Apparently, losing a hockey game isn't the only thing the Montreal Canadiens have to worry about these days. They also have to make sure their head coach delivers his post-game explanations in sufficiently polished French, or somebody might get their panties in a knot. Following Montreal's 2-1 loss to the Minnesota Wild, sports columnist Jérémie Rainville, speaking with Gino Chouinard on 98.5, raised an issue with the quality of Martin St-Louis' explanations in French compared with those he provides in English.
"Can we help him provide this information in French so that people understand?", he said. "Because, as a matter of fact, we do have the information."
Seriously? Is this really where we're going? Apparently, the information itself isn't enough anymore. We now have to evaluate the linguistic packaging before deciding whether a coach's explanation is worth listening to. It's a little like complaining that a restaurant's meal wasn't properly presented while ignoring the fact that the food is perfectly good. Perhaps we should concentrate on what is being communicated rather than whether every sentence comes with the appropriate French-language wrapping.
Let's get something straight. Martin St-Louis was born in Laval and left Quebec in 1993, at approximately 18 years of age, to attend the University of Vermont. He subsequently spent his entire professional playing career outside Quebec, with stops in Calgary, Tampa Bay and New York, before returning to Montreal as the Canadiens' head coach in 2022. That's approximately 29 years away from the province, more time than many people spend developing their entire professional careers. And guess what? His French is good. Is it always as polished as his English? Probably not. Does he occasionally search for a word or express an idea more clearly in one language than the other? Absolutely. Welcome to being human.
Here's something else worth considering. What about general manager Kent Hughes and defenseman Mike Matheson? Both are from the Montreal area, yet, to our ear, both have noticeably thicker English accents when speaking French and sometimes struggle to find the right words or express themselves naturally. Are the same people losing sleep over their French? Is Rainville preparing a segment about helping them communicate better in their mother tongue? Or is this special scrutiny reserved for St-Louis? If we're going to start handing out report cards for French proficiency at the Bell Centre, perhaps everybody should be sitting the same examination. Funny how selective these language concerns can become.
I can speak from experience. I left Quebec for British Columbia when I was 25, and today, much like St-Louis, I have spent more years outside Quebec than in it. I made an effort to maintain my French, but since returning to my home province, I occasionally find myself searching for words or struggling to express something as naturally as I once did. It's perfectly normal. Language is like a muscle: if you don't exercise it regularly, it gets a little rusty. You don't suddenly lose your ability to walk because you haven't been running marathons, and you don't suddenly lose your French because you've spent decades communicating primarily in English. Yet apparently, some people expect St-Louis to have maintained the linguistic agility of a Radio-Canada news anchor while coaching hockey in an English-speaking environment for most of his adult life.
Apparently, We Haven't Learned Anything
This isn't the first time the Canadiens have been dragged into a linguistic circus. Remember Randy Cunneyworth? In December 2011, following Jacques Martin's dismissal, the Canadiens promoted their assistant coach to interim head coach for the remainder of the season. Cunneyworth was English-speaking and didn't speak French, and you would have thought the organization had committed a criminal offence. Politicians criticized the appointment, protesters gathered outside the Bell Centre, a boycott of Molson products was suggested, and owner Geoff Molson eventually issued a public statement explaining the decision. General manager Pierre Gauthier subsequently apologized to fans who were offended. An interim coaching appointment during a struggling hockey season had somehow become a provincial language crisis. Apparently, the Canadiens needed a head coach who could conjugate verbs before worrying about winning hockey games.
Then there was Saku Koivu. The Finnish-born captain spent 13 seasons in Montreal and wore the captain's C for a decade, yet his ability to speak French remained a recurring subject of criticism. In 2007, politicians even weighed in on his language skills. Think about that for a moment. A player who battled non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, made an extraordinary return to the ice, represented the organization with dignity and contributed to the Montreal community still had to contend with criticism about his French. Perhaps his accomplishments needed to be translated before they counted. At some point, the language debate stops being about protecting French and starts looking suspiciously like a competition to find fault with somebody.
Pick a Battle Worth Fighting
Here's another little detail that seems to escape some people. The reporters covering the Canadiens are, or certainly should be, bilingual. When St-Louis provides an explanation in English, French-speaking journalists can translate it, explain it and communicate the information to their audience. That's part of their profession. They're not there simply to hold a microphone and wait for somebody to say something controversial. If the information is available and the media can communicate it to their audience, what exactly is the problem? Are we suggesting that a perfectly understandable explanation somehow loses its value because it wasn't delivered in the preferred language?
And while we're discussing language, perhaps Rainville and those who share his concerns could direct some of that energy towards the state of written French among students. Spend a few minutes reading some of the comments and discussions circulating online and you'll understand what I mean. We have young people struggling with basic spelling, grammar and written communication, yet we're apparently prepared to devote valuable airtime to examining whether a hockey coach's French explanations are sufficiently polished. That's a little like worrying about a scratch on the kitchen table while the roof is leaking. Pick your battle. There are far more important ones worth fighting.
I have absolutely no problem promoting and protecting the French language. It matters. It is part of our identity, culture and history, and nobody should have to apologize for wanting to preserve it. But there is a difference between defending a language and turning every imperfection into a public spectacle. Encouraging someone to speak French is one thing. Suggesting that a man who has spent nearly three decades outside Quebec needs help communicating information that is already being understood is quite another.
This isn't the first time I've questioned the selective criticism directed at members of this organization. Arber Xhekaj has become another easy target, and I've previously written about how quickly some critics seem to form an opinion before considering the circumstances. The same principle applies here: criticism is fair, but applying different standards depending on whom we're discussing is something else entirely.
Martin St-Louis is paid to coach the Montreal Canadiens, prepare his players, make decisions and help build a winning hockey team. He isn't being paid to pass a French proficiency examination after every game. If his explanations are better in English, perhaps the real question should be whether the information is being understood, not whether the coach has mastered the art of delivering it in two languages.
For crying out loud, we have a hockey team trying to find consistency, young players developing, defensive mistakes to correct and games to win. There are legitimate hockey issues to debate, analyse and criticize. But if we're going to turn a coach's language abilities into a controversy, perhaps we should at least apply the same standard to everybody rather than selectively putting one person under the microscope.
Protecting the French language is important. Turning it into a weapon against someone whose French is perfectly understandable is not. The Canadiens have enough trying to build a contender. They don't need the language police creating another one off it.
Leave a Reply