Montreal, May 25, 2003
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the Present: Results, Recommendations and Repercussions for the future
Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Good morning everyone,
I am happy to be part of your discussions regarding the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (BB Commission), which will soon celebrate its fortieth birthday. In the life of a society, forty is young; in our country's active political history, however, one might say it is an eternity. You will recall that, at that time, the current Prime Minister had just arrived in Ottawa.
In this presentation, I wish to examine the significance of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and show how current it still is. And I will do this in three steps:
1. First of all, I want to present the Commission's immediate results.
2. Second, I will address some of the recommendations formulated by its members.
3. Finally, in looking towards the future, I want to discuss the repercussions of BB Commission.
Context
The BB Commission, if one recalls the context in which it was born, was part of a great movement, by politicians as well as by society, to define Canadian identity. While the BB Commission was deliberating, parliamentarians were at the same time discussing and debating truly Canadian symbols such as the national anthem and the flag.1 Many citizens, especially in Quebec, saw in this the definitive answer to our political problems. If Confederation in 1867 was able to resolve the impasse brought about by the Act of Union, they said, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission could resolve the political and constitutional malaise of the early 1960s.
Let us also recall the Commission's mandate:
Inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution.2
According to the adage, the secret is in the sauce. And it was fortunate for the BB Commission that the conclusion was already to be found in the mandate. The task, which was difficult enough, thank you very much, consisted of proposing the means for arriving at this equal partnership between the two founding peoples, while respecting Canadian diversity.
1. Immediate results of the BB Commission
After working for over seven years, the Commission bore fruit. A number of policy and social outcomes stem directly from its labours.
As Commissioner, you will forgive me if I tell you that the BB Commission's most note-worthy product, if not the most essential, has been the Official Languages Act, of which I am guardian and which was adopted in 1969 by Canada's Parliament. This law, and indirectly the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, derive their origins from the twelfth recommendation of the Commission's first book.3
Most people are aware that there is a direct relationship between the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the BB Commission. This is one of its most original creations. In a certain way, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 40 years later, still carries on the BB Commission's work.
I believe that there are at least three other immediate results, or outcomes that are directly attributable to the BB Commission's work.
One result, which is a bit less tangible but as important as any, is the raising of popular awareness. The Commission had an enormous impact on the general population because it listened to Canadians.4 The Commission began its hearings with the Canadian public in March 1964 and produced its first preliminary report the following year. Over 400 reports of all types were presented to the Commission.5 The public's reaction certainly generated “contrasting opinions”6 but the consultation process was essential.
Listening, however, does not mean playing “follow the leader.” Even while being aware of public opinion, the BB Commission was resolutely turned towards the future and wanted to propose innovative solutions. The BB Commission had set its sights on the construction of a collective project based on linguistic duality that respected cultural diversity. Its work made Canadians aware of the importance of preserving and promoting duality as well as diversity.
The second area in which the Commission had an impact is research. Michael Oliver, who was involved in the Commission's work and is here at the conference, has already written on the Commission's impact on Canadian political thought.7 I feel that the Commission's influence on research in social sciences has been tremendous. The BB Commission ordered no fewer than 165 studies between 1964 and 1967, 24 of which have been published.8 This was a true godsend for social science researchers.9 The result of this scientific activity was a better understanding of Canada's linguistic reality. In documenting demographic, social, educational, economic and legal data related to language and minority communities, we were able to define problems and act as a result. The BB Commission has left a wealth of research that has been taken on by others and then improved upon.
Third, the BB Commission also gave birth to the multiculturalism policy in 1971.10 The mandate confirmed the contribution of the ethnic communities. Two commissioners became their spokespersons.11 Other researchers will speak about multiculturalism this afternoon, but the conclusion I draw is that linguistic duality and cultural diversity complement each other. Recognition of the diversities that constitute Canada can be traced back to the BB Commission's work.
2. Relevance of the recommendations
Let us now look at the relevance of the BB Commission's recommendations. A number of them have been put into effect and produced the immediate results I mentioned earlier. Other recommendations have had to wait because the government or Canadian society wasn't ready. We have had to content ourselves with the BB Commission's recommendations being put into effect slowly. The Commission planted seeds that sprouted and bloomed later. What have been the BB Commission's most fruitful recommendations?
The 13th recommendation in the first book (The Official Languages) recommended that the position of official languages commissioner be created in the provinces that would declare themselves bilingual. Well, even if it is thirty years later, this recommendation has seen the light of day in New Brunswick, as a new Commissioner of Official Languages took office in April 2003. Let us note that the idea of an Office of the Commissioner has also been exported elsewhere, since this institution exists in two Canadian territories, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Other countries are even considering creating such an institution for themselves.
Historians will recall that the 1969 Official Languages Act did not include the BB's recommendations on language of work in the federal public service.12 A parliamentary resolution in 1973 would set out the government's obligations in this matter. Furthermore, the new Official Languages Act of 1988 included specific provisions regarding language of work. In 2003, 15 years after the revision of this law, the federal government made a commitment to making the federal public service exemplary in the area of language of work. Today, over 90 percent of upper-level managers in positions designated as bilingual meet this qualification. Public servants also have work tools available in their language. This question of language of work is making headway but it still is under construction several decades after the BB Commission's analysis.
A few recommendations from Book III (The Work World) set their sights on the linguistic balance in the federal public service. According the BB Commission, Francophones represented 21.5 percent of the federal public service in 1965.13 Measures were put in place to foster greater Francophone representation at all levels of federal administration
There has been clear progress as, in 2002, the proportion of Francophones in the public service was 31 percent.14 Nevertheless, the Anglophone community is underrepresented in the federal civil service in Quebec. A recent study by my Office, A Senior Public Service that Reflects Canada's Linguistic Duality, shows that although linguistic representation at the upper levels of the federal administration is now equitable, there must be renewed effort for the years to come.
The 13th recommendation in Book II (Education) aimed to promote a dual structure within the provincial ministries of education. This recommendation has been in effect in New Brunswick since 1973 and was improved upon during the 1980s. Other provinces have not achieved this level of equity, but they have progressively adopted administrative measures to make room for the minority official language. Other recommendations touched on the historic foundation of federal support with regard to teaching in the minority official language.15 These fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter often did not see the light of day until after long legal battles. It must be noted the implementation of language rights in education is not yet fully completed and progress has been variable across the country.
For those who are interested in bilingualism in the federal capital, I strongly urge you to consult all the recommendations in Book VI (The Federal Capital), and especially recommendations 1, 4 and 8. Already in 1970, the commissioners had grasped the symbolic and practical importance of bilingualism in the capital. By fully implementing these recommendations, we would achieve a truly bilingual federal capital in no time at all. We see how far ahead of its time the BB Commission was in these matters and many more.
What these recommendations show is that the Commission's work is still in progress. It is a demanding job, constantly evolving within the federal government as it is within Canadian society. Some policy aspects of its work were put in place very early on, even if others have been slow in coming. Canadian society has also gone through periods of change and now seems more receptive to the Commissioners' ideas. This slow but real conversion towards bilingualism is the fruit of the BB Commission's initial moves. As proof, we only have to look at the enormous advancement of bilingualism among young people. In 1981, about 18 percent of young Canadians between 15 and 24 were bilingual; this proportion arrived at one quarter (25 percent) in 2001. The government has drawn up an action plan to keep this momentum going and aims to double the number of bilingual young people by 2013.
3. Repercussions for the future
The BB Commission produced immediate results as well as medium- and long-term repercussions. It described a Canadian reality that has since evolved. In spite of the relevance and even the topicality of numerous aspects of its work, the Commission could not predict the future.
I would now like to propose some paths for the future that could guide the creation of a new collective project on official languages while respecting our diversity.
First of all, linguistic duality must be everyone's business. The BB Commission was perceived as being designed for Quebec's needs and official language measures stemming from it as minority affairs. It was nothing of the sort. I would even go further: linguistic duality can survive in Canada only if the majority accepts its merit and participates fully. Although bilingualism took on an institutional character at the time of the BB Commission, it must now be envisioned as a personal and collective force in an era of globalization. All Canadians should be encouraged to participate in order to have two of the world's most important languages in their linguistic baggage. The government must ensure that our linguistic duality is part of the knowledge economy and that it contributes to developing a qualified work force that is open to the world.
Second, the connections between language and ethnic origin are not the same as they were at the time of the BB Commission. The third force that was spoken about at that time is increasingly present.16 The 2001 census confirms that our cultural diversity has grown through the impetus of immigration. Allophones and Canadians whose ethnic origin is neither French nor British are shaping Canadian citizenship. And they do so in both of our official languages. Multiculturalism is experienced in our two official languages and our society must recognize this. Multiculturalism and linguistic duality are not mutually exclusive values in Canada. This idea is illustrated very well in Montreal's cultural and linguistic dynamic. The main home of French culture in America, Montreal welcomes immigrants from all cultural horizons. There is also a vibrant Anglophone community. This unique convergence perhaps explains why Montreal is, by far, the North American city where you will find the most individuals who speak three languages.
Third, government-citizen-community relations, in regards to government services, must be reconsidered. This is even more necessary in light of recent socio-demographic changes and government transformations. Since the BB Commission's analysis, official language communities are no longer closed. Canada's population is more urban. The mobility that Canadians have attained raises questions about the ways in which they receive government services in the language of their choice. Information and communication technologies, for example, change the individual's traditional relationship with the government and his/her linguistic community, especially in a minority milieu. The federal government is adapting to the new reality and provides services in new ways through the private sector, other levels of government or new technologies. The way in which these services are offered must reflect the values of our linguistic duality and must enhance the vitality of minority official language communities.
Conclusion
The BB Commission was a turning point in our history. It served as a useful guide in that it put forward concrete measures. We have worked tirelessly to put into practice the Commission's recommendation to give expression to our linguistic duality. The slow pace with which these recommendations were implemented shows the fragility of this duality. The federal government regularly sets new priorities for itself but official languages must never be relegated to the bottom of the pile.
Technological and demographic changes and the new social context that define this new era of globalization must not threaten our linguistic duality. This visionary piece of work by the commissioners required much effort to bring us were we are today. We are now in need of new visionaries who will pursue and renew this work for years to come.
As you know, the word Canada comes from an Aboriginal word which means house. Well, Canada can indeed be seen as a house for which the commissioners proposed the blueprints. We have built our linguistic duality together. However, 40 years later, we must maintain this home on a daily basis if we do not want it to crumble or wither away.
Notes
2 Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1967) Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book I, The Official Languages, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, Appendix 1
3 Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1967) Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book I, The Official Languages, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, p. 148 para. 439. “We recommend: a) that Parliament adopt a law on the official languages; b) that the Governor General in Counsel designate a Commissioner General of official languages responsible for overseeing respect for the status of French and English in Canada.”
4 Although the Commission specified that its primary role was to investigate and not to listen, it acknowledged that it had been able to influence Canadians' opinions. Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1965) Preliminary report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, p. 17
5 Gagnon, Jean-Louis. (1990) Les apostasies. Les palais de glace, Vol. III, Montréal: Éditions La Presse, p. 42.
6 Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1965) Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, p. 7.
7 Oliver, Michael. (1993) “The Impact of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism on Constitutional Thought and Practice in Canada,” International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d'études canadiennes, Nos. 7-8, pp. 315-332.
8 Adamson, Christopher R.; Findlay, Peter C.; Oliver, Michael K.; Solberg, Janet. (1974), “The Unpublished Research of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Review Article)” Revue canadienne de science politique / Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7, p. 709.
9 Lacoste, Paul. (1990) “André Laurendeau et la Commission sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme” in Robert Comeau and Lucille Beaudry (editors), André Laurendeau : un intellectuel d'ici, Sillery: Presses de l'Université du Québec, p. 210.
10 Houle, François. (1999) “Citoyenneté, espace public et multiculturalisme : la politique canadienne de multiculturalisme, ” Sociologie et sociétés, Vol. 31, no, 2, pp. 101-123.
11 Paul Wychzynski and Jaroslav Rudnyckyj.
12 Héroux, Maurice. (1991) A Chronicle of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1970-1991, Ottawa: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, p. 5.
13 Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1969) Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book III, The Work World, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, p. 219. These figures are in fact based on a sampling of 9159 public servants.
14 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2002) Annual Report on Official Languages 2001-2002, Ottawa : Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Table 13, p. 43.
15 Recommendations 26 and 27 of Book II, Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents) (1968). Report of the Royal commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book II, Education. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, p. 310.
16 Laurendeau, André and A. Davidson Dunton (co-presidents). (1965) Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, pp. 43-44.
