It’s good to want to set the record straight. But you still need to have a clock. You still need to know the time. In the discussion about the decline of French – or, as some claim, its “presumed decline” – there is no shortage of data. In this column as elsewhere, we are more in excess than in scarcity.
On Wednesday, at the National Assembly, the new French language commissioner, Benoît Dubreuil, rendered us a major collective service by offering a clear guideline to determine whether or not we are moving in the right direction. For his first public intervention, he gave his opinion on the proposed increases in immigration thresholds. As a reminder: the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) launched its campaign barely a year ago, promising to stick to 50,000 per year. To go further would be, said the Prime Minister, “a little suicidal”. Faithful to his practice of breaking his promises, he is now considering raising them to 60,000, and in fact to 70,000 if he counts apart one of the many channels of access to permanent residence.
Dubreuil did not come to slap the fingers of the CAQ, that is not his role. He had come to tell him how to achieve the stated objective of “reversing the decline of French”. The decision to admit only economic immigrants who know French at the point of entry, he writes in his brief, is “likely to significantly increase the use of French by immigrants.” But to what extent? And what is the measure of success?
For the first time in the history of language policies, it sets one: 85%. This is, once we exclude third languages and distribute people who claim to be linguistically non-binary (so Anglos and Francos equally), the distribution of Quebecers who work mainly in French and who mainly use the language of Vigneault in public space. If future immigrants are distributed linguistically in this way, there will be no decline, he asserts, but stabilization. Otherwise, the decline will continue.
“We cannot neglect the cumulative effects of this gap,” he writes. If the 793,915 immigrants and 148,075 non-permanent residents (NPR) who were employed in Quebec in 2021 had opted for French at work in the same proportion as the host population (84.4%), these are 234,243 more people who would have used French most often at work. This number represents 5% of the entire Quebec workforce. » The impact would be “concentrated in the metropolitan region of Montreal: French would be used most often there by 78% of workers, instead of 69%”.
The problem? Dubreuil’s calculations on the scenarios proposed at 50,000 or 60,000 per year do not reach his passing mark of 85%. They are, at best, 79%. So they slow down the speed of decline, without stopping it.
But the linguistic reality is complex, and who knows if the other measures adopted and to come will not have an upward impact? Placid, Dubreuil accepts this part of uncertainty. And since he does not have the mandate to determine whether an increase in thresholds will be harmful for housing, daycare places or hospitals, but only on French, he proposes to rely on the facts. Let us first set the threshold at 50,000 and measure each year, among new arrivals, whether the criterion of 85% is reached or almost. If so, let’s increase it to 60,000 if we wish. Otherwise, we take a break and wonder about the bolts that need to be tightened next.
The minister seemed pleasantly surprised by the proposed mechanism (like me). But is that enough? There was a true French crusader around the commission table, stunned that nothing was said about the elephant in the room: the 370,000 temporary workers whose use of French is still much less than that of permanent workers. “If our interest is the promotion of French, which is in decline, we are on the wrong track because the third scenario is absent, namely temporary workers. » This deputy, a liberal born in Morocco, is Monsef Derraji. I award him the title of French defender of the week.
Dubreuil actually called for a “coherent approach” including workers and, he specified, temporary students, but since the minister is announcing new measures on the subject soon, I decoded that he was waiting to see them before deciding on their effectiveness.
In truth, Dubreuil’s excellent first performance did not surprise me. His CV landed on my desk in 2002, when I was looking for someone who knew German well. Dubreuil’s CV informed me that his German was excellent, as were his English, Dutch and Russian. He was sorry to inform me that he could only read, but neither speak nor write, Danish and Swedish (he only later became interested in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and in Romanian). For Social Policieswhich became the French-speaking reference on the subject for a decade, Dubreuil produced summaries of such quality by country that we then found them, online, as is, in the course texts of university professors.
He completed his doctorate in political philosophy under the supervision of Jean-Marc Ferry (he is therefore a “doctor”) and, on the other hand, had cutting-edge texts on the anthropology of languages published in scholarly journals. I’ve met a lot of intelligent people in my life, but very few of Benoît’s level. I have met even fewer who combine this knowledge with creative pragmatism and a complete lack of complacency.
Listening to him present his report, I found the man calm, almost humble, explaining to you without any toga effect that the sick patient – the Frenchman – requires vigorous treatment, that his vital signs must be checked annually and that his recovery will only be complete if his French-speaking blood pressure reaches, or exceeds, 85%. Thank you Doctor.