New York, December 17, 2008
Notes for a panel discussion on language initiatives by government and
public authorities, and how they work in practice
UNESCO Global Seminar
“Languages Matter!: Linguistic Diversity, Globalization and Development”
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
I am happy to have been given the opportunity to speak on this topic today. The subject invites many approaches and—as someone who is passionate for Canadian history—I would like to start by looking at the past and at how official language policy played an important role in Canada’s social debate. I will also provide a brief overview of our country’s legislative tools, and, lastly, talk about the future of our linguistic duality in the context of diversity and a global economy.
Canada is a country of almost 10 million square kilometres and has a population of about 33 million people. It is a relatively decentralized federation; provincial and territorial legislatures have jurisdiction over education, health and social services, job training, local government and natural resources, among other things. Provinces and territories also share many powers with the federal government in areas such as taxation, justice and the environment. Each level of government is free to enact laws in its own areas of responsibility. This includes laws related to language.
French is the mother tongue of 23 per cent of Canadians. This represents a greater number of Francophones1 than in both Belgium and Switzerland combined.2
Quebec is the only province where the majority of the population is Francophone. And of the 6 million Francophones in this province, about 4 million are unilingual. However, Quebec also has an important English-speaking population made up of almost 1 million people.
There are also almost 1 million Francophones living outside of Quebec. Three quarters of them live in the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick. In the latter, they make up a third of the population. Elsewhere in Canada, they account for less than five per cent of the population. Nonetheless, even where they represent only a small proportion of the population, Francophones form vibrant communities with their own schools and a strong sense of identity. They are well integrated within the larger English-speaking society, and many make significant contributions to the regions in which they are located.
I think it is also important to point out that there are also approximately 1.7 million aboriginal people in Canada representing 3.8% of the population who speak about 50 different languages. Most of these languages, which are threatened, do not have official status. However, in the Northwest Territories, 11 official languages are presently recognized and in Nunavut, the Inuit language is recognized alongside English and French as the official languages of the territory. I believe it is time that the various levels of government collaborate to ensure that these languages survive along with the next generations of aboriginal peoples.
1. A turbulent past
The cultural and linguistic duality that exists throughout Canada can create tension, and it has, in the past, led to conflict. To better illustrate this, I want to speak briefly about how Canada navigated through a rather turbulent period in its history—sometimes gracefully, sometimes through nerve-wracking, last minute compromise.
Respect for both English and French was a critical part of Canada’s colonial history, and an essential element in the compromise that led to Confederation in 1867.
That commitment to the respect of two official languages was also a key to the expansion of Confederation to include Canada’s western provinces: Manitoba in 1870, and Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. Unfortunately, that promise was broken, and for over a century, French was suppressed in a number of English-speaking provinces.
This state of affairs gave rise to what novelist Hugh MacLennan described over 60 years ago as “two solitudes”—the title of his novel that gave Canadians a new metaphor for English-French relations. Published in 1945, this sweeping epic of linguistic and ethnic tension suddenly became the permanent template through which English Canadians perceived French Canada. When, in the years that followed, the political process failed to ease these tensions, they escalated into conflict.
In 1960, when only 3% of English-speaking Canadians outside Quebec spoke French, MacLennan made an impassioned plea for bilingualism: “The matter is so important to our national existence that the most radical plans should be considered for improving the situation,” he wrote.
Later, he called for the creation of minority French-language schools in English-speaking provinces, and the creation of a federal public service where French-speaking Canadians could speak their language at work and be understood.
“It is essential in the interests not only of justice according to the [British North America Act],3 but also of an efficient partnership,” wrote MacLennan. “A great deal of a man’s ability is left behind him if he has to do business and be judged in a language not native to him.”4
A sure sign of conflict in any democracy is when bombs go off in the streets. In 1962, that is exactly what was happening in the province of Quebec when the Front de libération du Québec bombed mailboxes, buildings and other symbols of the federal government. Dozens of people were injured; eventually, six people were killed. Canadians were shocked.
These bombings were visible manifestations of serious and divisive discrimination along language lines. At the time, French-speaking Canadians were largely excluded from the senior ranks of the private and public sectors, federal parliament, the military and most other major institutions.
2. The Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
As a partial response to these tensions, the Official Languages Act was introduced in 1969. It opened the doors of the public service to Francophones, guaranteed some level of service in both official languages, and gave equal status to French and English in federal institutions. It also established the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, who reports directly to Parliament rather than to the government. I am the sixth person to occupy this post.
The Act was passed at a time when Francophone communities outside Quebec struggled to redefine themselves in the face of Quebec nationalism. By establishing much-needed bilingual services across the country, the federal government hoped that provincial jurisdictions would follow suit. Although some did, others went on to declare themselves unilingual English-speaking provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1988.
The Act—followed by constitutional language protection in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—is based on two rights: the right to learn and the right to use. Similarly, it has two fundamental purposes: to protect minority language communities and to ensure that the 4 million unilingual French-speaking Canadians get the same level of service from the federal government as the 20 million unilingual English-speaking Canadians.
At first, much of English Canada contested the Act—especially the hiring of numerous French-speaking Quebeckers within the public service. The Act was also not enough to end violent conflict. October 1970 became known in Canadian history as the “October Crisis”. Many Canadians of my generation remember the October Crisis as a time of great uncertainty. During this period, the Prime Minister invoked the War Measures Act after Quebec minister Pierre Laporte and British diplomat James Cross were kidnapped in Montréal. Although Mr. Cross was later freed, Minister Laporte was murdered.
Laporte’s death was the last significant act of violence of the crisis. By the time I arrived in Quebec as a reporter for Maclean’s magazine in 1976, the province was about to elect its first provincial government formed by a sovereignist party. Its goal was to take Quebec out of Canada, a quest that has remained unsuccessful even after two referenda, one in 1980 and one in 1995.
The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms attempted to respond, at least in part, to the aspirations of Francophones in Quebec as well as those living in the other provinces. The Charter included guarantees for minority-language schools throughout the country. Previously, teaching in French had been discouraged, and even outlawed, in many provinces.
The Charter reinforced an idea already present in the Official Languages Act; that while French-speakers only form a majority in Quebec, Canadian linguistic duality means that official language minority communities should be protected everywhere. Moving away from a strictly territorial approach remains one of the landmarks of Canada’s language policies.
Changes to the 1988 Official Languages Act were consistent with a generally non-territorial approach, although some of the new dispositions took demography into account. More specifically, the changes brought new language obligations with regard to Parliament, federal courts, services from the federal government, language of work within much of the federal public service, and equality in hiring and advancement opportunities.
There was also a commitment by the federal government to do more than simply provide bilingual services. It was now required to foster the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society, and to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. This aspect of the Act was further reinforced by Parliament in 2005. Federal institutions are now required to take positive measures to support the development of these communities, while also promoting linguistic duality.
3. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Canada’s language policies were a necessary condition for resolving language conflict in Canada, but not a sufficient condition. The results of the second Quebec referendum in 1995 were even closer than in 1980: a nerve-wracking 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent rejection of a plan to negotiate Quebec sovereignty and an economic association with the rest of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada eventually set conditions for future referenda and put more emphasis on minority rights when interpreting constitutional rights.
Language policy creates a framework for resolving differences and sustaining linguistic minorities. It is not a magic wand. It is useful in the sense that it allows groups and individuals to have some basic rights recognized and enforced. It also makes administrative change possible within the government. But it exists only as part of a wider conversation between legislators, the courts and the electorate.
The work of the Commissioner of Official Languages is part of that conversation. For almost forty years now, commissioners have fulfilled their mandate of taking every measure necessary to achieve the objectives of the Act. Over time, tools have been added to facilitate the resolution of complaints. Today, my office takes a wide range of concrete actions in three clearly defined areas: protection, promotion and prevention.
In terms of protection, I conduct audits and assess the performance of federal institutions in their implementation of the Official Languages Act. I also receive complaints and, where necessary, conduct investigations and intervene before the courts. Furthermore, my office now receives about 1000 complaints and pursues several active court cases per year. These are mainly due to inconsistency or timidity in implementing the Act. The 75% success rate in offering bilingual services is a significant improvement from what the rate was even 15 years ago, but it is still unacceptable for the one out of every four citizens who requests a government service in one language and gets a response in the other.
In terms of promotion, I inform Canadians of their language rights, conduct research and publish studies. My office has people on staff to answer questions from the public, both in our Ottawa office and in our regional offices from coast to coast. I raise awareness of the benefits of linguistic duality; I work with federal, provincial and territorial governments; I work closely with official language minority communities; and I ensure that the federal government takes appropriate measures to support these communities’ development.
In terms of prevention, I develop strategic approaches in order to find sustainable solutions. As with all our other tools, these approaches must change with the evolving social landscape and the way governments are called upon to provide services.
As Dr. Victor Goldbloom, one of my predecessors, put it back in 1992: “There is an urgent need for the federal government itself to do more to explain in plain English (or in plain French) what linguistic duality is all about. People cannot be expected to support what they do not understand.”
Conclusion
When will we be able to say that linguistic duality is firmly entrenched in Canadian society? The ultimate challenge is to nurture a culture of leadership in both official languages. To understand the whole country, our political leaders, leading business people, journalists, ambassadors and top athletes should have a good understanding of both English and French. To effectively deliver their message to the whole country, they must be able to communicate in both languages. There is no way around it.
But leadership must also be present at every level of an organization. It must manifest itself through willingness to learn the other official language and through openness toward the different cultures that make up the Canadian fabric.
There are also interesting nuances coming into play in terms of Canada’s changing demography. In my opinion, there is a misconception that Canada’s increasing cultural diversity is an obstacle to sustaining our official languages. I do not believe this is true. In fact, I have seen a profound need for dialogue with culturally diverse groups. My office has recently held such consultations in Toronto and Vancouver, with another planned for Montréal next year. I have witnessed many instances of new immigrants embracing both official languages. I have also witnessed continued interest in learning French within families of diverse backgrounds.
Canada’s experience as a country that functions in two languages is enriched by this strong cultural diversity. We know, for instance, that Canada’s two official languages benefit us on the international stage, as does the increased level of multilingualism among Canadians throughout the country.
In Canadian official languages policy and law, a value-driven approach is essential. Such policies cannot settle all conflicts, or solve all problems. Some might ask “Why bother?”, “Why protect linguistic minorities if it can’t solve all our problems?” I have devoted the better part of my career to understanding Canada’s official languages policy and how it applies to both English and French minority communities throughout the country. I can say, without a doubt, that languages matter.
Because in Canada, our two official languages are an assertion and expression of our country’s identity—in all its diversity.
1. The terms “Anglophone” and “Francophone” refer to individuals who speak one or the other of Canada’s official languages as their first language, regardless of their ethnic origin.
2. Approximately 6.7 million people in Canada, versus 4.2 million in Belgium and 1.3 million in Switzerland.
3. Canada’s original constitution before additional changes were made to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.
4. “An English-Speaking Quebecker Looks at Quebec,” in The Other Side of Hugh MacLennan: Selected Essays Old and New, edited by Elspeth Cameron, Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1978, p. 234.
