Posted at 2:00 p.m.
Columnist Yves Boisvert is right to draw our attention to the important speech delivered at the beginning of 1996 by Lucien Bouchard to the English-speaking community at the Théâtre du Centaur1. The speech was produced and delivered in an environment like no other. However, he has aged very well. Especially when read in full.
A key passage seems to have escaped Mr. Boisvert’s attention. Here it is: “Maintaining the French language in North America will always be a challenge; it will always require special attention. Maintaining French in the Montreal region will always be an even greater challenge. Last year, we were concerned about the drop in the proportion of French-speaking families living on the island of Montreal. If, as some demographers predict, Francophone households were to become a minority within a few decades, this would seriously harm Montreal’s already limited ability to integrate a clear majority of newcomers into the Francophone majority. Obviously, having French as an official and common language in Quebec and in the metropolis is essential.
“But no matter what angle you look at it, it’s not those for whom French is a second language who integrate allophones; these are those whose first language is French. If French lost its critical mass in Montreal, it would be detrimental to everyone. »
He was right. And the worst happened. In a few years, Montrealers whose mother tongue is French were going to become a minority on the island – it’s done –, followed by Montrealers whose mother tongue is used – it’s imminent.
In his speech, Mr. Bouchard repeated many times that Montreal must be a French-speaking metropolis, of which the English-speaking community is an essential component. His text was an ode to tolerance and individual bilingualism, but a rejection of institutional bilingualism. The emergence, in Montreal and Laval, of two parallel common languages, French and English, was not on the agenda.
The speech, written by Jean-François Lisée as everyone knows, had been carefully proofread and refined by Mr. Bouchard, had been submitted to me as Minister responsible for Language, had gone under the fine comb of Camille Laurin, who approved it without reservation. Jean-François had even had a Jacques Parizeau read it, perplexed by the value of the exercise, but who had not vetoed it.
What emerged was a desire to have the majority and the minority recognize that a linguistic balance was possible, in which the existence of a French-speaking majority with linguistic security would be passed down from generation to generation, alongside an English-speaking minority whose vitality would also be assured. The proposal to transform denominational school boards into linguistic school boards was part of this desire to identify common projects. This transition was also the great (and never mentioned) linguistic achievement of the Bouchard era, as was also my showdown with Microsoft and Apple to force them to deliver their software in French in Quebec at the time of their introduction. in the rest of America.
From René Lévesque to Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon, all the leaders of the Parti Québécois (PQ) adhered to the words spoken that evening by Mr. Bouchard on inclusive Quebec citizenship. The novelty is that they were pronounced during an event specifically intended for this community.
Lucien Bouchard was going to be tolerant and conciliatory, of course, but was not going to mince his words. A portion of the speech was also a direct translation of what he had said, on language, during a recent National Council of the Parti Québécois. He presented himself bluntly as a separatist wishing to achieve his objective in the not very distant future and who found it normal for the Anglos to vote massively No. And he had some unpleasant truths to say: “Tolerance is not a one-way street. We sovereignists have been victims of – shall we say – breaches of etiquette. I do not intend to list them. But we all know non-French speakers who opted for sovereignty last year and who, for this reason, were somewhat ostracized in their own community. We know that some non-francophone media do not show much tolerance towards sovereignist ideas or their spokespersons. They do not promote, to say the least, a good understanding of the two sides of the debate. »
If François Legault were to deliver a new Centaur speech – which would not be a bad idea – he should however note that a quarter of a century after the first, too few English speakers have taken the path of tolerance that Mr. Bouchard called for his wishes.
The Anglo lobby, the Quebec Community Groups Network, published a poll conducted by Léger last year2 offering this distressing observation: 69% of non-francophones in Quebec say they are opposed to the Canadian Constitution recognizing that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language. Among them, 57% say they are “very opposed”.
The outrageous reactions of English-speaking leaders to the new law 96, the refusal even to recognize the weakening of our language or even its status as an official and common language, are likely to chill even the greatest apostles of conciliation. Despite the best wishes in the world, we seem condemned to live, linguistically at least, in lasting disagreement.