have the same indigenous peoples who express serious concerns.”
Dozens of Kanien’kehá: ka (mohawk) protesters from Kahnawake stopped traffic on the Mercier Bridge last month to express concern that Bill 96 would be a setback for Kanien’kehá: ka, who are struggling to keep up. live your tongue. (CBC News)
Law 96 requires all CEGEP students to take at least three French language courses in order to graduate.
Nunavik Inuit, as well as the Crees and Kanien’kehá: ka (Mohawk) and other First Nations, have expressed concern about this requirement and called for exemption from the new law.
French is often their third language, and many students entering CEGEP have spent their childhood studying in their indigenous language, as part of a concerted effort to save these languages and pass them on to future generations.
They say that the requirement to take more French courses at CEGEP will put them at a disadvantage.
“The government has been repeatedly asked to exempt the natives, and they didn’t. If the government thinks it doesn’t affect them in any way, why didn’t they?” Gray asked.
“I think we should listen a little bit more to First Nations and Indigenous communities and tell them a little bit less about what their agreement is,” Leckey said.
Search and confiscation
From the government’s announcement: “At no time has the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) been involved or engaged in searches or seizures.”
All our experts mocked this statement.
A lawyer and human rights scholar, McGill Associate Professor Pearl Eliadis, said the new language law clearly gives the Office québécois de la langue française the power to search companies and confiscate documents, despite the government’s assertion. who will not participate in this search and convulsions. (McGill University)
“In the bill there are specific provisions that allow the Office to enter premises, in order to obtain information and documents. And these provisions …