Henry Aubin - L'actualité has a reputation as a very good mass circulation magazine. Its reports on societal issues and politics tend to be evenhanded, and the opinionated views of its commentators are well-identified as being just that, opinions.
The latest issue abandons this tradition of journalistic discipline as it tackles one of Quebec's most sensitive questions - in the words of its headline, "What is the future of French in Montreal?"
In an introductory essay, publisher Carole Beaulieu takes note of the increasing use of English in Montreal, which is a fact, but concludes that "the future of French in Montreal seems to be hanging by a thread," an alarmist exaggeration.
She asks, "Who is at fault?" Note the wording: It's not "What are the causes?" a question that might invite a cool-headed discussion of the social forces at play (including the financial advantages and provincial policies that encourage the mass flight of francophones to off-island suburbs, the arrival of immigrants to replace them and, finally, globalization). No, Beaulieu's pronoun is who. Certain people are at "fault" - a heavy word.
And lest you wonder who that scapegoat is, the featured CROP poll, commissioned by L'actualité and 98.5 FM, will tell you. It's the anglo.
When news media commission a poll, they as a rule report on it in a fairly objective manner. Not in this case. L'actualité got Jean-François Lisée, an adviser to a series of Parti Québécois leaders as well as a journalist, to write two reports on the poll. Bear in mind that anxiety over the status of French is what drives public support for the PQ and that the party's leader, Pauline Marois, last month named Lisée to her 12-member Comité sur la souveraineté to brainstorm ways to win a referendum.
Although L'actualité cites Lisée on its cover, it minimizes his importance in presenting the poll inside. It gives him a byline for the article that explains the poll, but it is the sort of byline that reporters get, not commentators, thus giving the impression that the article will be more factual than opinionated. The second article bears only Lisée's initials at the end. Nowhere does the magazine identify him as a PQ stalwart. Indeed, nowhere does it mention that Lisée actually helped plan the poll, something Beaulieu acknowledged to me in an email.
Lisée starts by citing the image of the unbigoted bilingual anglo that has gained credence in recent years (with justice, I'd argue). Then he uses the poll of 560 anglos across Quebec to suggest this benign image is false.
--"Half of anglos have never had a meaningful conversation with a francophone - never in their life!" he exults.
If you look at CROP's hard data, you'll see that 48 per cent had indeed answered "No" when asked if they ever had a "meaningful contact with the French language." But the term "meaningful" is fuzzy. So is "contact." Lisée gives too much importance to a confusing question.
I'd like to have seen more attention to the fact that fully 65 per cent of respondents said they'd spoken French during the previous week for durations ranging from an hour to constantly. That's a more objective measure of the acceptance of French. (Another 26 per cent said they'd spoken it for "a few minutes.")
--Lisée seizes on the finding that 63 per cent said "Yes" when asked "Should large corporations be allowed to hire unilingual anglophones as managers, even if this means French-speaking employees need to work in English?" That seems high to me, and my guess is that the word "allowed" might have bothered some. As CBC Daybreak's Mike Finnerty puts it, it evokes rules and the language police.
--Lisée stresses that 63 per cent disagreed somewhat or totally with the statement, "The predominant position of the French language is the key component of Montreal's originality. Without it, the city would lose its soul." Respondents might have had two problems with that. First, the word "predominant" sounds too much like domination. ("Primary" would be a less grating word.)
Second, even francophile anglos might take issue with the overall sentiment. Anglos happen to have helped build Montreal (just look at most of the architectural gems). It's the convivial coexistence and interaction of Franco and anglo cultures, joined more recently by other cultures, that are the city's originality.
--The poll finds that 72 per cent say it is not their "duty to do my part to make sure that French remains the most important language here." Lisée scowls at what he says is a "massive dissociation from the combat" for French.
But "duty" implies a solemn moral obligation. Most anglos might respect the cause for protecting French, but why should they embrace it as their own battle?
--Lisée predicts a decreasing respect for French among anglos because the young generation is less open to bilingualism than earlier ones. For example: Whereas 83 per cent of anglos of all ages said they'd make sure that their kids, if they had any now, would become fluent in French, only 73 per cent of those age 18 to 34 said they would. Beaulieu's essay said the attitude of the young was the poll's "most troubling" finding.
But hold on. Just as the choice of words can affect the poll, so can the nature of the sampling. CROP quizzed only 129 people in this young group - a small number from which to draw hand-wringing conclusions.
This is also the most mobile generation. It includes students and immigrants who spend a few years in Montreal, then move on. (The poll's "anglophones" include foreign-born allophones who speak English.) There might be enough such freewheelers to affect the results.
Yes, the presence of French in Montreal is declining, though not perilously. Demonizing local anglos will serve Marois's Comité sur la souveraineté, but it does not serve the conviviality that makes this city great, nor does it serve the truth.
***
haubin@montrealgazette.com