Seite 187 [187]
GROWING TOGETHER OR APART?...
CONCLUSION
This paper has reflected on how Godbout’s film highlights the complex
question of integration of children of immigrant heritage into Québec
society and values. It has done so through a focus on examples from the first
generation of Bill 101 children and snippets of comparisons with the young
people of today, some of whom seem less interested in being Québécois than
the representatives of the earlier generation. Godbout’s initial statement that
many immigrants are “far from integrated” develops as the film progresses
into a more nuanced approach. In privileging discussion and exchange among
people of very different values, the very question of what integration means
or should mean is thrown into question. One of the most useful political
points to emerge from the film is the segregation between immigrants and
the majority population in certain districts of Montreal. Arguably, this has
become exacerbated on a moral level in the ideology of “them and us” in the
Charte des valeurs, which led to the 2019 Charte de la laicité, banning the
display of ostensible symbols of religious affiliation by people in positions of
authority in the workplace, including teachers. While the films by Godbout
and A loisio do not focus on religion, the comments by Guerina and her mother
on “values” resonate with this debate (the Hérouxville declaration and the
Bouchard Taylor Commission were roughly contemporary with both films).
As the boy from the authoritarian family in Madame Tardif’s class puts it:
“Qu'est-ce qu'on fait de leurs valeurs?”, by which he seems to mean “How can
Québécois values fit with those I’ve grown up in, and will I be forced to lose
my own values of obedience to my father and mother if I integrate?”
In terms of the values debate, Akos notes that he has seen many instances
of parents allying with their children against teachers in the Québec
system, while Ruba notes with real admiration the respect that Québec
schoolchildren are afforded by their teachers. It is difficult to see how the boy
from the authoritarian family, certainly at this moment in his adolescence,
might engage with prevailing Québécois political thought on the need for
a shared culture of egalitarianism, since that egalitarianism extends to the
relationship between parents and their children. Yet the film has the merit of
giving him a voice, as does his teacher’s democratic and egalitarian approach
in the classroom. Part of the thrust of the film is to advocate for the egalitarian
participation of young people of immigrant extraction in Québec politics and
society, and of immigrants in general. There is much footage devoted to the
political campaigns of both Farouk and Ruba. Akos is shown as an activist,
encouraging young people, whether immigrants or not, to play a part in
Québec democracy by voting and by following politics. Clearly, the need to
give a voice to immigrants is important to Godbout, not just in his film but in
the wider political domain.