OCOL - Cork, Ireland, April 30, 2004

Cork, Ireland, April 30, 2004

Language Planning and Policy Development: The Canadian Approach

Notes for an Address at the 22^nd Biennial Conference of the Irish Association for Canadian Studies “Intercultural dialogue: Canada and the Other”

Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages

Check against delivery

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to return to Ireland, a country that, just like Canada, is attempting to live out its cultural and linguistic diversity.

In recent times, there has been a remarkable convergence of political and economic institutions toward democracy and the market economy. In the early 1990s this phenomenon prompted the economist Francis Fukuyama to declare that the end of history was near.¹ However, although the world was thought to embrace greater uniformity, what we are witnessing today is a trend toward diversity and a new commitment to preserving and revitalizing original and local cultures. Recently, Science magazine published a study showing that the standard of “one language, one country” no longer holds and that, in the new global language order, languages increasingly rub shoulders and people are increasingly multilingual.²

Your country is no different. Ireland has also launched a process to revitalize its original language and culture, notably by adopting its first Official Languages Act.³

Like Ireland, Canada seeks to create conditions that enable its citizens to enjoy the greatest possible freedom in their choice of language. It has already taken measures to preserve its linguistic and cultural diversity. The particular approach it has selected is based not only on history, but also on promotion of cooperative attitudes. This is reflected in our institutions and legislation.

According to Canadian political scientist Will Kymlicka, one of the assets of Canada’s democracy is the fact that we guarantee collective rights—for example, with regard to official languages.⁴ The concept of collective rights is in fact central to our federation. Canadians have understood that to properly protect the rights of individuals, we must also protect their culture and their language. We must consider the groups to which citizens belong.⁵

I am deeply honoured to be able to share with you some elements of the Canadian experience with respect to language rights. Today I would like to focus on three issues that, I hope, will give you a better understanding of our country and its linguistic policies:

how Canada’s linguistic duality is reflected in its federal institutions;
the Canadian linguistic framework; and
its results within the federal administration and in Canadian society overall.

I. Institutions that reflect Canada’s linguistic duality

Linguistic duality is a fundamental trait of history that has shaped Canadian institutions and policies

Canada’s founders rejected the traditional model of the nation-state in favour of the idea of a federation based on respect for diversity and accommodation of differences—an idea found in the earliest Canadian constitutional texts of the 18th century.⁶ We worked to create a nation built on a compromise between the members of two initial European cultures: the English and the French, and on the recognition of our country’s First Nations. The many surveys done on the issue indicate that linguistic duality is now well entrenched in our common values as Canadians.⁷

This successful cohabitation can be seen today in certain characteristic institutional traits, which I will mention briefly. For the most part, they involve arrangements to promote equality between language groups and to protect minorities, as well as First Nations.

Canada opted for federalism as a model for organizing the powers of the state. It did this in order to reconcile the various elements of what was seen as a partially “territorialized” linguistic and cultural diversity.

Our country has two legal systems: the French-inspired civil law and English common law.

The Supreme Court Act of 1949 stipulates that at least one third of the justices of the Court (three out of nine) must be members of the Quebec Bar, the only province with a French-speaking majority.

There are also unwritten traditions to ensure representation of both language communities in the government. The position of Governor General, for example, is filled alternately by English- and French-speaking Canadians.

II. Canada’s language framework

Beyond such institutional arrangements, two legislative documents provide the basis for Canada’s language framework and guarantee the equality of English and French:

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which enshrines the equal status and use of English and French in our Constitution, lists not only individual rights, but also specific collective and linguistic rights, such as the right to minority-language education (s. 23); and
the Official Languages Act,⁸ which proclaims the equality of the two official languages in all federal institutions. This legislation has a quasi-constitutional status; that is, its provisions prevail in the event of inconsistency with those of other federal statutes (with the exception of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).⁹

The Act covers:

citizens’ right to receive services from the federal government in English or French, subject to the very flexible criterion of “significant demand”;
public servants’ right to work in the official language of their choice, in regions that are designated bilingual; and
the federal government’s commitment to promote English and French in Canadian society, and to ensure the development and vitality of minority communities.

Moreover, most provinces and territories have adopted legislation on official languages. For example, the province of New-Brunswick has two official languages. The new territory of Nunavut recognizes three official languages : Inuktitut, English and French. French is the official language of the province of Quebec. Other provinces have also passed legislation providing services in French.

The Commissioner of Official Languages

To monitor compliance, the Official Languages Act created the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, who acts as the “active conscience” of Canadians on language matters.

I see the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages as that of an agent of change: it is my responsibility to encourage federal institutions and the federal leadership to constantly enhance the equality of the official languages and the vitality of the official-language minority communities. From this point of view, I have six separate roles: acting as an ombudsman; auditing; liaison; monitoring; promoting and educating; and intervening before the courts.

As an ombudsman, I receive complaints directly from citizens;, I conduct investigations and I recommend whatever corrective measures may be required.
I am also responsible for many auditing and liaison activities that aim to help federal institutions comply with the Act.
My monitoring duties take the form of interventions when bills, regulations and policies are being developed.
I also devote a great deal of effort—through research, publications, studies, speeches and awareness-raising activities— to promoting a better understanding of linguistic duality in Canadian society.
Finally, I can ask any court, whether provincial or federal, for permission to intervene on any matter that concerns the status or use of English or French. I can also institute proceedings against the federal government on behalf of a complainant.

As you see, my mandate is similar to that of my counterpart in Ireland. Your Commissioner:

oversees enforcement of the Official Languages Act;
can also take any measures necessary to ensure that government complies with the Act;¹⁰
undertakes investigations, whether in response to complaints or in conducting a more in-depth evaluation of the work of government;
the Commissioner can also assist government efforts to enforce the Act.
Finally, while I submit an annual report directly to Parliament, Ireland’s Commissioner submits it first of all to the minister responsible, who then tables it in the legislature.¹¹ My counterpart in Ireland is subordinate to the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs,¹² while Canada’s Commissioner is an officer of Parliament.

Canadian and Irish statutes on official languages: similarities and differences

Our two statutes on official languages also share a number of common features.

First, their objectives are similar: namely, to facilitate and promote the use of the official languages in Parliament, in legislation and publication of official documents, in the legal system, in communications with government, in providing services to the public, and in the public service.

Both statutes also provide for a mechanism that offers redress and compensation to individuals whose language rights have been infringed upon.

Naturally, given our two countries’ differing circumstances, the statutes also possess their own distinct characteristics. For example, Ireland’s Act seeks, through various provisions, to reinstate, encourage or require the use of Irish names for places, sites, etc.¹³ I note that section 8 of Ireland’s Constitution states that Irish is the “first official language” of Ireland. You are working to regenerate and revitalize your first language and your culture, and a return to traditional names is one way of accomplishing this goal.

As I explained earlier, Canada is founded on a compromise between the members of two great European cultures: the English and the French, and on the recognition of our country’s First Nations. The language framework that we have developed is part of an effort to give our cultures an equal and equitable place.

Part VII and vitality of minority communities

For this reason, Part VII of Canada’s Official Languages Act sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of official-language minorities and to fostering the use of English and French in Canadian society.

It requires the government to take measures to:

promote learning of both languages in Canada;
assist provincial governments to support official-language minority communities and to offer bilingual services, minority-language education and second-language teaching;
encourage and help the private and voluntary sectors to provide services in both official languages; and
encourage Canadian organizations and associations to highlight and value the bilingual character of Canada at home and abroad.

This commitment has an impact on:

the development of public policy, which must take official languages into account;
resource allocation;
the provision of government services;
governance, one aspect of which is the development of agreements by the federal government with linguistic minority communities and with the provinces concerning the development of those communities; and
immigration. Canada recently adopted a new Immigration Act, which contains specific provisions requiring consideration for minority communities and their needs when selecting immigrants. The government has also undertaken to promote the immigration of Francophones to minority communities.¹⁴

Additionally, the courts have given greater weight to the government’s commitment to support and promote the vitality of official-language minority communities.

For example, the Supreme Court recently recognized minority rights as an unwritten principle of the Canadian Constitution¹⁵. Other tribunals have handed down a number of decisions that have had the effect of reinforcing language rights. For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the Government of Ontario’s decision to close the only Francophone teaching hospital in that province.¹⁶ The courts have recognized the important role that institutions serving a minority community play in ensuring its vitality and development.

III. Results of implementing our language legislation

Our language framework has yielded results on a number of levels:

In general, Canadians can receive all federal government services in the official language of their choice (from offices required to provide bilingual services). Although we are not yet perfect, Canadians can obtain services in the official language of their choice in four out of five cases.
Federal public servants can expect to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated bilingual (certain parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; New Brunswick; and the National Capital Region).
Overall, there is a good balance of Anglophone and Francophone representation within federal institutions.
Bilingualism is on the rise in Canada’s population of some 30 million people, a quarter of whom are French-speakers.
There is a sharp increase in bilingualism among young people: a quarter of young Canadians aged 15 to 19 are bilingual—more than double the proportion in the preceding generation.
The number of French-speakers has grown to more than 9 million. Another interesting fact: the number of French-speakers living outside Quebec—close to 2.5 million—exceeds the French-speaking population found in 40 member states of La Francophonie. Canada is one of the countries where French is most widely spoken, after France.
Twenty years ago, half of the provinces had no French schools. Today, official-language minority communities have schools and the institutions for administering these schools in all provinces and territories.
Finally, access to the legal system in both official languages is another area in which there has been progress.

Conclusion

As the Canadian example shows, adoption of legislation on official languages is an important first step in establishing a language framework. But it is impossible to say in advance exactly what the practical outcome will be since this depends on public response, the leadership exercised by the authorities who must enforce the statute and the way the courts interpret it.

Legislation is not an end but the beginning of a work that is always in progress. It embodies a vision to be realized and continually re-affirmed.

To be effective, the statute must impose the same obligations on all governmental bodies. It must ensure that the official languages are taken into consideration in whatever actions the government takes, and that institutions help, each in accordance with its own mandate, to facilitate the creation of social spaces where people can live in their own language and culture. It involves transforming legal concepts of equality and cultural rights in such a way as to bring them into line with the experience of citizens, so that cultures can flourish and participate in the richness of society as a whole.

I wish you great success in achieving this wonderful social project and I thank you for your cordial welcome.

Notes

¹Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, New York: The Free Press, 1992.

²David Graddol, “The Future of Language,” Science, Vol. 303, February 27, 2004, 1329-31.

³Government of Ireland, Official Languages Act 2003, Number 32 of 2003 [Official Languages Act Ireland].

⁴Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

⁵Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press, 1994.

⁶Quebec Act, 1774, and Constitutional Act, 1791, Canada’s first democratic constitution. See Deschênes, Gaston, “Les origines et la mise en vigueur de l’Acte constitutionnel de 1791,” Bulletin de la Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée nationale, 20, 3-4 (December 1991): 3-5.

⁷See surveys of the Centre for Research and Information on Canada. According to the latest polls, 77 percent of Canadians support bilingualism.

⁸Government of Canada, Official Languages Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. 31 (4th supplement) [Official Languages Act Canada].

⁹Official Languages Act Canada, s. 82.

¹⁰Official Languages Act Ireland, s. 21.

¹¹Official Languages Act Ireland, s. 30.

¹²Official Languages Act Ireland, s. 1.

¹³Official Languages Act Ireland, ss. 31-34.

¹⁴Pierre Foucher, Language Rights Federal Regime: Issues and Options, Round Table on Canada’s Language Framework, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, April 2004.

¹⁵Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.

¹⁶Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.).