Você está na página 1de 4

Language Law Flaw

Access to an education in English through the public system should be a right and not a privilege
in Quebec. However, that is all about to change. A recent development in the National Assembly of
Quebec, regarding language of instruction, has lead to the creation of Bill 115. This bill will block access
to public English education unless someone has considerable means to pay for entry into the system. Bill
115 should not be received with open arms because it is rather unnecessary and the legislation is
confusing, unconstitutional and unfair.

The province of Quebec has always been considered a French province. Bill 22 made sure of
that. In 1974, French was made the one and only official language used by the provincial government
and eventually led to the formation of the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101, three
years later (A Look Back at Language Laws). This began Quebec’s long, and somewhat oppressive,
language legislation. From that point on access to the public English school system became more
difficult and the future is even bleaker.

Immigrants and those who received a French education in Quebec or in another province are
denied access to English public schools (The Charter of the French Language). But, if a parent meet
certain requirements, a child and any of their siblings, could be educated in English. However, some
crafty parents found that if they sent their child to an unsubsidized English private school for their first
year of elementary school, they could then transfer into the public system by using a loophole created
by Bill 101. Since the bill stipulated that a child who received the majority of their elementary education
in English would not be forced to transfer to the French public school system (Dougherty, Bill Introduced
to Determine Admission to English Schools).

Bill 115 is a piece of legislation that was passed through the National Assembly in October 2010
and is meant to close this backdoor. Originally, Bill 104 was meant to do that by not allowing the
children of Francophone and immigrants to attend English schools altogether (EMSB). However, the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was unconstitutional, because it violated the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and Quebec was sent back to the drawing board (CBC News). Bill 103 was
supposed to be the replacement for Bill 104 but essentially served as a rough draft for Bill 115 since it
failed to solve the aspects that were deemed unconstitutional. Bill 115 states that a child must attend an
unsubsidized English private school for a minimum of 3 years. An application is then submitted to a
review board. A new point system has been put in place and an applicant needs to receive 15 or more
points in order to be approved (Macpherson).

Several critics have labeled this new system as confusing because it allows the review board
members to seemingly add or subtract points somewhat at will and over situations that should carry no
weight on a decision to approve or refuse an application, such as what kind of private school the child
attends or whether or not a sibling is already in the English public system (Macpherson). Those 15 points
can be acquired by spending 3 years in a private school; the point system may work against them. The
point system itself is hard to understanding and as of yet is not readily available to the general public.
Because of this parents will have a hard deciphering what conditions apply and whether or not it will
make it worth their while to pay for three or more years of private school.

Bill 115 attempts to rectify where Bill 104 and 103 failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms but many still believe that it is unconstitutional (Howarth). This bill, along with several of
previous incarnations and predecessors, is discriminatory. The Charter of Rights and Freedom as well as
it’s Quebec counterpart, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, says that no one should be
discriminated against because of language but that is exactly what any language legislation in Quebec
does (Department of Justice) (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This is evident in Bill 103. The
provincial government was trying to amend the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms so that it would
fit the proposed legislation (Dougherty, Quebec Government Pushes through Controversial Language
Law). What other reason would there be to change the charter if the proposed bill was constitutional?

Bill 115 is also unfair for two reasons, it benefits the rich and it does not allow access to English
schools for those who really want it. Jean Charest, Quebec’s premier, has said that this bill was created
to make access near impossible to the English public school system (Branswell). And it will be. The
requirements are enough to turn away many people because of their complexity and the uncertainty
surrounding whether or not an application will actually be approved. Moreover, is the fact that many
parents cannot afford the three years tuition at a private school (Howarth). The Quebec English School
Board Association (QESBA) has noted that in many cases, parents rich enough to afford that hefty price
tag will likely keep their children in the private system, rather than making the transfer (Howarth).
Essentially this means that the right that grants access English public system must be bough though we
are taught that rights are guaranteed and should be free of charge.

One would think that the reason Bill 104 was originally enacted was to prevent a large number
of people from benefitting from the loophole in Bill 101, right? No. Taking a look at the statistics will
make it that much more apparent that the government is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There
are about a million students in elementary and secondary schools in Quebec (Ministère de l'Éducation,
du Loisir et du Sport). The number of students who attend an English-language school is approximately
110, 000 (CNW Group) or 11%. It is estimated that that roughly 500 to 800 children enrolled in English
schools using the back door provided by Bill 101 per year (CNW Group). A rather minuscule amount of
students, as they represent less than 0.1% of the students enrolled in schools in Quebec.

Passing a law that will affect less than 1% of students is preposterous and rather extreme. This
does not constitute a threat to the French language in any way, shape or form. Most Anglophones
students can currently enroll in English schools under the legislation provided under Bill 101, so Bill 115
will not affect t hem. Immigrants are made aware of the fact that their children must attend a French
school and most do not object, even if their second language was English prior to immigrating (No Dogs
or Anglophones). In fact, most children who attend English schools are usually more bilingual than
those who have received a French education. This is also generally true about children who learned
English as a second language and then French as a third, having been required to attend a French school
(No Dogs or Anglophones). So when you think about it, the legislation is a gross misuse of the
government’s time and taxpayers dollars.

Then there’s the group of parents, both of whom are Francophone, who wish to send their
children to English school because they want their children to be bilingual and know that the English
being taught in the French public system is far from adequate (Faguy). While many English schools will
offer French as a second language, advanced French course, French immersion or a program that
combines French and English instruction, the same cannot be said for French schools. That is not to say
that the English public system offers high-quality French course, because it doesn’t, though it is superior
in quality to the English classes offered by the French system. It is not unusual for a student to graduate
from a French school, without having grasped the minimum basics of English (Faguy).

The goal of language legislation in the province of Quebec is too protect the use of French
language. Denying access to the miniscule amount of people who want English education is certainly not
the appropriate way of achieving that goal. The government, and the French language, would be better
served by finding alternatives that do not focus on forcing a sub-par French education on everyone.

Both English and French schools would immensely benefit from a stronger and improved French
curriculum. Not only can students in an English school benefit from receiving a French education that at
par with the French system but French students should be offered the same advantage. In a world that
is beginning to be highly globalized, speaking more than one language will soon be a necessity rather
than luxury. The educational system would be better if it produced students that were proficient in two
languages rather than one.

Furthermore, offering French classes, at no cost, would be another way to encourage people to
speak French. While there are programs in places to help immigrants learn French, the classes are not
offered for free and are open mainly to immigrants. There are plenty of people, who are not immigrants,
whom would appreciate the opportunity to improve their French if given the right situation presented
itself.

By wanting to protect the French language, the government has been overzealous in their
mandate and Bill 115 was created unnecessarily. The lack of clarity in Bill 115 perpetuates confusion for
its complexity; interpretation may hinder its application. As well, there is much debate regarding its
constitutionality and fairness. Overlooked, are solutions that would serve the purpose much better than
current proposed legislation.
Works Cited

"A Look Back at Language Laws." 22 October 2009. Montreal Gazette. 26 October 2010
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/look+back+language+laws/2132982/story.html>.

Branswell, Brenda. "Clarity Sought in Language Legislation." 21 October 2010. Yahoo! Canada News. 26 October
2010 <http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/21102010/80/central-clarity-sought-language-legislation.html>.

Canadian Legal Information Institute. "Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms." 28 October 2008. Canadian Legal
Information Institute. 13 November 2010 <http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/rsq-c-c-12/latest/rsq-c-c-
12.html>.

CBC News. "Quebec gets support in bid to overturn language-law ruling." 27 August 2007. CBC News Ottawa. 12
November 2010 <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/23/language-law.html>.

CNW Group. "QESBA angry and disappointed - "Bill 115 won't bring "a single new student" to English public school
system" - Horrocks." 15 October 2010. newswire.ca. 14 November 2010
<http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2010/19/c3760.html>.

Department of Justice. "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." 8 November 2010. Department of Justice -
Government of Canada. 14 November 2010 <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html>.

Dougherty, Kevin. "Bill Introduced to Determine Admission to English Schools." 2 June 2010. Montreal Gazette. 20
October 2010 <http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Bill determine admission English schools
presented/3102390/story.html>.

—. "Quebec Government Pushes through Controversial Language Law." 18 October 2010. Canada.com. 26 October
2010 <http://www.canada.com/life/Quebec government pushes through controversial
language/3690819/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: canwest/F75
(canada.com National News)>.

EMSB. "Bill 104." 2002. English Montreal School Board. 14 November 2010
<http://www.emsb.qc.ca/en/services_en/pdf/Bill104.pdf>.

Faguy, Steve. "Passerelle." 26 October 2010. 13 November 2010 <http://blog.fagstein.com/2010/10/26/bill-115/>.

Howarth, Ian. "Bill 115 thorn in side to English-language education." 27 October 2010. TheSuburban.com. 13
November 2010 <http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/The-
Suburban/thesuburbanoctober27_2010/2010102701/60.html>.

Macpherson, Don. "No Threat to the French Language." 21 October 2010. Montreal Gazette. 26 October 2010
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=3703114&sponsor=>.

Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. "Rentrée Scolaire 2006." Government of Quebec. 14 November
2010 <http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/rentree2006/sections/en/stats.asp>.

No Dogs or Anglophones. "Family, Not School Determines Language Path for Immigrants." 3 November 2010. No
Dogs or Anglophones. 13 November 2010 <http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.com/2010/11/family-not-
school-determines-language.html?utm_source=BP_recent>.

"The Charter of the French Language." 2002. Office Québécois De La Langue Française. 20 October 2010
<<http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/preamble.html>.

Você também pode gostar