Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom, November 30, 2001
Language planning: The Canadian approach
Notes for the remarks at the Round Table on Language and Governance hosted by the Assembly for Wales and the Forum of Federations
Dr. Dyane Adam – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Introduction
It is an honour to be able to address such a distinguished group in this new devolved assembly, and I thank you and the organizers of this conference for your hospitality.
We are all indebted to the Forum of Federations for allowing us to come here to share ideas and views born from our experiences in language governance within our respective countries. In the short time since its creation in 1998, the Forum has already established itself as a valuable tool for improving the practice of governance. It has held a series of successful conferences, workshops and seminars in many countries, and I am confident that this one will prove very useful to us.
I will limit my own presentation to the Canadian experience of language rights and my responsibilities and priorities as Commissioner of Official Languages, in the hope that the lessons learned in my country can be useful in other jurisdictions.
Language rights: the Canadian experience
In so doing, I fully recognize that the Canadian model of language management is probably not exportable. But with its two official languages and extensive experience in language planning, and as a member of both the Commonwealth and Francophonie families of countries, I believe Canada has much to contribute to the study, definition and implementation of language policies.
I also look forward to learning from your own insights and experiences during this round table.
In a sense, Canada was born a bilingual country. Our founders rejected the traditional model of the nation-state, which still governed our two mother countries and most of Europe in the 19th century, to embrace the idea of a federation based on respect for diversity and accommodation of differences.
In 1867, when the largely French-speaking province of Quebec and the largely English-speaking provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario joined to form the Canadian Confederation, both languages were allowed in our first Parliament and in federal courts, as well as in the Quebec legislature and Quebec courts.
As Canada grew, absorbing new provinces and territories, this concept remained the basis of our federation.
This is not to say, however, that language rights evolved naturally and smoothly throughout our history. There were many instances of popular resistance or official indifference and even some setbacks when acquired rights were withdrawn in certain provinces.
But since Confederation to this day, minority language communities across our vast country have expressed a strong determination to protect, preserve and develop their own cultures while striving toward common goals.
In fact, every generation of Canadians has had to contend with the challenge of making room for the two founding languages within their national institutions and within Canadian society.
The Official Languages Act, introduced in Parliament in October 1968 and adopted the following year, included provisions to establish the status of English and French as the official languages of Canada and set out for the first time the language rights of citizens in their dealings with Parliament, the federal government, and federal institutions and the duties of those institutions toward the citizen in matters of language.
Another major advance toward the equality of the two languages came from the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which accompanied the patriation of our constitution from Great Britain.
From then on, the equality of French and English in federal institutions was rooted in the very constitution of the country, whereas the principles contained in the Official Languages Act were seen by many as generous ideals rather than legal requirements.
The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
The fundamental objectives and underlying principles of a new official languages policy, then, were clearly set out and duly legislated. Their implementation, however, rested on untested instruments.
One of these was the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, created by the 1969 Act, with the following mandate: "To take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this Act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society."
Like my four predecessors, when I was appointed in 1999 I saw my first duty as responding to specific violations of language rights within my stated mandate. This is still the most important part of my mandate.
But investigation and redress of individual complaints cannot be carried out in a narrow, isolated manner when one is charged with such a broad mandate. That is why I have sought to use the hundreds of complaints filed each year to create momentum for change.
Investigations into violations of language rights must address the very root of the violations in order to achieve lasting solutions, and to resolve especially complex problems a comprehensive study of their causes and ramifications may be in order. In the case of recurring complaints, I believe consultations should be held among interested parties to explore the possibility of using new methods.
My priority, then, has always been to perform the Commissioner's traditional role as an ombudsman with vigilance, but I also remain determined to expand this protective role and serve as an educator, to better inform the Canadian people of their rights, and to consolidate the place of linguistic duality at the heart of Canadian identity.
In my view, only by effectively acting as both an agent of change and an ombudsman can the Commissioner of Official Languages fully address the three main objectives of the Official Languages Act, namely:
- the equality of English and French in Parliament, within the Government of Canada, the federal administration and institutions subject to the Act;
- the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada;
- the equality of English and French in Canadian society.
Can a Commissioner of Official Languages, even the most proactive one, hope to achieve these objectives single-handedly?
Of course not. Linguistic duality calls for a major commitment that involves promoting not only the equal status of the two official languages, but also the quality of services offered to the public in English and French, employees' ability to work in their preferred language in the public service, the equitable participation of both language groups in the public service, development of minority official language communities, and access to health and education services in both official languages.
Since the growth and vitality of minority official language communities depend on so many factors - such as education, immigration, municipal services, health services and broadcasting - it follows that the government must necessarily adopt a coordinated approach.
In Canada, for example, our Department of Canadian Heritage oversees a broad program involving all government departments and agencies to encourage the development of the official language minority communities: Francophones outside Quebec and Anglophones in Quebec.
All federal departments are included in this program, and all activities that fall under the priorities of the official language minority communities are eligible. These may include, among others, activities in arts and culture, economic development and tourism, human resources development, new technologies, and health and social services.
As you can see, the area of responsibility of the Canadian Commissioner of Official Languages is vast and varied. I think it is vital that the Commissioner be able to intervene on behalf of the greatest number of people, not only where they work, but also where they learn and live.
Indeed, what sense would it make if official language minorities were allowed to use their native tongue while working in federal institutions but were prevented from doing so in their own community?
In Canada, the particular situation of Quebec as the homeland of North America's only majority French-speaking population demands special attention. In a flexible and open federation, this situation can and must be addressed with understanding and a spirit of co-operation.
In the last decade, for example, the Government of Canada has worked with Quebec to defend French language and culture, among other things, by signing agreements on immigration and manpower training.
While political leadership and administrative cooperation are indispensable, in my view, more - much more - is required to give the two official languages truly equal status in our society, simply because language is much more than a demographic or political reality. Language is the expression of a culture and a part of the common identity and heritage of all citizens of a federation.
What is required is a collective effort and the Commissioner of Official Languages must exercise authority in stimulating and channelling this collective effort.
The 1988 Official Languages Act, which modernized and strengthened the first Official Languages Act, confirms the Commissioner's duty to be an agent of change. Going beyond institutional bilingualism, the Act now includes a formal commitment by the federal government "to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society."
The words "vitality," "development" and "fostering" are terms that call for action, movement, and change, and the Commissioner of Official Languages must be at the forefront of this movement.
Such is, in a nutshell, the legal and constitutional framework within which the Canadian Commissioner of Official Languages operates, and that is how I see my mandate.
Future challenges
There can be no doubt that this framework and the action of successive Commissioners of Official Languages allowed Canada to come a long way toward ensuring language equality for its citizens over the last 30 years.
Various numbers point to this reality; for example, the number of bilingual Canadians has doubled during that period.
More important, attitudes have changed and at long last, for a new generation of Canadians, language is no longer seen as a barrier between communities but as a bridge between people.
But we cannot take equality of linguistic opportunity for granted; nor can we avoid the profound structural changes that are transforming societies around the world.
Societies evolve and languages evolve with them, more rapidly and more profoundly today than ever before.
Most industrialized countries have experienced radical policy shifts, significant budget cuts, government restructuring, privatization, new trade agreements and greater reliance on information technologies as they have sought to adapt to the new global realities.
As new priorities emerge, it is crucial that we not jettison hard-won rights and values, including language rights. This is vitally important for Canada, where our bilingual and multicultural character and our respect for our Aboriginal heritage help to shelter us from domination by the powerful cultural influence of our American neighbour.
The pervasiveness of the new media is also cause for concern when seen from a minority-language perspective.
It is a Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, who in the early 1960s predicted that we soon would all be living in a "global village." It is perhaps not surprising, then, that Canada is today the most "wired" country in the world, where approximately five million Canadian households, or 40 percent, have access to the Internet.
I do not think that we can turn a blind eye to the effects of the new media on minority languages. Nor do I think we are powerless to intervene. For example, in 1999, my office published a special study urging the federal government to make a greater contribution to French-language content on the Internet. Since then, the government has taken a number of initiatives in this direction, and federal services will be available on the Web everywhere in Canada in both official languages, regardless of how great the demand may be.
In conclusion, I fear that I might have raised more questions than I have provided answers. But I will be content if I have succeeded modestly in demonstrating that wherever we come from, wherever we live, we can act in favour of language equality and cultural vitality.
Our mandates and means differ, but our responsibility is the same: we are the custodians of one of our respective countries' most precious legacy: their different languages.
I believe we will not succeed if we see equality as only a legal or political question. It is above all a question of justice.
We must be guided not only by the law but by the spirit of compromise and tolerance.
In this there can be no better guide than the celebrated British historian Lord Acton, who wrote: "The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."
Thank you.
