CHAPTER 7 The National Will is

Canada must end because its federal government does not defend and uphold the values that constitute its National Will. A nation cannot and should not continue if such values are not protected.

What do you mean by National Will?

Simply put, National Will is the “glue” that holds a nation together. It is a collection of those values that from coast to coast we hold dearest and upon which the constitutional, moral, and social fabric of the nation is comprised.

According to Pierre Trudeau, national will is "a nomenclature of values which bind Canadians together in the sense that they all share certain basic beliefs"; "a body of values to be shared by the Canadian people" which is "more than the sum of the wills of the provinces" with “a will of its own -- 'une volonté générale', as Rousseau said, or ‘un vouloir-vivre collectif‘ “[82]

What are some examples of the values that constitute Canada‘s “National Will”?

First and foremost, the commitment to upholding, protecting and defending individual rights and freedoms. Other values are our social programs such as Medicare; official bilingualism, free trade between provinces, and protecting minorities.

This is not an exhaustive list. It is subjective and each individual may have more or less, or even different ones than those listed above, as they constitute my own personal list. However, there should be a common thread that runs through all Canadians’ collection of values which should serve to bind us all together.

And you believe the national will is “broken“?

I believe that the values that make up the national will of a fundamental characteristic of Canada -- French-speaking Canadians centered in Quebec -- are in conflict with those held by the rest of Canadians.

The so-called two founding peoples of Canada are too far apart on certain issues that speak to the very nucleus of life and liberty and how such values should be defined and institutionalized within a nation. In consequence, the continued existence of the nation itself must be called into question.

There is one issue more than any other that represents this split.

And what is that?

The language of education provisions of Quebec’s Bill 101 and section 23 of Canada’s Charter of Rights. Together, they constitute a clear and unmitigated assault on the principle of equality. Individual rights -- not to mention minority language rights -- are not just at risk but have already been compromised by these laws.

It is Canada’s and Quebec’s language of education laws that made me a separatist.

I am also deeply troubled by Bill 101’s attempt to legislate respect.

What is wrong with respecting other people in the society you live in? In a majority French-speaking province isn’t it just good manners to respect the French language? I must assume that one of the major impetuses for francophone support of Bill 101 is the desire to be respected.

The Charter of the French Language attempts to prevent Quebecers from being offended by legislating respect for the majority. Indeed, its stated purpose, found in the Charter's preamble, is to require this population subgroup's language to be "the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business" and for speakers of minority languages to adhere to this dictum by force and punishment of law.

Legislating respect is something totalitarian regimes do, not liberal democracies.

Is legislating respect from the ethnic groups who live amongst them something that those responsible for and who support Bill 101 proud of? If so, I suggest they consider expand the already-existing criminalization of disrespect that Bill 101 imposes on violators. In this pursuit, the National Assembly can learn from the Revised Statutes of Cuba and Venezuela:

To put comparable language in Bill 101 would be strengthening what is already there.

To many people, Bill 101 is most closely associated with its most notorious and visible provisions: the sign law. But it is, of course, much than that. Bill 101 sticks its meddling little fingers into every crook and nanny of Quebec society: language of education, the National Assembly, the courts, commercial signage, common language, unions, and business communication and interaction. Culture lies at the very core of all these different facets of society and they have been forever contaminated by Bill 101 which imposes the tyranny of the majority in areas that must and should be free.

Of particular concern when it comes to culture and respect is “common language” which can only be defined in free and democratic societies by freedom of speech and freedom of association. “Common language” is how we all choose to communicate and express ourselves and lies at the very foundation of our societal and interpersonal interactions, at home or at work. Bill 101’s stated goal is to make a specific language the normal and everyday language of communication, commerce and business and to repress the use of other languages. Common language swims in the sea of individual freedom and should not and must not be infringed upon. Yet its manipulation is the very raison d’etre of Bill 101.

When the first habitants paddled their way up the St. Lawrence River some four hundred years ago, wherever they landed in what is now the province of Quebec they encountered a majority language. Did said habitants respect those majority languages? Or did the newly-arrived immigrants from France force their minority-language, minority-culture, and minority-religion upon the majority population, often at the end of a musket barrel?

No one is suggesting that the French language be accorded the same treatment and respect that the ancestors of its current speakers in Quebec handed out to the original majority language speakers. But perhaps we can find common ground to stop the nonsense of legislating respect once and for all.

It is not worthy of a great people to be reduced to implementing and supporting a law such as Bill 101.

In the first chapter of this book you requested that the reader ask himself, by the end of the Why section, whether he agrees with Stéphane Dion that Bill 101 is a great Canadian law.

What I can say with full certainty at this point is that it isn’t “great” in any positive sense of the word but it certainly is a Canadian law because it has now reached the point at which this notorious law is now defended and supported by the Canadian government which even intervenes to defend it in court.

However, no matter how distasteful Bill 101 may be, isn’t it necessary to keep the country together?

Many feel that not only has Bill 101 kept the country but that it is worth the price:

I suspect, however, there are many that do not feel it is worth the price.

One finds testament to this sentiment in the commentary given by ordinary Canadians, as reproduced in the final report of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future (the Spicer Report). The common sense and insight of the man on the street is clearer and more forthright than most politicians ever demonstrated in this debate:

These Canadians seem to be saying what you are saying: Some values are more important than even the concept of Canada.

For Canada to continue compromising on principles that Canadians know to be wrong is unacceptable. Furthermore, the influence, support, and enablement of Bill 101 by the federal government has not served French Quebec well but, rather, has placed them in a position of weakness and dependency upon Canada. We've reached the point at which a reexamination and reevaluation of the elements of our national will is in order.

I don’t want to lose Canada and yet I don’t want to keep compromising on those principles that I feel are even more important than the concept of Canada. What is to be done with this “great Canadian law”?

Bill 101 has no place in free and democratic societies. Bill 101 violates free speech, free association, equality rights, and segregates rights according to the test of descent.

I honestly don’t believe that French Quebecers truly want Bill 101 any more than do Canadians outside Quebec. However, the Canadian context of forced complacency has pushed them into a corner where it is defended at all costs.

If not Bill 101, what else can be done to protect and preserve the French language and culture in Quebec?

I believe that the next evolutionary step in the growth of the Quebec nation is to realize that French Quebec cannot become a real, true nation while such a law as Bill 101 exists within its territory. And it’s bad not just for the minority non-francophone community of Quebec. I contend that the continued presence of this law is having and will continue to have a negative impact on the whole of Quebec society, especially the French language and culture. I believe that Quebec's language laws are the single greatest danger to the continued health of French in Quebec.

What else other than Bill 101 can be done to protect and preserve French, you ask? Why, the same thing that protects every other major world language: the borders of an independent nation.

In the next section titled How we will not only examine how Quebec independence can be achieved but what the linguistic provisions of the this new country will be for the linguistic minorities. We’ll examine how the natural protection that the boundaries of an independent nation provide a people is a far greater protection for French Quebecers’ language and culture than any repressive language legislation.

You said in the Introduction that in an independent Quebec the anglos will have their own province in which they will enjoy full individual and minority rights. I take it that will mean that Bill 101 will not exist…at least not in the province you say the Anglophones will get in an independent Quebec. If Bill 101 will no longer exist in in this proposed Anglo enclave, how will the French language be respected by the minorities?

It may not be, at least not by everyone. In another yet closely related context, Montreal lawyer Julius Grey believes we should always tell our francophone brethren how we truly feel:

It’s neither rude nor disrespectful to feel or say that French is a folk language. That’s just the reality of things in this continent of North America that houses the most powerful nation on Earth -- the United States -- where English is the only language tolerated.

There’s no better evidence that French is a folk language than Bill 101 itself. For if French wasn’t a folk language why would Bill 101 be necessary? This great Canadian law confirms to one and all that French is and forever will be only a mere folk language while Quebec remains within Canada.

It may seem contradictory at this point to say, but I suggest that a strong and thriving unilingual English-speaking community in an independent Quebec will be the number one component in the formula to preserve and promote the French language in Quebec.

Unilingual Anglophones must feel welcome to come, live, work, go to school, invest, and use their expertise in Quebec and do it in unilingual English. And, yes, be rude to Francophone, to boot. Not that they will want to be rude but that is inevitably how it will be perceived.

Quebec needs to draw on their fair share of anglos from the 300 million plus Sea of Unilingual anglos who can bring money, know-how, and entrepreurism to Quebec. But they won’t come if there’s a Bill 101.

They will come if they can live in unilingual English in an independent Quebec that does not have a Bill 101.

In the next section titled How I will show the reader how this will be made possible.