On April 25, I went to the Town of Mount Royal town council. I questioned the mayor about a language decision that had been made a few months earlier. The council then passed a resolution to maintain institutional bilingualism while affirming that it was a “fundamental value” of the municipality.
The problem? Town of Mount Royal has only 18.5% of residents whose mother tongue is English.
The response I got from the mayor was: “Even though the percentages have changed in Town of Mount Royal, […] I believe it is important to respect [les citoyens] of all languages and we respect that by being bilingual. »
Bilingualism synonymous with anglicization
In Greater Montreal, several municipalities are staggering examples of unjustified institutional bilingualism. Here is the proportion of citizens with English mother tongue of 3 of them according to Statistics Canada:
- Town of Mount Royal: 18.5%
- Rosemere: 12.1%
- Otterburn Park: 5.7%
Bilingualism within these municipalities is a real tripping up of the French fact. For example, in my municipality, the municipal council is bilingual, the activities organized by the city are bilingual (with a strong tendency towards English), the city’s communications are obviously bilingual, and so on. .. Not to mention the famous road signs in English only. In short, French as a common language is replaced by bilingualism.
All of this may seem trivial to some, but the message that is conveyed weighs heavily. Of course, this institutional bilingualism tends to anglicize Francophones who have settled in the municipality. But in addition, a second consequence can also be observed.
This is the anglicization of allophone immigrants. The cities of greater Montreal welcome the majority of new Quebecers. When a municipality welcomes them by sending them the message that they can very well live in Quebec without speaking French, it provokes their transfer to English.
The CAQ and Law 96
Of course, it is normal for a municipality with a strong English-speaking population to be entitled to bilingual status. Where appropriate, this decision is supported by numbers.
But, when a city with very few English speakers decides to keep its status as a bilingual city, it can only support this decision with political ideas. It decides to withdraw from French as a common language and to impose on its population a reality in which French is one language among many others.
In short, a government that wants to put an end to the decline of French cannot allow municipalities to ignore French as a common language. I do not blame the mayors, but rather the government choices.
Unfortunately, the CAQ, through its law 96, has decided to allow these municipalities to retain their institutional bilingualism. A simple vote at the municipal council is necessary. Of course, they all kept their bilingualism. The CAQ opted for electoralism by passing a law aimed at not displeasing anyone.
We lost 5 years to protect our language. We must now reverse the trend with several measures. Bill 101 at the CEGEP is of course essential, in addition to the revocation of the bilingual city status of municipalities with low English-speaking populations.
Faced with the decline of French, words do not count. It’s the actions that count.
Alexis Bastien, Secondary 5 student