Two weeks ago, the Canadian Press reported on the Parti Québécois’ controversial educational reforms. These have centered on plans to extend the provisions of Bill 101, Quebec’s legislative piece regarding its language policy.
The PQ’s Education Minister, Marie Malavoy, wants to hold off on the Liberal plan to implement intensive English in grade six in all public schools, a program that was supposed to be fully in place by 2015. In addition, the PQ government also wants to abolish mandatory English classes for grade one and two students, and make small changes to the high school history curriculum to emphasize the sovereignty debate, as reported by the CBC on Oct. 12. Malavoy has rejected accusations that she is trying to politicize the province’s school system, instead crediting the change to staffing issues and concerns about the impact on students with learning disabilities.
Despite these allegations, it’s clear that the PQ government needs to address the issue of language politics, which has manifested itself at a more grassroots, individual level. Last week, a paramedic in Vaudreuil-Dorion, Quebec, was reported to have flatly refused to speak in English to a man whose daughter had gone into a febrile seizure. While this is simply one incident, not addressing this fundamental issue within Quebec reflects badly on the government, as it won’t address domestic sources of tension among its citizens.
French carries a significant value—not only in Quebec, but also within the International Organization of La Francophonie (IOF), an affiliation of 56 Francophone countries and 19 observers from all around the world, unified around “humanist values promoted by the French language,” according to its website. Notably, the header title of the IOF website, “La voix de la diversité” (literally translated to “The voice of diversity”), does not have an English translation on the IOF’s website; this voice of diversity is French! Subtle hints such as these allude to a resurgent French cultural movement. After all, in the 17th century, French was considered the language of diplomacy and international relations in the world. To my knowledge, no other language has been as collectively and actively unified for its maintenance on a global level.
As such, just arguing that the issue in Quebec is linguistic and cultural is inadequate. The tension is specific to Quebec because of its historical context. Though Canada was founded as a French colony, the French actually ceded Quebec, then New France, in the Treaty of Paris (1763). After a brief period of an interim, non-military administration, the British ratification of the Quebec Act in 1774 officially mandated Quebeckers to become British subjects. At the same time, it sought to retain and protect most property as well as the religious, political and social culture of French-speaking Canadians.
The Constitutional Act, which essentially created a geographical divide between British and French subjects in Upper and Lower Canada respectively, replaced the Quebec Act in 1791. Upper Canada received British laws and institutions, while Lower Canada fell under French law and institutions. Herein arguably lies the first sources of tension that still exist today—French Canadians felt overshadowed by English subjects, while the English found that French-Canadians still had too much political standing.
While it’s certainly possible to appreciate the historical roots of the Quebec sovereignty movement, it’s also possible that it’s an outdated cause. Canada’s identity has definitely changed drastically since the 18th century.
Therefore, if the issue is still Quebec’s political status in Canada, the PQ should stop trying to implement its antagonistic, and arguably isolationist, language policies. On the contrary, open dialogue to incite understanding for Quebec’s reasoning should be adopted so that people understand Quebec’s role in history. If there needs to be greater recognition of the official bilingualism of Canada, or even a greater understanding of sovereignty history, laws cannot just be passed within Quebec, but also the rest of the nation.
It must be up to all Canadian citizens to make an informed choice, and perhaps Quebec is within their right to demand secession. But with no mutual understanding of why that is, and by equipping just the members of Quebec with this knowledge, no fruitful political action can be taken between Quebec and the federal government. Rather, this discussion needs to be placed in a historical context.
