Parking-ticket protest prompted bilingualism battle

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/10/2023 (1020 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

AS hosts of the One Great History podcast, Sabrina Janke and Alex Judge love exploring Winnipeg’s past.

With Winnipeg’s sesquicentennial approaching, the two have produced a podcast series that explores the city’s

colourful history. The series is presented through the lens of 15 historical figures, focusing on critical events surrounding their lives and their impact on Winnipeg. The series will conclude Nov. 9, the day when Winnipeg became a city 150 years ago. Summaries from each podcast will be republished in the Free Press. The podcast can be found on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and through the One Great History website — onegreathistory.wordpress.com

In 1976, Franco-Manitoban insurance broker Georges Forest received a parking ticket. Annoying at the best of times, of course, but this particular ticket was especially galling for Forest: it was in English only. Forest had spent much of the previous decade railing against Unicity, and here he was already seeing the consequences of his beloved Saint Boniface being subsumed into a larger Winnipeg.

Forest immediately filed a complaint with the city, citing an agreement that “all notices, bills and statements” issued in Saint Boniface were to be bilingual. The City of Winnipeg demurred, declaring it did not consider a ticket to be a notice. Forest refused to pay the ticket in protest, setting in motion a series of court cases that would change the future of bilingualism in Manitoba.

The first judge to hear the case sided with the city, explaining that in his view a ticket was in fact part of a “court process,” falling therefore under the English-only operations of the provincial courts. In so doing, he shifted the conversation from a relatively small conflict over municipal administration, to one which called into question the validity of some of Manitoba’s early foundational documents.

In 1870, Louis Riel and his provisional government had negotiated the entrance of Manitoba into confederation via the Manitoba Act. Concerned as they were with the rights of French speakers, Section 23 of the Act guaranteed certain language rights: the right to use either French or English in the legislature and the courts, and the publication of all laws in both languages. In 1890, however, the province had passed the Official Language Act, making English the only official language in Manitoba’s courts and legislature.

Forest now called this into question, filing an appeal which asserted the Official Language Act was unconstitutional. A new judge agreed with him: the province had no right to pass a law overriding the Manitoba Act. After three years of arguments and appeals, the case landed at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Debates raged throughout Manitoba. At its most reasonable, anglophone opposition to Forest focused on the cost of translations and of hiring bilingual clerks, and on concerns about whether job opportunities would be restricted to those who spoke French. Less-reasoned opponents resented the idea francophones might gain “special rights.” Forest faced frequent threats at his home and office.

Within the Franco-Manitoban community, many were skeptical of Forest’s ability to win in court. Some wished to focus on the issue of French instruction in schools, and to leave the question of French services be. Still others found his methods and mannerisms aggravating. Often intense and always passionate, they feared Forest was alienating moderate anglophones and resented that he tried to speak for the community as a whole.

Forest’s supporters would be vindicated in December 1979, when Forest won his case. The Supreme Court agreed that the Official Language Act was unconstitutional, thereby reinstating Section 23 of the Manitoba Act. Questions remained, however. Did Section 23 mandate that all laws must be printed in both languages, or was it only a guideline? And if it was mandatory, what did it mean for Manitoba that this rule had been disregarded for some 90 years?

A new case brought forward by then-law student Roger Bilodeau asserted the Highway Traffic Act was void for this reason. If the Supreme Court agreed, there was a possibility every law in Manitoba might be declared invalid.

Eager to avoid this looming disaster, the provincial government under Howard Pawley began negotiating a constitutional amendment with the Société Franco-Manitobaine. Following a bungled premature announcement of a deal, anglophone opposition reached new and sometimes violent heights. Conservative opponents demanded public hearings, as did NDP MLA Russell Doern who broke rank to publicly tout his opposition. In 1983, the headquarters of the SFM were vandalized and then burned down.

With the province unable to finalize an agreement in the face of such public opposition, the supreme court proceeded to a decision which invalidated the laws of Manitoba, but did allow a grace period for the laws to be translated and re-enacted. The gains that might have been won on both sides of the negotiations lay in the rubble of the failed amendment.

In 1989, the new Progressive Conservative premier Gary Filmon resolved the question of French-language services through a language policy which formed the basis for the way things operate today. Forest died the following year at a Festival du Voyageur banquet, having left behind a significant but complicated legacy: though he may have driven away some supporters at the time, he pushed forward a debate that might not have come for many years without his tenacity and singular focus.