Revisiting the Charter of the French Language reform
The exception does not make the rule
As we move further into 2025, we want to update you on the situation on the ground based on the experience of some of our clients and many stories of non-clients over the past year.
Bill 96 was adopted May 24, 2022, and became Law 14. It claimed to overhaul the Charter of the French Language (CFL) 45 years after its adoption. “Today we have adopted a law that represents the beginning of a major language revival that will allow the Quebec nation to continue to fully express its identity and its values,” said Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, seconded by the Premier, who described the law as “responsible” and “moderate”. Time will tell, better than politicians, whether this revamp will have the desired effect, but two years in, there are already reasons for doubt.
A useless exercise for the vitality of French in Quebec
It is clear that the changes to the law have been a useless exercise that will have no major effect on the vitality of French in Quebec nor on the stature of Francophones in Canada. There have been, however, damaging effects on Quebec’s international reputation and on its economy. This bill was above all designed to impress Quebec Francophones and show them that their government is shouldering its historic responsibilities to protect the French language. And this was a success because the illusion was complete. The audience this illusion was intended for applauded a strong stance where the obvious culprits in this instance are companies and bilingualism.
This shortcut means that Francophones do not have to question the real cause of the decline of French. Is Montreal becoming more English because Francophones have abandoned it for the suburbs while immigration soars to new heights in the city? What effect is the pervasive Anglophone digital culture having on the spread of French? What are we doing to help young Francophones who hardly use their mother tongue? How did we get here despite language laws that are unparalleled worldwide and the rise in immigrants adopting French in the province? Should we instead look at a lack of collective responsibility toward the French language?
The issue of the vitality of French in Quebec is complex because it is multifaceted. It is simplistic to blame its decline on the omnipresence of English. We must get out of this conventional wisdom that is keeping us from appreciating the complexity of the problem to be able to find diverse and concrete solutions to ensure that French continues to shine in North America. The government chose to legislate to supposedly strengthen the Charter of the French Language, this virtual bastion of our French identity, while forgetting that identity is not defined by a law, but by the choices that each person makes for themselves.
Bilingualism on trial
Companies are the primary targets of this political PR campaign’s blame game. The part of the law concerning the francization of companies has become denser and more complex with Bill 96, particularly regarding the relations that companies have with their workers and with their clients in Quebec. The law now makes it more difficult to hire bilingual workers, even when it is justified. Most companies already work in French; according to a study by the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF), 89% of workers used French in 2016. If this number has fallen over the years, it’s because English established itself in Montreal in the science and technology sector and our companies have increased their relations outside Quebec. We export more and this strengthens our economy. Between 2006 and 2016, the predominant use of French in Montreal fell from 72.2% to 69.6%, but paradoxically, the use of English decreased as well. More and more Montreal workers now use French as much as English at work. Accordingly, the rise of this “bilingualism” in Montreal workplaces is behind the slight decline in the predominant use of French by Quebec workers. Are we less Francophone for it? Does bilingualism threaten the existence of French? These are important questions that our government does not see fit to answer.
A false debate
Is it necessary to attack bilingualism over this slight shrinkage in order to preserve the French language? This is what the law now does by mandating the OQLF to oblige companies that require the knowledge of a language other than French to cut the number of bilingual positions to a minimum. Who are we protecting by doing this, if not unilingual Francophones? Does the future of the French language depend on the number of unilingual Francophones? What exactly do restrictions on bilingualism gain for the French language? Unilingual Francophones who are not hired due to a useless bilingualism requirement can lodge a complaint with the CNESST and easily prevail. The Office applies the law zealously. But by attacking bilingualism, we are attacking the economy and Quebec’s relations with the outside world. We are attacking the ability of Quebecers to enrich themselves with well-paying jobs. Companies that do business around the world are the ones harassed. Often, these are foreign companies that do not have clients in Quebec. Reducing their bilingual workforce is tantamount to inviting them to go elsewhere.
A law where regulations would have sufficed and wasted resources
On June 1, 2025, the law will broaden to impose the obligation to generalize the use of French to employers of more than 25 people. It already requires companies that employ at least five people to offer non-Francophone workers French-language courses from Francisation Québec. Did we need a law to accomplish all this? No. It would have sufficed to add a regulation to the Charter defining the notion of a company and declaring that a franchisor and its franchisees form a single company. Instead, the OQLF must continue to francize, one after the other, each legal entity related to a franchisor and certify, one after the other, all the registered subsidiaries of a single company. This is a gross waste of resources by a bureaucracy that is looking to justify its existence by multiplying procedures. Regarding Francisation Québec, created under this bill, adequate funding would have made it possible to finance French-language courses in all regions of Quebec.
Shortened delays for companies and an overwhelmed OQLF
Then, the process of legal conformity was complicated by cutting report and form filing deadlines in half, double representation at the head of francization committees was imposed and companies were prevented from being represented by experts before the OQLF. The result? The OQLF is at least two years behind in processing its files and must issue urgent letters to explain that companies are not in default, instead of the certifications stipulated in law. Why shorten companies’ deadlines with no consideration of the consequences, if not to show the general public that they want to turn up the heat?
The law that is applied is not always the one that was voted through. It all depends on how the person applying it understands it.
A biased interpretation of the law
According to the OQLF’s logic, any company established in Quebec has the obligation to work in French. But this is not what the law says. The CFL gives workers the right to work in French and obliges employers to ensure that workers have the means to be able to do so when they wish to exercise their right. But the law does not impose the obligations on workers to work in French and does not require employers to force their workers to work in French. Yet this is what the OQLF requires of employers by imposing restrictive or prohibitive measures in their programs.
Not all companies can generalize the use of French without negative consequences for their business. We’re not talking about an Anglophone boss who forces their employees to work in English for their personal comfort. We are rather talking about innovative companies, some of which are recruited by Montréal International, that bring international projects and business to Quebec. They are also Quebec companies that developed on outside markets and have only very few, if any, clients in Quebec. These companies create well-paying jobs. Some raise Quebec’s profile around the world and they must remain competitive on an international scale. These do not represent even one percent of all companies that must generalize the use of French. But they are the ones that are harassed by the Office when they require bilingualism of their employees.
A preference for special treatment to the detriment of legitimate special agreements
Bill 96 avoided modernizing Section 144 and its regulations. Section 144 still refers to head offices that threatened to leave Quebec when a sovereigntist party came to power four decades ago. This model ceased to exist with the advent of the internet, which makes it possible to create borderless virtual teams. The OQLF requires companies that are not head offices but that do business only outside Quebec to generalize the use of French. The most troubling part is the relentless persistence shown in trying to francize companies for which this is impossible. Under Section 144, this obligation can be waived through an agreement with the OQLF. Moreover, this agreement stipulates francization measures to protect the rights of workers, consumers and citizens in Quebec to communications in French, but allows the company to work in English outside Quebec. This section is not often used because the Office refuses eligible companies by claiming that they do not meet the outdated definition of head office and opts for discretionary treatment over special agreements.
Bill 96: a political exercise
Section 144 is nonetheless an essential element of the Charter of the French Language and demonstrates that the law can be flexible and adaptable where required. Changing Section 144 and its regulations was a necessary part of this reform. But this was carefully avoided, leaving this part of the law in the dilapidated state in which it finds itself, in order to be able to decide in a discretionary manner who can work in a language other than French. To us, this is proof that Bill 96 was more a political exercise than a true refurbishment of the Charter of the French Language.
Contact us. We have solutions for you.
Chantal Larouche
President, GP Conceptal Inc.
514 347-3984
chantal@gpconceptal.com