CD HOWE PAPER
Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee
by John Richards
CD HOWE PAPER
Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee
by John Richards
Canada is a prosperous, peaceful country that by and large respects human rights and has a good set of social programs. Yet it ranks high among countries likely to fall apart. Why?
At the core of any satisfactory answer to this riddle is the perfectly reasonable concern among francophone Quebecers over survival of French as the lingua franca within their province. Given the powerful processes leading to assimilation of non-English speakers in North America - including francophones outside Quebec - francophone Quebecers want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent, limit the use of English.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary. Unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities but, in general, Bill 101’s restrictions on use of English are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.
One way to do this, Richards argues, would be to entrench a new section in the Constitution. By analogy with section 92A (a 1982 amendmtters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee
CD HOWE PAPER
Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee
by John Richards
Canada is a prosperous, peaceful country that by and large respects human rights and has a good set of social programs. Yet it ranks high among countries likely to fall apart. Why?
At the core of any satisfactory answer to this riddle is the perfectly reasonable concern among francophone Quebecers over survival of French as the lingua franca within their province. Given the powerful processes leading to assimilation of non-English speakers in North America - including francophones outside Quebec - francophone Quebecers want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent, limit the use of English.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary. Unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities but, in general, Bill 101’s restrictions on use of English are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. ent that clarified federal and provincial resource jurisdiction at the behest of western Canadians), a new section 92B would deal with jurisdiction over language. Drafting such a clause would pose complex issues: definition of a suitably robust provincial power to legislate, specification of the bilingual nature of federal institutions, and specification of a set of language services to be enjoyed by official language minorities.
Richards points out that the sovereignty movement in Quebec is in part fueled by the perfectly reasonable concern among francophone Quebecers over the survival of French as the lingua franca within their province. Given the powerful processes leading to assimilation of non-English speakers in North America - including francophones outside Quebec - franco-phone Quebecers want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent, to limit the use of English.
Bill 101, enacted in 1977, remains highly popular among francophone Quebecers, Richards says, because it has strengthened the status of French as the dominant language in the province. In 1971, prior to Bill 101, only 37 percent of anglophone Quebecers spoke French; by 1991, 59 percent were bilingual. In 1971, among allophones (those whose mother tongue is neither French nor English), 36 percent spoke English only, 33 percent spoke both official languages, and 14 pish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. ercent spoke French only. By 1991, 21 percent of allophones spoke English only, 47 percent were French-English bilingual, and 22 percent spoke French only.
Beyond Quebec and the bilingual belts in adjacent provinces, francophone assimilation to English has accelerated over the past two decades, despite policies of official bilingualism, Richards points out. In the seven provinces beyond Quebec and its adjacent neighbors, 51 percent of mother-tongue francophones spoke French at home in 1971; this statistic had fallen to 41 percent by 1991. Within Quebec, however, language retention among francophones remains close to 100 percent.
The principle underlying Bill 101, Richards says, is that the majority within Quebec should, democratically, decide the law governing the public use of language in the province. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is based on an alternate principle - that governments should award equal status across Canada to French and English. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 decision that Bill 101’s unilingual sign provisions violated the right to freedom of expression was, Richards argues, an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the Charter, and accentuated the conflict between these principles.
The pragmatic reason to provide a robust authority to Quebec to legislate over language, Richards says, is that this matter is iish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. mportant in explaining the choice among francophone Quebecers between federalism and sovereignty. The majority of francophones believe that the situation of French would improve were Quebec sovereign.
Expansion of provincial powers over language requires consideration of the appropriate limits on individual rights and government powers, Richards says. Entrenching rights renders them more visible and enhances the legitimacy of the courts in the task of preventing coercion. This argument is strongest when applied to fundamental rights (such as habeas corpus). It is much weaker when extended to embrace the positive role of the state in an area such as determining language(s) to promote in legislatures, in schools, and via regulation of commercial activity. The danger then arises of judges’ assuming powers that should remain in the hands of elected legislators.
Provision of a general legislative authority to Quebec over language will, Richards says, restrict the ability of anglophone Quebecers to use the Charter in bargaining language services. But, he suggests, actual Quebec policy may become more flexible. At present, Quebec govern-ments fear the courts’ potential to exploit flexible provisions as precedents for restricting legislative initiatives. With a firm constitutional basis for legislating over language, Richards argues,that fear would be attenuish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. ated.
This publication continues the C.D. Howe Institute’s postreferendum research agenda, which comprises two Commentary series. The first series, "The Canadian Union Papers," focuses on ways to enhance Canada’s political, economic, and social union. Papers already published in the series have examined some of Ottawa’s legal and constitutional options for strengthening the economic union, and ways to enhance Canadians’ common economic citizenship rights. Future papers will offer analysis and recommendations aimed at improving Canada’s political institutions and protecting the social union in a "disentangled" federation.
Complementing this effort is another Commentary series called "The Secession Papers," which examine issues relating to the following areas:
The papers are guided by the following principles: respect for democratic norms and the rule of law; the necessity for an authoritative decision and a stable outcome; and minimizing the social and economic cish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
- the terms and conditions of a possible future referendum on Quebec sovereignty;
- the circumstances which the country might confront after a Yes vote, together with the processes by which the secession of Quebec might be addressed;
- the means by which a new Canada without Quebec might be established, should Quebec leave Confederation.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. osts of any transition. In the light of the results of the recent referendum in Quebec, "The Secession Papers" aim to assist Canadians to "think about the unthinkable."
Both series are being published under the supervision of David Cameron, a political scientist at the University of Toronto.
Main Findings of the Commentary
- Linguistically, Quebec is like Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Singapore, and the cantons of Switzerland. In small jurisdictions whose respective languages differ from the languages spoken by large adjacent neighbors, linguistic boundaries roughly correspond to the relevant political boundaries. The languages of small linguistic communities do not survive as lingua francas, unless buttressed by law.
- Bill 101, enacted in 1977, remains highly popular among francophone Quebecers, because it has strengthened the status of French as the dominant language in the province.
- Beyond Quebec and the bilingual belts in adjacent provinces, francophone assimilation to English has accelerated since 1971 - despite policies of official bilingualism. Within Quebec, language retention among francophones remains close to 100 percent.
- The principle underlying Bill 101 is that the majority within Quebec should, democrati-cally, decide the law governing the public use of language in the province.ish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. The principle underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, is based on an alternate principle, that governments should award equal status across Canada to French and English. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 decision that Bill 101’s unilingual sign provisions violated the right to freedom of expression was an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the Charter, and accentuated the conflict between these principles.
- Language policy in multilingual countries is always a potential source of conflict. Many countries that manage the conflict reasonably well - India and Switzerland, for example - have accepted a formal division of power over language. Thereby, local majorities determine most aspects of language policy. Compromises apply to national institutions (such as the central civil service) and to elaboration of minority language services.
- The pragmatic reason to provide a robust authority to Quebec to legislate over language is that this matter is an important factor in explaining the choice among francophones between federalism and sovereignty. The majority of francophone Quebecers believe that the situation of French would improve were Quebec sovereign.
- Expansion of provincial powers in this domain requires consideration of the appropriate limits on individual rights and government powers. The rationale for entrencish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. hed legal rights is a negative theory of human liberty. Entrenching rights enhances the legitimacy of the courts in the task of preventing coercion, especially when undertaken via the state. This argument is strongest when applied to fundamental rights (such as habeas corpus); it is much weaker when extended to embrace the positive role of the state. The danger then arises of judges assuming powers that should remain in the hands of elected legislators. Among the state’s positive roles is determination of language(s) to promote in legislatures, in schools, and via the regulation of commercial activity. The appropriate institution to determine public language policy is usually an elected legislature, not the courts.
- Provision of a general legislative authority to Quebec over language will restrict the ability of Quebec anglophones to use the Charter in bargaining over language services. However, actual Quebec policy may become more flexible. At present, Quebec governments fear the potential for courts to exploit flexible language provisions as precedents for restricting legislative initiatives. With a firm constitutional basis for legislating over language, that fear would be attenuated.
- By analogy with section 92A of the Constitution Act (a 1982 amendment that clarified federal and provincial resource jurisdiction), Canadians should entrench a seish are reasonable if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, are to remain majority francophone regions. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101.In debating this matter, the two principal protagonists over the past quarter-century have been the Parti Québécois and the Ottawa Liberals.
In general, both have pursued noncooperative strategies. The former have argued that nothing short of Quebec sovereignty is adequate to protect language and culture; the latter have insisted on pan-Canadian bilingualism as a feasible substitute to the language protection legislated by Quebec City.
The basic recommendation of this Commentary is straightforward: establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language which, among other provisions, accords a robust general authority to Quebec to legislate in this domain. Specifically, amend section 92 of the Constitution Actand thereby grant Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
Press Release from CD HOWE - October 1, 1996
Give Quebec explicit jurisdiction over use of language, says C.D. Howe Institute study
Canada should establish an explicit federal-provincial division of powers over language, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. Specifically, the study recommends amending section 92 of the Constitution Act to grant to Quebec explicit jurisdiction over the public use of language, subject to the existing set of minority language services specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the maintenance of bilingualism within federal institutions.
The study, Language Matters: Ensuring That the Sugar Not Dissolve in the Coffee, was written by John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Scholar of the C.D. Howe Institute.
Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Bill 101) has been controversial but necessary, Richards argues. While unilingual French signs were an unnecessary affront to linguistic minorities, in general Bill 101’s restrictions on the use of English are reasonable, Richards says, if Quebec as a whole, and Montreal in particular, is to remain a majority francophone region. Unfortunately, the Canadian political system has not found a way to provide for the political legitimacy of Bill 101. ction 92B dealing with jurisdiction over language. Drafting such a clause poses complex issues: definition of a suitably robust general provincial power to legislate; specification of the bilingual nature of federal institutions; and specification of a set of language services to be enjoyed by official language minorities.
Full text of the paper, (in .pdf format), or hard copies, may be obtained from the CD HOWE INSTITUTE