[lg policy] Editorial, The Gazette, Oct. 22, 1968: New language law is a challenge to Canadian society to broaden its outlook

[Harold Schiffman]

Important first step

New language law is a challenge to Canadian society to broaden its outlook

The Gazette October 22, 2011



Editorial, The Gazette, Oct. 22, 1968

The Official Languages Bill which had passed first reading in the
House of Commons, is the first piece of legislation to come out of
work done by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
Quite obviously, it is only a first step towards guaranteeing the
rights of the two official languages in Canada, but it is an important
one.

What the proposed bill contains is not surprising, and the fact that
it sailed through first reading without a dissenting voice is a credit
to the groundwork done by the Commission, the government of former
Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and the leaders of the provinces.
Without Royal Commission, and the support it got - especially in its
initial stages - from the Pearson government, and from the provincial
premiers, legislation committing this country so deeply to the
principle of the legal equality of the two languages, simply would not
have been possible.

All this can be seen by asking the simple question: could legislation
of this type have been contemplated five years ago?

The point is, of course, that there is a movement well underway in
English-speaking Canada towards wider recognition of the French fact.
The model in this movement is Quebec which had been practicing an open
language policy for more than 100 years in government services and
education. The new law, then, is not the first sign of movement, it
rather symbolizes the movement from Quebec outwards.

What are the aims of the Official Languages Bill? First of all, it
will formalize a policy which the Pearson government announced several
years ago. The law confirms the long-term goal of making the federal
Government and its institution bilingual both at home and abroad, in
most day-to-day administration, and in its relations with the public.

Secondly, it sets a framework for the provinces, working with the
federal government, to put into practice the bilingual districts
concept. This is the idea that where there is a language minority of
10 per cent or more, government services should be offered in both
languages. It is in this area, as Opposition leader Robert Stanfield
points out, that the real test will come.

Are the predominantly English-speaking provinces affected (Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba) ready to work jointly
with the federal Government to put bilingual districts into practice?
Yet if it is not a joint effort, the policy could become a mockery.
Without joint co-operation, the situation could easily arise of a
French-speaking Canadian being able to make inquiries and get answers
in his own language in a federal department office, but having to
inquire in English at a provincial office of a similar department down
the hall.

On the other side, is Quebec willing to work jointly with the federal
Government towards a common linguistic policy? The events of the last
few months have raised doubts about he future course of the
100-year-old policy of successive Quebec governments towards its
linguistic minority. Added to this, the two main political parties are
in the process of working out a linguistic policy at the moment which,
in some areas, could collide with the aims of the federal Government.

But Prime Minister Trudeau in his speech introducing the legislation,
was fully aware of the difficulties that had to be overcome - on the
one side, from those arguing in Quebec that the sole way the French
language can survive is to make it the only language of the province;
and from those in English Canada who call for uniformity because it is
cheaper and simpler.

And his answer was that while these appeals should not be
underestimated, they were based "on fear, a narrow view of human
nature, and a defeatist appraisal of our capacity to adapt our
society."

In the end, as the Prime Minister put it, this legislation is nothing
less than a challenge to the ability of the Canadian society to adapt,
to evolve and to broaden its outlook. The reward of meeting and
conquering the challenge is having is having a unique, exciting and
diverse country. The price of failing to take it up could be a plunge
backward into division and resentment both in Quebec and in he rest of
Canada.

There is really no choice at all.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Important+first+step/5590605/story.html#ixzz1bcZivx78


-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list