Guy Rex RodgersWhat We Choose To Remember

In August I had the pleasure of being invited to Bishop’s University to show my documentary film What We Choose To Remember. The annual Bishop’s Forum offers young leaders (18-26) an “immersive look at Quebec’s political, social and economic systems and the opportunity to connect with youth from across the province.” Other presenters at the Forum included Jean Charest, former premier of Quebec, and Éric Girard, Quebec Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for Relations with English-Speaking Quebecers.

Just a few years ago, I would have expected youth to be preoccupied with environmental and social justice issues, dismissing language conflicts as old fashioned and irrelevant to their reality. However, after two years of Bill 96 and an aggressive government campaign against English-language institutions of Higher Education – because too many English-speakers are bad for Quebec, and because English-language institutions of Higher Education corrupt Allophones and Francophones – I was disturbed, but not surprised, that young English-speakers are concerned about language and have serious questions about their future in Quebec.

“Does our government want us to leave?”
Last year, after a screening my film in the Eastern Townships, a member of the audience stood up to say, “My family has farmed here for 193 years. Because of Bill 96 we are wondering if the government will help us celebrate 200 years in Quebec, or if they would prefer to see us pack our bags and leave.”  No one in the audience jumped up to say, “That’s crazy talk!”

“What is going on here? Does the government have a sinister plan to progressively eliminate minority rights until all Anglos and Allophones assimilate or pack their bags and leave?”

The Coalition Avenir Québec government has polarized language to a degree not seen since le Front de Liberation du Québec (FLQ) was terrorising Anglo Quebec with bombs in mailboxes while presenting themselves as heroic freedom fighters. The last period of intense conflict triggered an exodus.

Does our government want to provoke another Anglo exodus?
When Anglos and Allophones expressed concerns about Bill 96, their questions were dismissed as predictable rhetoric. “Privileged Anglos fought Bill 101 for decades and will obstruct Quebec every time it defends its language and culture.” Serious concerns about using the notwithstanding clause to negate protected rights were dismissed as routine obstructive rhetoric. When educators and students contested improvised attacks on universities and CEGEPS, they were dismissed as whiners too entitled to appreciate the privileges heaped upon the best-treated minority in the world. More recently, when serious questions were raised about access to healthcare in English, questioners were ridiculed as too concerned with their own ‘privileges’ to recognize the higher right of healthcare professionals to work in French.

What is going on here? Does the government have a sinister plan to progressively eliminate minority rights until all Anglos and Allophones assimilate or pack their bags and leave?  Much of the Francophone media dismiss such questions as Quebec bashing. Quebec’s Francophones-de-souche are “the most tolerant, welcoming and generous people in the world” while Quebec’s Anglos are “the most privileged, pampered and ungrateful minority.”

This irreconcilable culture clash reminds me of an incident when I was on the founding board of le Conseil des Arts et des Lettres du Québec. A fellow board member, an award-winning playwright who would go on to become one of Quebec’s best-selling novelists, loved to demonstrate her urbanity by peppering her speech with English words. Still popular in France, this pretention was fashionable in Quebec prior to the current regime of linguistic puritanism that sternly rebukes public use of English words and anglicisms.

One morning in Quebec City, as we met in the hotel dining room at breakfast, my colleague greeted me with, “Good morning, Mr. Rodgers, how are you?” I replied, “I’m very well and how are you?” Her reaction was extraordinary. The blood drained from her face and she staggered backwards muttering her shock at being brutally accosted in English. My effrontery was particularly inexcusable in public, at a meeting of CALQ, which was created to promote and protect French culture. Shocking!

It was no use pointing out that she had accosted me or that I was merely replying in the language and, seemingly, playful spirit of her greeting.

I had misunderstood the rules of engagement. For her to say a few words of English was a sign of her urbanity. Addressing me in English was a declaration that her Quebec is tolerant, welcoming and generous. But only up to a point. To protect its endangered language, Quebec must enforce zero tolerance on privileged, pampered, ungrateful Anglos imposing their language everywhere they go. If Anglos don’t like it, they are always welcome to relocate somewhere in the vast Anglosphere.

I understand perfectly why today’s English-speaking youth are confused – and disturbed – by the mixed signals they are receiving.