François Legault likes to repeat that he will be the prime minister who will have put an end to the decline of French and who will have reversed the trend. Law 96 was certainly a first step in this direction. The decision to require all future economic immigrants to have knowledge of French at level 7 (on a scale of 11) at the point of entry was then a major step forward. Too bad he has since completely failed in his policy on temporary immigration, the presence of which is nine times greater than permanent ones, and which therefore has nine times more effect on our balance.
The mere presence of immigrants, for many anglicizing, is more than enough to swallow up the positive effects of other measures. Their number is now increasing by 100,000 per year. It is therefore reasonable to think that, from 470,000 this year, we will happily pass the half-million mark next year, perhaps reaching 600,000. Mr. Legault’s proposal to ask a few tens of thousands of between them to demonstrate that they can, after three years with us, order a coffee in our language (this is level 4) to have the right to stay is so ridiculous that we wonder who could have done it convince that this was a strong measure. (1. Find this person; 2. fire them.) The fact is that, if the trend continues, François Legault will have been in our history the prime minister who most accelerated the decline of French. A Louisiananizer.
Everything indicates that he is also preparing to let slip a unique opportunity to positively modify the student linguistic dynamic in Montreal. The botched decision to double tuition fees for the 15,000 English-Canadian students in Quebec will perhaps dissuade half of them from coming. They will be replaced in Anglo institutions by an equivalent or greater number of foreign students, essentially monolingual English speakers, whose number is not capped, and which increases each year. A sword in the water.
A blow, however, hard enough in the short term on a financial level to shake the splendor of McGill and Concordia universities. They worked together with Bishop’s to present a proposal on Monday that they describe as historic. Is she? In my opinion, yes. For three reasons. First, the three universities recognize that French is in decline in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. This may seem normal, but it is not in the English-speaking community. Then, the three affirm that it is their responsibility to contribute to the vitality of French. This is a considerable paradigm shift. Finally, and more importantly, they propose to make knowledge of French a compulsory element of the curriculum for some of their students. This is the breach into which we must rush.
Part of the anglicization of Montreal comes from the fact that every year, thousands of English-speaking graduates unable to follow a professional conversation in French, or to read or write the day’s memo, impose English as the common language on those around them. French-speaking. Solving this problem is an essential step in making French the common business language in Montreal. The effect of Law 96 on Anglo CEGEPs, namely the imposition of five French and/or EN French courses, will do part of the recovery work.
We must seize the universities’ offer and outbid them. They are committed to bringing 40% of their non-French-speaking students to level 6 within three years. Note that, when they admit a French speaker to their courses, they require a level 8-9 of English.
Here’s what Legault-the-trend-reverser could do. Take the 40% over three years, but on condition of gradually extending it to 100% in a few more years. Ensure that at the end of the first cycle, 10% of courses are given IN French. Make reaching level 8-9 of French at the end of the first cycle a condition for obtaining the end-of-study diploma for everyone. Which means both Anglo and Allo students from Quebec, from Canada or from abroad. Link part of university funding to achieving these results. Extend the 10% of courses/activities IN French to the graduate cycles. (This is all the more feasible given that the proportion of French-speaking professors in Anglophone universities is significant.)
The benefit of this operation will be much greater for French than the measure recently imposed on tuition fees. If the objective was, instead, to reduce the number of students, the requirement of compulsory French would impose its own sorting. Only those who are interested in this opening will make the trip. The others, irreducibly monolingual, will go elsewhere. Good for them, and for us.
Above all, you should know that for someone starting from zero, reaching level 6 would require one or two full-time French sessions. It is therefore certain that McGill and Concordia will have to recruit, at the point of entry, students who already have a basic knowledge of French.
I also note that beyond language, universities offer to offer their flock “a better understanding of Quebec society”. You said culture ? History ? Values? We must take them at their word, demand that this intention covers a real transmission of Quebecness to students.
Obviously, to achieve these objectives, we must reverse the previous decision on tuition fees, or adjust it more intelligently. The game is clearly worth it. The reaction from Minister Pascale Déry on Monday evening did not seem to point in this direction. It remains to be hoped that François Legault will seize the historic opportunity presented to him. Let him be the French-speaking adult in the room.
Father, columnist and author, JeanFrançois Lisée led the PQ from 2016 to 2018. jflisee@ ledevoir.com