Ottawa, September 16, 2008
Notes for an address given at the monthly breakfast
of the European Union ambassadors
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Mesdames et Messieurs les Ambassadeurs, Ambassadors:
It is a great honour for me to be offered the opportunity to discuss Canada’s language situation with such a knowledgeable group of people. Whenever I have conversed with ambassadors stationed in Canada, I have been struck by the in-depth knowledge they possessed of the social forces at work in the country. You often possess a unique perspective that allows you to see current events in a different light, which diplomatic reserve keeps you from sharing openly.
Language is at the heart of Canadian identity and the forces that built the country. Yet it is no longer the politically divisive issue it once was.
As it happens, I accepted this invitation before I knew I would be speaking in the middle of a federal election campaign. The outcome will not affect my position—I am an agent of Parliament, and report to Parliament rather than to a minister, and I was named to a seven-year term. But as I am accountable to all Parliamentarians, I have to be particularly careful that nothing I say can be interpreted in a partisan fashion.
But what I can say is this. Since the passage of the Official Languages Act, almost 40 years ago, we have seen bilingualism become one of the prerequisites of political leadership. It is now unthinkable that a prime minister, or the leader of a political party, would be unable to speak to all Canadians, regardless of their official language. We are the only Western democracy I know of that requires our political leaders to engage in a two-hour televised debate in one language and then, 24 hours later, in a two-hour televised debate in the other language.
Of course, the Canadian identity is also made up of First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultures. These native peoples have, for centuries, shown us the importance of passing on not only our language, but also our culture. They continue to struggle to ensure that their languages are retained and flourish, and that their cultures are passed on to future generations. Their plight is often compared to that of French-speaking Canadians.
Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, and that has provided us with an opportunity to assess how far we have come—and how far we still have to go.
The Act—which created the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages—was introduced at a time when language tensions were high. French-speaking Canadians were no longer prepared to accept less than equal status. If the federal government had not acted to ensure the equality of French and English, I am not sure that the country would have survived.
The Act was written to ensure that French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians would get service from the federal government in the official language of their choice and that, in certain regions including the National Capital, French-speaking public servants would have the right to work in French. This means that supervisors in the public service in these regions have to be able to read, speak and understand both French and English.
To a substantial degree, those goals have been achieved. Over 90 percent of public servants in bilingual positions have met their language qualifications. Three-quarters of the time, French-speaking Canadians are satisfied with the service they get from the federal government. But year in and year out, some institutions—like the Canadian Forces, Border Services and Air Canada, for example—are the subject of numerous complaints to my office. Still today, greeting citizens in both languages and making both languages fully part of the workplace are not part of the national culture.
There have also been changes in Canada’s civil society.
Forty years ago, two distinguished political scientists, John Meisel and Vincent Lemieux, did a study on bilingualism in Canada’s voluntary associations for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. They found that organizations as various as Scouts Canada and the Canadian Junior Chamber had a history of differing values, mutual incomprehension and even bitter conflict.
They found a situation where, in most organizations, unilingual Anglophones predominated, and Francophones had to function in English if they wanted to participate. The result, they discovered, often involved “too great a cost in terms of effort, discomfort and possibly humiliation.”1
Four decades later, where are we now?
David Cameron and Richard Simeon, two of Canada’s foremost scholars of federalism, have produced a fascinating glimpse into how Canadian civil society has adapted to linguistic duality. The result is as varied and complex—and ultimately as successful—as Canada itself.
In their forthcoming book Language Matters: Pathways to Accommodation in Canadian Voluntary Associations, Cameron and Simeon present the full range of responses that have developed since the bitter tensions of the 1960s. Some organizations have developed a central office that can serve their members in both English and French. Others have granted significant autonomy to the Quebec office, which operates largely in French. Still others have separated into two organizations, one that operates in English and the other in French—Scouts Canada and the Association des Scouts du Canada being a prime example.
In their conclusion, Cameron and Simeon compare their findings with those of Meisel and Vincent:
“[Meisel and Vincent] found a landscape fraught with tension; we found a world in which Canadians, Anglophone and Francophone have been able to work out their differences and find ways of cooperating that transcend the linguistic difference,” they write. “The patterns are varied, the atmosphere is by no means harmonious in all respects, but the practical arrangements are by and large effective. This outcome is achieved, not by denying difference, but by recognizing and accommodating it.”2
Cameron and Simeon have made an important contribution, not only to the understanding of language policy, but also to comprehension of how the country manages to negotiate the often spiky contours of the language divide.
Of course, language is not a uniquely Canadian obsession.
This year marks the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. This new face of Europe is, in many ways, very similar to the present linguistic and cultural realities of Canada. In our discussions, I would be very interested in hearing your perspectives about the wide range of language issues and opportunities the continent is currently facing.
Next month, I will be marking my first two years as Commissioner of Official Languages.
In this time, I have made it one of my priorities to invite Canadians to reconsider the way they perceive the link between linguistic duality and cultural diversity. Indeed, in the coming months, I will be hosting a forum on the matter in Vancouver to get a better understanding of how visible minorities feel about the role our two official languages play in our national dialogue. I am convinced that, far from being contradictory, the two concepts are complementary. Canada would not be where it is today, in terms of cultural diversity, if it had not made a commitment to recognizing and supporting two official languages.
But, as has been the case in some of your countries, this recognition and support has not always been easy. We have the advantage of having two international languages but, as has been the case in Europe, the dominance of English has provoked considerable tension.
To this day, one of the biggest myths in relation to official language issues in Canada continues to be that the Official Languages Act requires all Canadians to be bilingual. Although I encourage each and every Canadian to acquire as many languages as possible, it is not an obligation.
I know many of you struggle with similar issues. And I believe the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is the type of solution that should be adopted more broadly in the world. Already here in Canada, Edmonton Public Schools has adopted the Framework. This effort in making their students bilingual—and often trilingual—is proving to be one of greatest success stories in terms of language education we’ve seen to date. On top of offering French immersion programs, they offer second-language programs in other languages as well. The Mandarin program is, in fact, one of the largest and most comprehensive outside of China.3 They even offer international certification in German, Japanese and Spanish.
Last year, when I spoke to a workshop at an international conference in New Delhi, during the question period, a young man noted that he was surprised that so few Canadians were bilingual, considering both languages use the same script. It was, I think, a healthy reminder of how easy we have it here.
Of course, language education must go beyond elementary and secondary schools. I have stressed the importance for Canadian universities to step up and recognize the benefits of learning both English and French. I have also encouraged them to give credit to students who have studied in their second language, and to include knowledge of both languages as prerequisites for certain programs, and as conditions of graduation in others.
Some universities have already adopted such policies, but I think the time has come to adopt them across the board. Students at every level should have the opportunity to learn the other official language, and we should be looking to the European example of the Erasmus program.
This year especially, the focus on the need for language learning seems to be shifting. From an economic point of view, the need for bilingual and multilingual people in the communications field has exploded. Having these competencies gives candidates a great competitive edge, and often leads to a higher pay scale. According to the Welsh scholar of bilingualism Colin Baker, and I would agree, “bilingualism has become a marketable ability to bridge languages and cultures, securing trade and delivery of services.”4
I have spoken today mostly about education here in Canada, touching on the cultural diversity that increasingly makes up our society. Of course, my office and I have been active on this and many other related issues, from the appointment of bilingual judges to bilingualism in the public service.
Of course, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the work we do.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, I am very interested in hearing about any experiences you might like to share about your own countries and the challenges you have faced involving language issues.
Thank you.
1. Quoted in Sorry I Don’t Speak French: Confronting the Canadian Crisis that Won’t Go Away, by Graham Fraser, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 2006, pp 223–224.
2. Quoted in the conclusion of Language Matters: Pathways to Accommodation in Canadian Voluntary Associations, edited by David Robertson Cameron and Richard Simeon, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 2009 (forthcoming).
3. Katherine Harding, “Bold strokes on languages,” The Globe and Mail, May 20, 2006.
4. Colin Baker, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4th ed., Toronto, Multilingualism Matters, 2006, p. 425.
