In 1992, the report of a committee chaired by Gretta Chambers recommended opening access to English-speaking schools to “all children of immigrants who have been educated in English or whose parents come from a country in the world where we speak English ”.
The Minister of Education at the time, Michel Pagé, applauded the report with enthusiasm. Premier Bourassa, however, was careful not to follow up on them. Since then, no government, neither Liberal nor PQ, has considered it. This would have had the effect of completely nullifying the effects of Bill 101.
In its original version, the law only authorized children whose father or mother had received their primary education in English in Quebec to attend English schools. The charter of rights that Pierre Elliott Trudeau had enshrined in the Constitution in 1982 extended this right to the children of any Canadian citizen whose English is “the first language learned and still understood” or who received their primary education in English. anywhere in Canada.
In reality, the individual rights of native English-speaking Quebecers have not been violated: what they have never accepted is that Bill 101 prevents their community from growing by assimilating immigrants.
The objective of the law was in fact to ensure that the latter integrate themselves into the French-speaking majority. The force of attraction of English is such that it has only partially succeeded, but it is easy to imagine what would have happened if the recommendation of the Chambers report had been implemented.
***
Over the decades, the substance of the debate has not changed. Anglophones are now criticizing Bill 96 for violating their rights, but it is still the right to assimilate immigrants, the majority of whom do not ask for better.
The difference lies simply in the place of this assimilation, at CEGEP rather than elementary and secondary. The “linguistic peace” whose end the Quebec Community Groups Network denounces consisted in letting things go.
Bill 96 does provide for a limitation on admissions to the English-speaking college network, but it gives priority access to students from the historic English-speaking community, who will not be deprived of anything since they already constitute only a minority of students. its customers.
This will still leave many places available for non-English speakers who wish to register. The CAQ members, who seem oblivious to the linguistic dynamic in Montreal – or who don’t give a damn about it – are keen on francophones being able to study in English at CEGEP. That the Montrealer that is Premier Legault is insensitive to it or prefers to play ostrich is even more surprising.
One wonders how do all those who, all over the world, manage to master English when education is only offered in their national language from elementary to university.
Francophones enrolled in Anglophone CEGEPs will not necessarily become anglicized, but the risk is very real in the case of immigrants for whom French is not the first language. The problem is that we cannot allow access to college education in English to some and deny it to others.
***
Anglophones have every right to challenge Bill 96, as they have systematically (and generally successfully) challenged all language laws since Bill 22. While Quebecers believe that the Canadian Constitution imposes limitations inconsistent with the assertion of their identity, they know what to do.
Juxtaposing haphazardly the Law on the Secularism of the State, Bill 96 and Joyce Echaquan’s drama, as did the Liberal MP for Jacques-Cartier, Greg Kelley, was however an insulting amalgam that the leader of the PLQ, Dominique Anglade, herself lamented, even if Prime Minister Legault chose a very bad time to be outraged.
The Minister responsible for Language, Simon Jolin-Barrette, also slipped by including in his bill an article making insufficient mastery of French “an act derogatory to the dignity of the profession” in the same way as corruption or embezzlement, sanctioned by the Professional Code.
The College of Physicians rightly considers that such a provision testifies to inappropriate aggressiveness, especially since Law 101 already provides that “professional orders can only issue permits to people who have the official language. knowledge appropriate to the exercise of their profession ”. The debate is already difficult enough to avoid unnecessary provocations.