Serving the Eastern Townships English-speaking Community since 1979.
The Situation and Future of the Estates-General Report
October 4, 2003
The Estates-General Commission on the Situation and Future of the French Language in Quebec has been a year-long saga. Since the Commissions 285-page final report was released, Townshippers Association has formulated a response that can be read on our website, http://www.townshippers.qc.ca/news/opinion. This response is based on Townshippers brief presented to the Commission in November 2000, which is also available on our website.
Throughout the Commission's hearings, we have witnessed an evolution in attitude, with the French vs. English polarisation of the past giving way to a new attitude of openness to English-speaking Quebecers and appreciation of their contributions to Quebec society. The Commission's president, Gérald Larose, openly acknowledged that, although the English language in North America is robust, the English-speaking community in Quebec is vulnerable, and promoting the French language should not be to its detriment.
One example of this new attitude is the Commission's focus on a civic approach rather than an ethnic one. Although the notion of Quebec citizenship can be seen as a frank preparation for Quebec sovereignty, it can also be viewed as a way of making explicit that Quebecers of all ethnic stripes are equally Quebecers. This approach responds positively to the call by Townshippers' Association and other groups to reduce the accent on targeting English speakers in Quebec as the enemy.
The Commission's report included other points that seemed to be in line with suggestions contained in Townshippers' brief. For example, we asked that an emphasis on coercive legislation give way to an approach centred on positive reinforcement. The Larose Report responded by recommending that mastery of French by all Quebecers be considered a fundamental right, and one that the government is responsible for enabling.
Townshippers' brief asked for a reduced focus on language legislation. On one hand, the Commission responded positively, recommending that complaints concerning infractions of the language law be handled with emphasis on information and reconciliation and sectoral initiatives, rather than prosecutions based on individual complaints.
On the other hand, the proposal to enshrine the principles of the Quebec language policy in a Quebec constitution seems to us to be a step in the opposite direction, placing the language law on the same supralegislative footing as the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In the debate about individual rights versus those of the linguistic majority, does not logic suggest that such a move would exacerbate the conflict by removing the legal precedence that the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms currently has over the language law? Might this not lead to even more lengthy and costly court challenges?
Another troubling point concerns the conflict between the right to work in French versus English speakers' access to health and social services in English. The Commission solves this dilemma by recommending that the present access plans which identify certain positions as bilingual be scrapped. Instead, it suggests depending on institutions' "administrative adjustments" and caregivers' "professionalism" to provide care in English where requested.
Its rationale? The report asserts that services in English are widely available, there are few complaints concerning the language in which such services are provided, and positions designated "bilingual" under the present access plans have proliferated out of proportion to the percentage of English speakers in the population.
Health and social services are a crucial concern for people who have not mastered French. Despite the good will and admirable efforts of many health and social service professionals, the fact is that, when in need and in crisis, English speakers in the Eastern Townships often encounter situations where help is not available in English. We know this is so because English speakers have brought complaints to the Association concerning the lack of services in English.
We question the Commission's perception that positions designated "bilingual" under the present access plans have proliferated out of proportion to the percentage of English speakers in the population. In the Estrie health care system, only 500 of some 5,500 full-time positions are designated as bilingual. That is approximately 9%, equal to the percentage of Estrie residents whose first official language is English, and these positions require only a minimum level of bilingualism.
These data directly contradict the Commission's rationale for recommending that the current plans for access to English services be abolished, and we protest this recommendation most strenuously.
Mastery of French is termed a "right" in the Estates-General report, and participation in Quebec public life is said to depend upon exercising this right. But what is the fate of a Quebecer who is unable to master French? Is such a person less than a full citizen? In the report's silence about Quebecers who are not able to master quality French, are we to infer that mastery of French is an obligation rather than a right?
Which of the Commission's 149 recommendations will be acted upon by the Quebec government? We will have to wait and see, but in the meantime, Townshippers' Association will continue to call for a reasoned, collaborative approach to the language question, one that protects and celebrates diversity within the Eastern Townships.
Peter Quilliams
President of Townshippers Association