Recent Study on the Language of Work in Quebec
As a professional working in both official languages day in and day out, I found a recent study conducted by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine and the Institut de recherche sur le français en Amérique particularly interesting: nearly 14% of employees in Quebec’s education, health and public sectors predominantly use English as a language of work and this, with Anglophones only representing 9% of Quebec’s population (the study was based on the 2006 census). Moreover, less than half of these jobs are held by individuals who described themselves as Anglophones.
When compared to the reverse situation in Canada (i.e. French as a language of work in predominantly Anglophone communities), the public sector’s use of the French language did not exceed the population deemed to be Francophone. For example, in New Brunswick, while Francophones represent approximately 33% of that province’s population, 32% of public sector employees used French as a language of work. In Ontario, the numbers were extremely close: 4.9% of public sector employees predominantly use French with 4.4% of the population considering themselves to be Francophone.
When the sectors considered are directly financed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, this study concludes that it is not enough to blame globalization and international commerce as the only reason why French is endangered. It is no secret that Quebec has and continues to invest in the protection of the French language, whether it be by passing legislation (think of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101)) or by investing in campaigns that promote the use of French. This study in some ways seems to question whether the provincial government’s francization efforts are sufficient and leads a reader to wonder what this could mean in the long-term for the French language in Quebec.
Are there comparative figures? Is 15% more or less than ten years ago?
Very important questions, in part because they raise many further questions which are often given too short shrift. In particular, why should it be (at least in the public sector) that NB and ON show a closer balance between (presumably, self-identified) francophones and the workplace use of French – as compared to Quebec? My own non-scientific view on this (Ottawa-born, who heard French very early in public elementary school [in the 1940s] and was given early, daily instruction in it) is that what I would call “naturally” bilingual communities like Ottawa, Cornwall and Sudbury produce a remarkably high proportion of people who are functionally fluent (and accent-less, too) in both languages, regardless of their “native” language. Yet, when I am in la belle province, as I often am, I hear, again and again, a level of English that is deplorable. So I am unconvinced that restricting language instruction – in what is a vain hope that unilingualism will expand/improve the use of the one language – is beneficial. In fact, I have come to believe that it operates in the reverse. Love of language should be the core goal – French has so many attractions as a form of communication that erecting walls around it will only serve to weaken its use. As a side effect, to have easy and open access to two languages (which often serves as a door to third and fourth languages) is such an incredible asset, why would we do anything to restrict the second language? No restriction on the use of English gives power to la langue de Moliere.