Language, Law, and Rights in Québec: Examining the Pamphlet Policy

Sara Santos-Vigneault
Sep 12, 2025
6 min read

Updated: Sep 15, 2025

By: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: September 12, 2025

Ornate building tower with a Quebec blue and white flag against a bright blue sky. The architecture features intricate carvings and a central window. — Photo by clement proust on Unsplash

Québec’s Bill 96, titled An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, was passed in June 2022 to strengthen the status of French in the province. It amends the Charter of the French Language among other statutes and invokes section 33, the notwithstanding clause, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for certain provisions.

It is important to clarify that the Charter of the French Language is a provincial statute enacted by Québec. It is distinct from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a constitutional document that applies across all provinces and territories in Canada.

While Québec may legislate within its jurisdiction, including on language matters, it cannot replace or override the Canadian Charter itself. The Canadian Charter remains the supreme law of the land, and even when section 33 is invoked to shield certain provisions temporarily from Charter scrutiny, it does not eliminate or replace the Canadian Charter.

Key legal principles that are relevant include:

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter: Minority language education rights
Section 2(b): Freedom of expression, which includes signage, written communication, and language use
Section 15: Equality before the law and protection from discrimination
Access to justice and procedural fairness as underlying constitutional values

What the Québec Government Has Said

The Québec government has publicly stated its objectives in implementing Bill 96. During parliamentary debates, Minister of the French Language Simon Jolin-Barrette affirmed that the Bill does not remove the right to access health care services in English. Premier François Legault has stated that the Bill maintains the existing framework for services in English where already permitted, particularly in health and social services sectors.

Official regulations clarify obligations regarding trademarks, signage, posters, packaging, and labelling. While an exception remains for recognized trademarks in languages other than French, descriptive or generic terms must still appear in French and be given equal visual prominence.

What People Are Saying: Perspectives and Commentary

Legal scholars, advocacy organizations, and community leaders have been vocal in expressing their perspectives on the implications of Bill 96. Their commentary highlights concerns about constitutional rights, language access, and the broader societal impact.

“We are seeing a coalition of English-speaking and Indigenous communities, alongside school boards, raising alarms about barriers to education and essential services,” noted the Minnesota Journal of International Law in a 2025 analysis [11].

In its formal brief to the National Assembly, the Québec Community Groups Network (QCGN) stated: “Bill 96 is nothing short of the greatest overhaul to Québec’s legal order since the Quiet Revolution,” stated the Québec Community Groups Network (QCGN) in its official brief to the National Assembly [12]. The group expressed concern that the Bill represents a constitutional imbalance and risks isolating English-speaking citizens from full participation in civic life.

In a joint statement submitted to the legislative committee, the Quebec Writers’ Federation, English Language Arts Network, and Quebec Drama Federation wrote: “The preamble of Bill 96 says that the only official language of Québec is French… This is problematic for us… It excludes and deliberately ignores our existence,” the organizations wrote in their joint submission [13]. Their submission raised concerns that the symbolic framing of the Bill could translate into policies that undermine artistic and cultural expression for minority language groups.

The Pamphlet Policy: Legal and Practical Impact

The City of Montreal's pamphlet policy arises from its internal directive, Exemplary Conduct in the French Language Mechanisms for Informing the Public. City workers are instructed to initiate all public interactions in French. If a citizen requests service in English, employees must determine whether the individual meets criteria defined under Bill 96 before providing service in that language.

Two pamphlet versions exist. The unilingual French version is publicly displayed. The bilingual version, which includes English, may only be provided upon request or at the employee’s discretion. This method of dissemination has raised questions about whether it discourages access to services in English.

Charter Considerations

Although courts have not yet ruled specifically on the pamphlet policy, several constitutional rights may be engaged:

Freedom of expression under section 2(b): Limiting the visibility of English-language information might be argued to suppress the ability to communicate or receive information freely.
Equality rights under section 15: Requiring individuals to prove eligibility for English-language service could be challenged as discriminatory if the process creates undue burdens.
Minority language education under section 23: Policies that indirectly restrict communication or public awareness of rights could be said to impact access to education and public services.
Access to justice: If pamphlets and information about services are less accessible, individuals may not be fully informed of their rights, which could affect procedural fairness.

The Québec government argues that these measures are justified by the legitimate goal of preserving the French language. Section 33 of the Charter, invoked by the government, insulates certain parts of the law from judicial review on Charter grounds. However, courts may still assess whether policies are being applied fairly and in accordance with rights that remain protected.

Broader Implications

This policy reflects a broader legal and political debate about language rights in Québec and in Canada. The question of whether public information should be routinely available in multiple languages, beyond French and English, is increasingly relevant in multicultural contexts. While the Canadian Charter guarantees official bilingualism at the federal level, its application at the provincial level varies.

Québec’s language policy model could influence other provinces or municipalities, particularly where there is interest in preserving or promoting specific linguistic or cultural identities. However, any such policy would need to comply with the Charter, particularly sections concerning freedom of expression, equality, and minority language rights.

From the Québec Community Groups Network brief: “Bill 96 is nothing short of the greatest overhaul to Québec’s legal order since the Quiet Revolution. It disrupts the two-decades-old social peace around language in Québec. It fundamentally changes the structure of the Québec state and legal order.”

From Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette: “No portion of the bill takes away the right to access health-care services in English.”

From the QWF, ELAN, and QDF joint submission: “The preamble of Bill 96 says that the only official language of Québec is French… This is problematic for us… It excludes and deliberately ignores our existence.”

Historic chateau in Quebec that towers over old town buildings under a clear blue sky. Flags and a sign with "AML LOUIS JOLLIET" adorn the foreground. — Photo by Jeffrey Eisen on Unsplash

Conclusion

The bilingual pamphlet policy in Montreal represents one part of a broader legislative effort to reinforce the use of French in Québec. While this aligns with the province’s objective of protecting and promoting French as the common language, it raises broader questions about the intersection of provincial autonomy and constitutional guarantees.

Critically, this policy prompts legal scrutiny not because it promotes French, but because it does so through mechanisms that may limit access to public information in English or other languages. While Québec has invoked section 33 of the Canadian Charter to protect aspects of Bill 96 from judicial review, this does not nullify the constitutional rights that continue to apply, nor does it eliminate the potential for legal and political challenges in areas where the Charter remains in force.

Courts, legislators, and civil society will likely continue to evaluate whether the practical implementation of these laws respects fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, equality before the law, and procedural fairness.

The role of discretion in granting English-language services, the conditional visibility of bilingual materials, and the potential for unequal access to justice or information may all become focal points of future constitutional debate.

From a societal perspective, the impact extends beyond legal compliance. These policies may influence how linguistic communities in Québec perceive their place in the province. For English-speaking Quebecers, immigrants, and Indigenous peoples, the visibility and accessibility of their languages in public life contribute to their sense of inclusion and civic belonging. Reducing that visibility, even through technically legal means, may generate feelings of exclusion or disengagement.

Ultimately, the challenge for Québec is to uphold its commitment to preserving French while ensuring that its approach remains constitutionally sound, administratively fair, and socially inclusive. The Canadian Charter cannot be replaced by provincial law, and its protections form the bedrock of a shared national legal framework. Balancing these priorities will require not only careful legislative drafting but also ongoing dialogue, transparency, and responsiveness to the province’s diverse population.

Courts and policy-makers will need to consider whether such measures strike an appropriate balance between promoting French and respecting the rights of English-speaking and other minority communities. Crucially, while Québec may define its language laws through provincial statutes such as the Charter of the French Language, these laws do not replace the Canadian Charter, which remains the constitutional framework under which all legislation must ultimately be measured.