2009/07/26

Bill 101 is detrimental

Much has been written on the Charter of the French Language (a.k.a. Bill 101). Few believe it's some sort of discriminating conspiracy to eradicate Anglophones from the province. They forget that English-speaking Québécois have daily newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, hospitals, elementary schools, high schools, CEGEP, universities... in fact, they forget that Anglophones in Québec have nothing to envy Francophones in other provinces.

For example, English universities in Québec receive approximately 25% of provincial subsidies and approximately 35% of federal subsidies while the Anglophone population accounts for less than 10% of the province's residents. Far from me the idea that McGill, Concordia and Bishop's should receive less than what they currently get, but please spare me Bill 101's conspiracy theory.

The preamble of the Charter of the French Language sheds some light on the spirit of the law. Specifically, it states that the National Assembly:
  • Is resolved to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business;
  • Intends to pursue this objective in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community of Québec, and respectful of the ethnic minorities, whose valuable contribution to the development of Québec it readily acknowledges; and
  • Recognizes the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit of Québec, the first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their original language and culture.
Canada has not one, but two official languages with international influence, two formidable cultural vehicles. Rightly so, most Canadians are sensitive to the USA's cultural hegemony. And they generally welcome initiatives intended to bolster opportunities to appreciate the country's cultural production, such as Canadian Content Regulations (see Canadian content, Part 2 and Part 3). With its different language, Québec has an added advantage. And that's the perspective one should take when questioning the Charter of the French Language.

In simple words, the Charter of the French Language is a framework devised to counterbalance the hegemony of the English language, spoken by almost 332 million people in North America. Without it, a proportion of immigrants would not embrace Québec's lingua franca, thus depriving the population's majority of their contribution (yeah... I know... some of you think I'm preaching... that's OK).

Of course, the parallel between Canadian Content Regulations and the Charter of the French Language has its limits. Becoming Canadian to comply with CanCon demands some sacrifices. Learning a new language to be part of the majority doesn't prevent anyone from speaking her/his mother tongue.

7 comments:

toddsschneider said...

Generally agreed, but Bill 101 is only a symptom of another mindset.

What is the percentage of Quebec's population that is not old stock? Then what percentage does this group represent in Quebec's public service?

Yes, in Quebec you may speak your own language, at home, but the state does not feel compelled to hire you, no matter how good your French.

Michel Bolduc said...

Toddsschneider,

I've worked with organizations of all types in many industries over the last 20 years and I must admit that I noticed a difference between the public and the private sectors in terms of immigrant workforce. I also noticed that French-speaking Québécois were underrepresented in federal regulated industries such as transportation and aerospace.

If this difference between public and private sectors is significant, perhaps it's not specific to Québec and perhaps language isn't the (only) reason. Immigration is a fairly recent phenomenon and the average age of the civil servant is most probably higher than the general worker. Then again, that's only a supposition.

Although I've often read statements similar to yours, I can't say I've seen hard figures to illustrate your point. Can you direct me to such figures? A provincial comparison would also be interesting.

Anonymous said...

how do cancon limits on media have any affect on a person's right to choose what language to speak in? To compare cancon to Bill 101 and make that statement is spurious, ridiculous...!

Michel Bolduc said...

Actually, Bill 101 doesn't prevent anyone from speaking the language of her/his choice and I'm not hinting that CanCon does, but you're right in mentioning that there are limits to draw a parallel between the two. My main point is that they both contribute to a similar goal, i.e. the perpetuation of a valid culture confronted with the overwhelming domination of another.

RoryBellows said...

Pur Laine writes: "For example, English universities in Québec receive approximately 25% of provincial subsidies and approximately 35% of federal subsidies while the Anglophone population accounts for less than 10% of the province's residents."

This statement gets repeated a lot in discussions of anglo influence in Quebec, but it is misleading, of course. Anglo universities are funded based on enrollment and has nothing to do with he proportion of anglos in Quebec. But I realize you weren't really harping on this point.

"Is resolved to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business"

I can live with the above statement with the exception of one word. Anyone guess what it is?

I have no idea why any state would feel justified in trying to legislate the "normal and everyday language of communication" let alone how, short of totalatarian rule, they could expect to acheive that goal. That word, and the spirit in which it was written, is the reason why our grandchildren will still be arguing over 101 40 years from now.

Michel Bolduc said...

RoryBellows,

The Charter of the French Language was enacted in 1977. Since, it has gone through many adjustments in favor of English.

I've never seen the PLQ nor the PQ government try legislating the "normal and everyday language of communication" the way you seem to think. Perhaps, your understanding of these words is erroneous.

Anonymous said...

I will not concur on it. I regard as precise post. Especially the title attracted me to read the sound story.