Why English-only gaffe was so grave

Following the controversy that arose in Québec about the English-only speech by Air Canada's CEO in front of the Montreal Board of Trade, the reaction in the rest of Canada was mostly: “Why the fuss?” As a strong federalist who has often criticized nationalist excesses in the province, let me try to explain.

First, the historical context. Quebec's Quiet Revolution, beginning in the early 1960s, was mostly about French-speaking Quebecers taking control of their economy, at the time controlled by companies owned and managed by the English-speaking minority, and where francophones often were required to speak English in order to understand and be understood by their bosses. This was a time when the CEO of a Crown corporation could assert that there was no French Canadian competent enough to be appointed to the C-suite of said corporation.

The Quiet Revolution changed all that. French-speaking Quebecers are now at the head of most of the province's large firms and SMEs, including of course the powerful Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. But there remains the concern, deeply entrenched in Quebecers' minds, that things could revert to where they were 60 years ago. After all, the English language remains, in Québec as elsewhere in the world, a very attractive and often necessary language of business.

Second, the political context. In recent years, the Quebec media have published a tsunami of stories purported to demonstrate that French is slowly losing its majority status in the province, especially in Montreal. This has been supported by anecdotes about francophones unable to be served in their mother tongue in downtown stores, and by the observation that English signs appear to be again predominant in Montreal's commercial landscape. The French language may one day disappear from the continent, some influential commentators warn.

Add to this the latest census data regarding the slowly diminishing share of Québécois in the province's population, and you have a new language storm. The hurricane led the provincial government — and the federal government too! — to table legislation supposed to better protect French in Québec and in the rest of Canada.

Third, the context around Air Canada. Air Canada is a private corporation. But it is not a corporation like the others. When the company was privatized in 1985, a deal was struck: the company's shareholders were granted the right to use the “Air Canada” brand, an extremely valuable asset, in exchange for several conditions, amongst which two are of concern here: 1) Air Canada would continue to fall under the Official Languages Act; and 2) the company's head office would remain in Montreal. Had these conditions not been part of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, there would have been no privatization.

In comes Michael Rousseau and his English-only speech. As many have pointed out, the Official Languages Act does not require that the CEO of Air Canada be proficient in both official languages. What it does require is that the company serve its customers in the official language of their choice — this may be French on a Montreal/ Toronto flight, but may also be English on a Montreal — Rouyn/ Noranda flight. The Act also requires that, where numbers warrant, employees are able to work in the official language of their choice.

The issue here is: considering the status of Air Canada as an officially bilingual organization, and considering the considerable efforts that the company makes to offer its services in both languages, should not the CEO set an example by at least attempting to speak French?

Unfortunately, Rousseau worsened his predicament by agreeing to answer reporters' questions. He explained that his schedule was so full that there was simply no time to learn French. In any case, he explained, he felt no need to speak the language: had he not successfully and comfortably lived in Montreal for 14 years without uttering one “oui” or “bonjour”? This attitude reminded Quebecers of the crass arrogance and ignorance of “les boss anglais” of the past.

It is the combination of all those factors that is at the root of the fierce controversy that erupted.

English-speaking Quebecers were as dumbfounded as their francophone friends. Since then, they have been concerned. They know that this extraordinary gaffe will have a long-lasting political impact of which they will be the main victims. Rousseau's attitude came to confirm francophones' worst fears relative to the decline of French in the province, especially in the business community. The pressure has increased on the provincial government to strengthen its language legislation, and this will happen to the detriment of the English-speaking minority and of all Quebecers' fundamental rights.

This incident will be forever enshrined in Québec's history books as one additional proof that English Canadians don't give a hoot about the existence of French in Canada. Quebecers will conclude that they can count only on themselves — specifically on strong legislation — to preserve the French language in their province. This is not a desirable scenario. Yet it was so easily preventable.

ENGLISH CANADIANS DON'T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT FRENCH.