We can disagree but let’s keep discourse polite
I feel more tension between francophones and anglophones than I have in a long time
I’ve always seen myself as a bridge builder. Over the years, I have invested a lot of time, effort and pride in trying to bring understanding between francophones and anglophones, federalists and sovereignists, Jews and non-Jews, keeping in mind that we don’t have to agree with each other to get along.
And we don’t need to agree to love one another to agree on important things like respect.
My attempts at helping people understand each other would be useless if I deliberately fudged the issues and minimized the frictions to make us see each other in a better light.
When I state that the majority of francophones want Bill 101 to remain on the books and even to see it tightened up, I am only telling the truth — not promoting a viewpoint.
When I quote Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101, when he said “language is the foundation of a people, by which it recognizes itself and is recognized, by which it takes root and expresses its identity,” I am merely sharing what the majority of Québécois think about the French language and the need to protect French culture in North America.
People can be told stuff they want to hear or they can be told the truth. My business is the truth, not fairy tales. My business is about today, with some future thrown in, not about the victims of times past. My business is writing about serious people with a finger on the pulse of average Quebecers, not extremists like Gilles Proulx.
In fact, the lucky folks who live in Quebec — French, English and recent immigrants — don’t always realize how good they have it. There is nationalism and soft populism in Quebec but no rabid politicians opposed to immigration like Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, no murderous thugs like the madman who stabbed Gdansk’s mayor Pawel Adamowicz against a background of hatred and intolerance, no racist political leader like Matteo Salvini who would gladly let migrants drown before allowing them to set foot in Italy, no overt anti-Muslim politicians like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Not even someone who resembles Doug Ford.
Yet I feel more tension between francophone and anglophone Quebecers than I have in a long time. Where will it take us when the national assembly reconvenes on Feb. 4?
As much as francophones are still enjoying the calming effect François Legault has on Quebec politics since the Coalition Avenir Québec’s victory in October, the opposite seems to be happening among anglophones and allophones. People worry about the proposed disappearance of school boards and about the stricter application of Bill 101 promised by the minister in charge, Nathalie Roy. They cannot see the number of anglophone and immigrant government workers increase any time soon — a real problem that needs to be fixed if bridge building is to be meaningful.
Beyond language and identity issues, always front and centre in Quebec, the new government will have to tackle the mess left behind by former health minister Gaétan Barrette’s centralizing reforms. Will health institutions get their autonomy back? Will it shorten wait times in the emergency ward? Will management find a way to keep operating rooms operating?
What about elder care? The very knowledgeable minister in charge, Marguerite Blais, has been busy making a comprehensive to-do list, starting with hiring more attendants and paying them a decent wage while increasing resources for home care and making more unannounced inspections of CHSLD nursing homes, the source of so many complaints.
The Liberals were more interested in big-picture government, which is why the “small stuff” — like fixing youth protection or reviewing family law — was not taken care of, despite promises.
Of course, laïcité and immigration are on the table. I hope that the debates remain polite and that we all stick to the noble goal of separating church and state, not making Muslims feel unwanted in Quebec.