Instead of taking a circumstantial approach as many do, trying to save the P.C. face while arguing about inefficiencies, heavy-handed approach, etc... I'll go straight to the heart of the issue -- WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE TO PROTECT FRENCH, or any other language for that matter? And even if you buy the argument that protecting the language == protecting the culture, I'm going to ask, why should culture be protected?
The fundamental essence of all cultures is that they change over time. They are born, they are developed, and when the time comes, they die off or are absorbed into other cultures. From the beginning of human history that has been the case. None of our modern cultures have existed from the beginning of civilization -- they are all an amalgamated product of hundreds of independent cultures which have evolved and intertwined over time. Different cultures merge and split, traditions come and go, beliefs, values, ways of thinking and doing things, they all change over time. The very reason we evolve and progress as a civilization is that we accept the concept of changing culture. Language is part of that. Do you see any sizable part of the population arguing that we should go back to, say, ancient Greek, because Greece was the birthplace of western civilization and thus (obviously) we must protect and preserve its language? How about ancient Roman? What about the Medeival Frankish? Or the Beowulfian English?
A culture is representative of a way of life that people who follow that culture observe. When the way of life changes, culture changes accordingly. If language is part of that culture, then the language will change accordingly too. If using a particular language is no longer representative of a way of life that the population follows (as is the case in the anglo-americanization of Quebec, for example), then that language is naturally fated to go from the dictionary books into the history books.
But only recently we have a bunch of self-righteous moralizers that claim that "preserving" a culture is the right thing to do. In other ways, they wish to (forcefully) impose measures on a population and stop the natural course of progress and cultural evolution that the population decided to take, and hang on to something that cannot stay on its legs independently. And if that wasn't enough, they want to pay for this enforcement out of the public purse.
This is a fundamentally and patently wrong approach. Cultures aren't supposed to be "preserved" in any context outside that of a museum. Cultures are supposed to represent the way of life undertaken by the followers of the culture. When a cultural element (in this case being the use of French) goes out of fashion, it should be let dying in dignity, not persistently preserved as a decaying corpse by the high-horse cultural necromancers. And certainly not being funded at public expense.
Cultural attributes come and go. Don't entertain yourself with the delusion that the French language will be preserved henceforth and to eternity. It won't. English won't be either. Sooner or later everything changes, and it's absurd to even speculate what language will be used in a thousand years from now. It's just a matter of time. All the cultural welfarists accomplish is putting the dying body of a cultural attribute on extended life support, using our money to turn what should have been a dignifiend passing away into a long, painful, and quite pathetic freak show.
Let the dying die in peace.