One of his reasons is:
My take on this is as follows....if a culture/language needs to be protected through government legisation and enforced (and compulsory) education , then how viable is it really?
"We want to protect our cultural heritage," said Charest, pointing out that the French minority in North America had to be preserved. "We are the example of what is at stake."
Could you imagine this same mentality existing a couple of thousand years ago...we would all be wearing togas and speaking latin.
Cultures and languages change and actually disappear. This is part of a sociological evolution that has been going on since Mankind got booted out of the trees by the much stronger apes who remained there. However, in the past several decades, cultures have not been allowed to evolve much. Governments, intent on protecting culture, bring in legislation that actually cause stagnation.
Not just governments, but corporations (especially media-related) are also prime culprits in this stagnation. Music, for instance...when my 18 year old son can listen to a song from 1974 and actually LIKE it, then something is wrong. Popular music hasn't changed all that much in more than THIRTY (30) freakin' years. Think that has to do with tastes or with record labels?
I live in Quebec and I can't help but think that if this province once again threatens to separate, the rest-of-the-country should just call their bluff and boot them the fuck out. See how easy it would be to protect their culture and language when they are surrounded by 200 million + anglophones. Unless you think Canada would be stupid enough to continue the expensive "official bilingualism" project.