Fisheries violated section 20 by providing English-only services, (1) by simply presuming there was no need for French services, (2) because there were penal consequences for anyone who disobeyed the law not provided in French, and (3) even though some French Canadians understood English, French was still their first language. In Professional Institute of the Public Service v. The Queen (1993), it was added that relevant factors for requiring bilingualism should include the number of people in a minority language community, interest among the population, and relations between the people and the government. Statistics and the practices of the office might be of use in measuring these things. In R. v. Haché, (1993), it was found the government is not under any obligation to tell people that they have rights under section 20. Public views In 1989, a few political scientists published a survey on the public's opinion on section 20. It indicated that French Canadians strongly support French services outside Quebec and in almost equal measure support the same rights for English Quebec. Ninety-seven percent of English Canadians support the right for English Quebeckers, and 65% of English Canadians supported the rights of French Canadians under section 20. References External links Overview of section 20 case law at the Canadian Legal Information Institute. Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Bilingualism in Canada Language policy in Canada Language legislation Government of Canada Government of New Brunswick