Official bilingualism is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws which give English and French a privileged status over other languages in Canada’s courts, parliament and administration.
Official bilingualism should not be confused with personal bilingualism, which is the capacity of a person to speak two languages. However, the promotion of personal bilingualism in English and French is an important objective of official bilingualism in Canada, and is addressed more fully below.
In addition to the symbolic designation of English and French as official languages, official bilingualism is generally understood to include any law or other measure which:
At the provincial level, only New Brunswick is officially bilingual and only Quebec is officially unilingual (French only). In practice, all provinces, including Quebec, offer some bilingual services and some education in both official languages up to the high school level. English and French are official languages in all three territories. In addition, Inuktitut is also an official language in Nunavut, and nine aboriginal languages have official status in the Northwest Territories.
French has been a language of government in the part of Canada that is today Quebec, with limited interruptions, since the arrival of the first French settlers in 1608, and has been entrenched in the Constitution of Canada since 1867. English has been a language of government in each of the provinces since their inception as British colonies.
Institutional bilingualism in various forms therefore predates the Canadian Confederation in 1867. However, for many years English occupied a de facto privileged position, and French was not fully equal. The two languages have gradually achieved a greater level of equality in most of the provinces, and full equality at the federal level. The trend has been very different in Quebec, however, where in the 1970s English lost its status of full equality with French, which is now, both in practice and in law, the sole official language of Quebec.
Personal bilingualism and multilingualism is a significant feature of Canadian society: at least 35% of Canadians speak more than one language. Of these multilingual Canadians, somewhat less than half (5,448,850 persons, or 17.4% of the Canadian population) are able to speak both the official languages.[1] However, in Canada the terms "bilingual" and "unilingual" are normally used to refer to bilingualism in English and French. In this sense, nearly 83% of Canadians are "unilingual", even though fewer than 2% of Canadians cannot speak at least one official language.[2]
Knowledge of the two official languages is largely determined by geography. In Quebec, 94.5% of the population knows how to speak French but only 40.6% knows how to speak English. In the rest of the country, 97.6% of the population is capable of speaking English, but only 7.5% know how to speak French. [3] Because knowledge of English in Quebec is over five times higher, in percentage terms, than knowledge of French in the rest of the country, personal bilingualism is largely limited to Quebec itself, and to a strip of territory sometimes referred to as the “bilingual belt”, that stretches east from Quebec into northern New Brunswick and west into parts of Ottawa and northeastern Ontario. Thus, a majority of bilingual Canadians are themselves Quebeckers, and a high percentage of the bilingual population in the rest of Canada resides in close proximity to the Quebec border.
English and French have had limited constitutional protection since 1867. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 guarantees that both languages may be used in the Parliament of Canada, in its journals and records, and in court proceedings in any court established by the Parliament of Canada. The section also provides that all Acts of the Parliament of Canada are to be printed and published in both English and French. Section 133 also establishes a corresponding set of linguistic rights for French and English in Quebec--but not in any other province.
The Constitution Act, 1982 entrenched stronger and more detailed guarantees for the equal status of the two official languages in sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 16-19 guarantee the equal status of both languages in Parliament, in all federal government institutions, and in federal courts. These sections also mandate that all statutes, records and journals of Parliament be published in both languages, with the English and French versions both holding equal status before the courts. Section 20 guarantees the right of the Canadian public to communicate in English and French with any central government office or with regional offices where there is "a significant demand for communication with and services from that office." Significant demand is not defined in the Charter of Rights. One of the purposes of the Official Languages Act of 1988 was to remedy this omission.
The Charter of Rights includes similar constitutional obligations making New Brunswick the only officially bilingual province in Canada[4].
Section 21 ensured that the new Charter of Rights would be read as supplementing, rather than replacing any rights of the English and French languages which had been constitutionalized prior to 1982. Section 22 ensured that the new Charter of Rights would not be interpreted by the courts as placing any new restrictions on non-official languages.
Section 23 provides a limited right to receive publicly-funded primary and secondary-schooling in the two official languages when they are "in a minority situation"--in other words, to English-language schooling in Quebec, and to French-language schooling in the rest of the country.
The right applies asymmetrically because section 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that not all of the language rights listed in section 23 will apply in Quebec. Specifically:
One practical consequence of this asymmetry is to require all migrants who arrive in Quebec from foreign countries to place their children in French-language schools—including immigrants whose mother tongue is English and immigrants who received their schooling in English.
On the other hand, Section 23 provides a nearly universal right to English-language schooling for the children of Canadian-born Anglophones living in Quebec.
Section 23 also provides a nearly universal right to French-language schooling for the children of all Francophones living outside Quebec, including immigrants from French-speaking countries who settle outside Quebec.
There are some further restrictions on minority-language education rights:
The phrase, "where numbers ... warrant" is not defined in Section 23. Education is under provincial jurisdiction, which means that it has not been possible for Parliament to enact a single nationwide definition of the term, as the 1988 Official Languages Act did for the constitutional obligation to provide federal services where “there is a sufficient demand.” As a result, disputes over the extent of the right to a publicly-funded minority-language education have been the source of much litigation.
The defining case was Mahe v. Alberta (1990), in which the Supreme Court of Canada declared that section 23 guaranteed a "sliding scale." In certain circumstances, the children whose parents could exercise the right might be so few that literally no minority language education may be provided by the government. With a greater number of children, some schools might be required to provide classrooms in which the children could receive minority language education. An even greater number would require the construction of new schools dedicated solely to minority language education. More recent cases, which have significantly extended these rights, include Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island (2000) and Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) (2003).
Many of the documents in Canada's Constitution do not have an official French-language version; for official legal purposes only the English-language version is official and any French translations are unofficial. In particular, the Constitution Act, 1867 (which created Canada as a legal entity and still contains the most important provisions of governmental powers) has no official French-language version, because it was enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament, which functions in the English language exclusively. Similarly, all other parts of the Constitution that were enacted by the United Kingdom (with the important exception of the Canada Act 1982) have no official French-language version.
Sections 55 – 57 of the Constitution Act, 1982 set out a framework for changing this situation. Section 55 calls for French versions of all parts of the Constitution that exist only in English to be prepared as quickly as possible. Section 56 provided that, following adoption of the French versions, both the English-language and French-language versions would be equally authoritative. This means that an inaccurately-translated French version would have a weight equal to the English original. Perhaps in order to ensure that no de facto amendments could be accidentally made to the Constitution via the translation process, Section 55 requires that the French-language versions be approved using the same process under which actual constitutional amendments are adopted.
Section 57 states that the “English and French versions of this Act [ie. the Constitution Act, 1982] are equally authoritative.” It was necessary to state this in the text of the Act because the Constitution Act was enacted in the form of a schedule, in both French and English, as an Act of the British parliament (the Canada Act 1982), and without a provision mentioning its language, it would have followed the practice of most British legislation, and it too would have been valid in its English version only.
Pursuant to section 55, a French Constitutional Drafting Committee produced French-language versions of all the British North America Acts in the decade following 1982. However, these versions were never ratified under the Constitution’s amendment procedure, and therefore have never been officially adopted.[6]
Canada adopted its first Official Languages Act in 1969, in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The current Official Languages Act was adopted in 1988 to improve the 1969 law's efforts to address two basic policy objectives: (1) to specify the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions relevant to official languages; (2) to support the development of linguistic minority communities. As well, following the adoption in 1982 of the Charter of Rights, it was necessary to create a legislative framework within which the Government of Canada could respect its new constitutional obligations regarding the official languages. [7]
In addition to formalizing Charter provisions in Parts I through IV, the Act adopts several specific measures to achieve these objectives. [8]. For example, Part V specifies that the work environment in federal institutions in the National Capital Region and other prescribed bilingual regions be conducive to accommodating the use of French and English at work[9]. Part VI mandates that English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians not be discriminated against based on ethnic origin or first language learned when it comes to employment opportunities and advancement. [10].
Finally, the Act establishes a Commissioner of Official Languages [11] and specifies his duties to hear and investigate complaints, make recommendations to Parliament, and delegate authority in matters pertaining to official languages in Canada. [12]. Canada's current Commissioner of Official Languages is Graham Fraser.[13].
Section 32 of the Official Languages Act authorizes the Governor in Council (i.e. the federal cabinet) to issue regulations defining the geographic regions in which services will be offered by the federal government in the relevant minority language (English in Quebec and French elsewhere)[14].
This provides a legal definition for the otherwise vague requirement that services be provided in the minority official languages wherever there is "significant demand." The definition used in the regulations is complex, but basically an area of the country is served in both languages if at least 5,000 persons in that area, or 5% of the local population (whichever is smaller), belongs to that province's English or French linguistic minority population. [15]
Regulations were first promulgated in 1991.[16].
Polls show that Canadians consistently and strongly support two key aspects of Canadian official languages policy:
However, among English-speaking Canadians there is only limited support for broadening the scope of official bilingualism, and reservations exist among Anglophones as to the intrusiveness and/or fairness of the policy. Among Francophones, polls have revealed no such reservations.
Among Anglophones, support for providing federal French-language services to French-speakers living outside Quebec has remained consistently high over a quarter-century period—79% in 1977 and 76% in 2002.[17] Over the same period, support among English-speakers for the “right to French language education outside Quebec where numbers make costs reasonable” has ranged from 79% to 91%.[18] Among French-speaking Canadians, support for these policies was even higher.
The national consensus breaks down when other aspects of official bilingualism are examined. According to a review of three decades’ worth of poll results published in 2004 by Andre Turcotte and Andrew Parkin, “Francophones in Quebec are almost unanimous in their support of the official languages policy” but “there is a much wider variation in opinion among Anglophones….”[19] This variation can be seen, for example, in responses to the question, “Are you, personally, in favour of bilingualism for all of Canada?” Between 1988 and 2003, support for this statement among Francophones ranged between 79% and 91%, but among Anglophones support was never higher than 48%, and fell as low as 32% in the early 1990s.[20]
According to Turcotte and Parkin, other poll data reveal that “in contrast to Francophones, Anglophones, in general, have resisted putting more government effort and resources into promoting bilingualism …. What is revealing, however, is that only 11% of those outside Quebec said they disagreed with bilingualism in any form. Opposition seems to be directed to the actions of the federal government, rather than to bilingualism itself …. [T]his distinction is key to understanding public opinion on the issue.”[21] This helps to explain results that would otherwise seem contradictory, such as a 1994 poll in which 56% of Canadians outside Quebec indicated that they either strongly or moderately supported official bilingualism, but 50% agreed with a statement that "the current official bilingualism policy should be scrapped because it's expensive and inefficient."[22]
In English Canada, there is some regional variation in attitudes towards federal bilingualism policy, but it is relatively modest when compared to the divergence between the views expressed by Quebecers and those expressed in the rest of the country. For example, in a poll conducted in 2000, only 22% of Quebecers agreed with the statement, “We have gone too far in pushing bilingualism,” while positive response rates in English Canada ranged from a low of 50% in the Atlantic to a high of 65% in the Prairies.[23]
Both French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians tend to regard the capacity to speak the other official language as having cultural and economic value,[24] and both groups have indicated that they regard bilingualism as an integral element of the Canadian national identity. Once again, however, there is a marked divergence between the responses of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. In a 2003 poll, 75% of Francophones indicated that “having two official languages, English and French”, made them proud to be Canadian. Among English-speakers, 55% said that bilingualism made them proud, but far higher percentages (86% and 94%, respectively) indicated that multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights made them feel proud.[25]
In late 1990, a six-man “Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future” was established by the federal government with a mandate to engage in "a dialogue and discussion with and among Canadians ... to discuss the values and characteristics fundamental to the well-being of Canada." The Forum, which was headed by former Commissioner of Official Languages Keith Spicer, published a report in June 1991, which included a detailed discussion of Canadians’ reactions to a variety of issues, including federal official languages policy.
These comments, which probably represent the most extensive consultation ever with Canadians on the subject of official bilingualism, were compiled statistically by the Spicer Commission, and tend to reinforce the findings of pollsters, that Canadians are favourable towards bilingual services, but frustrated with the implementation of official languages policy. Thus, for example, nearly 80% of group discussions sponsored by the Commission produced favourable comments from participants on what the Commission’s report refers to as “bilingualism generally,” but nearly 80% of these discussions produced negative comments on “official languages policy.” [26]
These results prompted Spicer to write,
“ | Canada’s use of two official languages is widely seen as a fundamental and distinctive Canadian characteristic. Among many, especially the young, the ability to speak, read and write both French and English is accepted as a significant personal advantage. Even many parents who dislike ‘official bilingualism’ are eager to enrol their children in French immersion.
On the other hand, we find that the application of the official languages policy is a major irritant outside Quebec, and not much appreciated inside Quebec…. In spite of real and needed progress in linguistic fair play in federal institutions, a sometimes mechanical, overzealous, and unreasonably costly approach to the policy has led to decisions to that have helped bring it into disrepute. Citizens tell us that bilingual bonuses, costly translation of technical manuals of very limited use, public servants’ low use of hard-acquired French-language training, excessive designation of bilingual jobs, and a sometimes narrow, legalistic approach are sapping a principle which they would otherwise welcome as part of Canada’s basic identity. [27] |
” |
In the first decade or so following the enactment of Canada's first Official Languages Act in 1969, opposition to the new policy sometimes took a radical form that has subsequently disappeared. Groups such as the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, and books such as Jock V. Andrew's Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, advocated either the repeal of the Official Languages Act or an end to the policy of official bilingualism. Leonard Jones, the mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick, was an aggressive opponent of bilingualism in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Jones challenged the validity of the Official Languages Act in court, arguing that the subject matter was outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. In 1974, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Jones, and found the law to be constitutional. In 1991, a local resurgence in anti-bilingualism sentiments allowed the Confederation of Regions Party to win 21.2% of the vote in New Brunswick's provincial election and to briefly form the official opposition with eight seats in the provincial legislature.
The Conservative Party of Canada was created in 2003 by the merger of the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance. The new party adopted the principles of the old Progressive Conservatives as its founding principles, with only a handful of changes. One of these was the addition of the following founding principle, which is lifted almost verbatim from Section 16(1) of the Charter of Rights:
“A belief that English and French have equality of status, and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.”
At its founding convention in 2005, the new party added the following policy to its Policy Declaration (the official compilation of the policies that it had adopted at the convention):
Prior to this, in the 1980s and 1990s, the Reform Party of Canada had advocated the policy's repeal. However, the party's position moderated with time. By 1999, the Blue Book (the party's declaration of its then-current policies) stated that "The Reform Party supports official bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, and in critical federal services in parts of the country where need is sufficient to warrant services on a cost-effective basis."[29] By 2002, the policy declaration of the Reform Party's political successor, the Canadian Alliance, had been moderated further, and stated that it was "the federal government's responsibility to uphold minority rights" by providing services in both languages in any "rural township or city neighbourhood where at least ten percent of the local population uses either English or French in its daily life."[30]
The Liberal Party sees itself as the party of official bilingualism, as it was a Liberal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, who enacted the first Official Languages Act in 1969 and who entrenched detailed protections for the two official languages in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.
The depth of the party’s commitment to official bilingualism is demonstrated by the fact that the constitution of the Liberal Party contains provisions modeled almost word-for-word on Section 16(1) of the Charter of Rights: "English and French are the official languages of the Party and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions of the Party. In pursuing its fundamental purposes and in all its activities, the Party must preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges of English and French."[31]
New Democrat MPs voted in favour of the 1969 Official Languages Act, the 1988 Official Languages Act, and the protections for the two official languages contained in the Charter of Rights. More recently, the party has edged towards supporting an asymmetrical version of bilingualism. Early in 2008, the party’s languages critic, Yvon Godin, stated that its MPs would vote in favour of a bill, sponsored by the Bloc Québécois, which would cause federal institutions to operate on a French-preferred or French-only basis in Quebec. [32]
Although the main objective of the Bloc Québécois is to assist in the secession of Quebec, the party’s parliamentary caucus has maintained an active interest in issues relating to official languages policy (for example, sending MPs to participate in the standing Commons committee on official languages). The party seeks to alter federal language policy, as it applies within Quebec, so as to eliminate the statutory equality of English that is guaranteed under the Official Languages Act and other federal legislation. In early 2008, Bloc MPs introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-482, which would amend the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code, and the Canada Business Corporations Act, to cause them to conform to the Charter of the French Language, “effectively making the federal government French-only in the province,” according to Maclean’s. [33]
In Canada, education falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Historically, provincial governments have had a decidedly mixed record of offering minority-language education. However, since 1982, Section 23 of Canada's Charter of Rights has obliged all provinces to provide schools in both official languages, up to the high school/secondaire level.
Of Canada's ten provinces, only one (New Brunswick) has voluntarily chosen to become officially bilingual. New Brunswick's bilingual status is constitutionally entrenched under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 16 - 20 of the Charter include parallel sections guaranteeing the same rights at the federal level and at the provincial level (New Brunswick only).
French has been the only official language in Quebec since 1974, when the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa enacted the The Official Language Act (better-known as "Bill 22"). However, the province's language law does provide for limited services in English. As well, the province is obliged, under Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to allow the provincial legislature to operate in both French and English, and to allow all Quebec courts to operate in both languages. Section 23 of the Charter applies to Quebec, but to a more limited degree than in other provinces; Quebec is required to provide an education in English to all children whose parents were educated in English in Canada, while all other provinces are required to provide an education in French to all children whose parents were educated in French anywhere in the world.
In 1977, the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque introduced the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 101") to promote and preserve the French language in the province, indirectly disputing the federal bilingualism policy. Initially, Bill 101 banned the use of all languages but French on commercial signs in the province, but those limitations were later loosened by allowing other languages on signs, as long as the French version is the most dominant. Bill 101 also requires that children of immigrants residing in Quebec attend French-language public schools; The children of Canadian citizens who have received their education in Canada in English may attend English-language public schools, which are operated by English-language school boards throughout the province. The controversy over this part of Quebec's language legislation has lessened in recent years as these laws became more entrenched and the public use of French increased. [34]
Quebec's language laws have been the subject of a number of legal rulings. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) that the commercial sign law provisions of Bill 101, which banned the use of the English language on outdoor signs, were unconstitutional. In 1989, the Quebec National Assembly invoked the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the Charter of Rights to set aside enforcement of the court ruling for five years. A UN appeal of the 'McIntyre Case' resulted in a condemnation of Quebec's sign law — regardless of the legality of the notwithstanding clause under Canadian law. In response, in 1993 Quebec enacted amendments to the sign law, availing itself of the suggestions proposed in the losing 1988 Supreme Court ruling by allowing other languages on commercial signs, subject to French being markedly predominant .
On March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the interpretation of major part requirement in Quebec's language of instruction provisions, limiting access to English-language public education, violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court did not strike down the law but, as it had done in its 1988 ruling on sign laws, presented the province with a set of criteria for bringing the law into conformity with the Charter of Rights.
Although no Canadian province has officially adopted English as its sole official language, English is the de facto language of government services and internal government operations in Canada's eight remaining provinces. Service levels in French vary greatly from one province to another (and sometimes within different parts of the same province).
For example, under the terms of Ontario's 1986 French Language Services Act, Francophones in 25 designated areas across the province--but not in other parts of the province--are guaranteed access to provincial government services in French. Similarly, since 2005, the City of Ottawa has been officially required under Ontario law (City of Ottawa Act) to set a municipal policy on English and French.
French and English are official languages in the Yukon.
In addition to English and French, Inuktitut is also an official language in Nunavut.
In addition to English and French, the Northwest Territories accords official status to nine aboriginal languages (Chipewyan, Cree, Gwich’in, Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuvialuktun, North Slavey, South Slavey and Tłįchǫ or Dogrib). NWT residents have the right to use any of the territory's eleven official languages in a territorial court and in debates and proceedings of the legislature. However, laws are legally binding only in their French and English versions, and the government only publishes laws and other documents in the territory's other official languages when asked by the legislature. Furthermore, access to services in any language is limited to institutions and circumstances where there is significant demand for that language or where it is reasonable to expect it given the nature of the services requested. In practice, this means that only English language services are universally available and there is no guarantee that other languages will be used by any particular government service except for the courts. Following a 2006 court ruling,[35] universal French-language services are also mandatory.
Canada’s thirteen provincial and territorial education systems place a high priority on boosting the number of bilingual high school graduates. For example, in 2008 New Brunswick's provincial government reconfirmed its goal of boosting the percentage of bilingualism among graduates from its current rate of 34% to 70% rate by 2012. [36] In 2003, the federal government announced a ten-year plan of subsidies to provincial education ministries with the goal of boosting bilingualism among all Canadian graduates from its then-current level of 24% to 50% by 2013. [37]
Two methods of providing French second language education (known as “FSL”) exist side-by-side in each of the provinces (including Quebec, where extensive French-language education opportunities are available for the province’s large population of non-Francophone children).
Some schools in Ontario offer a third method of FSL education: the Extended French program. Students enter into this program as early as Grade 4—the starting grade is set by each region's school board—and may continue the program through to graduation.[40] The program can also be entered when beginning secondary school; however, as there is a prerequisite number of previous instruction hours, usually only students previously enrolled in the Extended French or French Immersion programs can enter. In this program, at least 25% of all instruction must be in French. From Grades 4 through 8, this means that at least one course per year other than "French as a Second Language" must be taught solely in French. From Grades 9 through 12, along with taking the Extended French language course every year, students must complete their mandatory Grade 9 Geography and Grade 10 Canadian History credits in French. Students who complete these required courses and take one extra credit taught in French receive a certificate upon graduation in addition to their diploma.
Quebec’s educations system provides ESL on a more restricted basis to the children of immigrants and to students who are members of the province's Francophone majority.
Although Quebec is the only province that has a francophone majority, all provinces and territories have some French speakers. Each of these groups has its own cultural institutions, history and identity. See:
In addition, Quebec has an English-speaking community.
Although only English and French have official status across Canada, all provinces also have communities of people whose first language is something other than English or French. In the particular context of Quebec, these are referred to as allophones. These communities frequently use their own languages locally and amongst themselves, although they normally adopt the majority language of their province as a second or third language.
|