[lg policy] Canada: Federal language law often misunderstood: commissioner
hfsclpp at GMAIL.COM
Sat Sep 14 21:03:04 UTC 2013
Federal language law often misunderstood: commissioner
By Amy Minsky <http://globalnews.ca/author/amy-minsky/> Global News
Ensuring every Canadian speaks English and French was never the goal,
Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser says. It's actually almost
the opposite. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
*This summer, we spoke with Canada’s officers of Parliament. We profile
each in an eight-part series. Read them all
Describing “the Canadian identity” is never an easy feat. For one man,
there’s no question linguistic duality is at its heart.
But believing that bilingualism is at the core of Canadian identity doesn’t
mean, as some may think, every Canadian should be able to speak both
English and French, says Graham Fraser, Canada’s commissioner of official
languages and one of the eight officers of Parliament.
“That has never been the purpose of the policy,” he said recently. “This is
something that is fundamentally misunderstood.”
Rather, enshrining French and English as Canada’s official languages was
meant to achieve almost the opposite, Fraser says.
He described the misunderstanding as the “paradox of official bilingualism.”
“The purpose of the policy is to ensure that the state becomes bilingual
and can serve Canadians in their official language of choice so that
citizens don’t have to be bilingual,” Fraser explained.
The success of the Official Languages Act therefore, should not hinge on
whether Canadians are able to speak and write in both languages, he says.
It would have to be considered an abject failure if so, as a large majority
of Canadians remain unilingual.
However, those individuals are able to receive services from the federal
government in either language. This is where Fraser measures the success of
the legislation, and where he says it becomes entwined with Canadian
Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser in Ottawa, ready to release his 2009
annual report. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand
Versions of history
Whether Canadians agree with Fraser’s picture of the Canadian identity is
another question, and even he admits he is uncertain.
- The Hounds of Parliament: an interview series with Canada’s 8
- Parti Quebecois minister says bilingualism shouldn’t be a job
requirement in Quebec
For those who don’t, it may be that they don’t fully comprehend this
country’s history, he offers.
“I think one of the things that’s happened over the last few years is that
Canadian history is not taught as much or as systematically as it used to
be in previous generations,” he says. “And we’re a country that welcomes
250,000 newcomers every year who, by definition, haven’t studied Canadian
history, haven’t gone to school in Canada.”
One storyline, oft recited by Quebec nationalists, Fraser says, offers a
negative narrative of language relations through Canada’s history. That
storyline frequently hits on the conquest of Lord Durham, the hanging of
Louis Riel and the conscription crises, among other low points.
But there is an often-neglected, positive narrative that dates back just as
far, Fraser says before recounting a history so familiar to him he may as
well be reciting the names of his family members.
The negative storyline, Fraser noted, ignores the fact that a decade after
Lord Durham moved for the assimilation of French, Lord Elgin, Canada’s
governor general in the late 1840s, helped reintroduce French to the
national legislature, even giving part of a throne speech in French.
Nor does it mention, as Fraser’s narrative continues, Sir John A.
Macdonald’s careful balancing of French and English interests, after
realizing that establishing positive relations between the two groups was
the only way the government and country could survive.
And lost in the story of the conscription crisis of the First World War is
the fact the government, with the help of a French Canadian entrepreneur,
established the Royal 22e Régiment, a solely French Canadian regiment.
“There has been this constant desire within the country to have positive
relations between the English and French,” Fraser says after speeding
through the history lesson. “Many Canadians don’t necessarily understand.”
Of course, Fraser is intimately familiar with it.
[image: Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser responds to
questions in Ottawa following the release of his 2009 annual report. THE
CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand]
Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser responds to questions in
Ottawa following the release of his 2009 annual report. THE CANADIAN
*A gloriously asymmetrical system*
As commissioner, Fraser is responsible for overseeing federal language
laws. Each province, however, decides independently the language in which
services will be offered. This discrepancy has created, in Fraser’s words,
an “odd, asymmetrical, but nevertheless quite powerful and quite effective
The hodge-podge, Fraser says, is the result of another of the Royal
Commission’s recommendations: in order for French-speaking culture to
survive, the government needed to ensure it remained prominent in Quebec,
rather than try to extend bilingualism across the rest of the country.
“So now we have a gloriously asymmetrical language system in Canada, in
which we have one officially bilingual province, which is New Brunswick and
one officially unilingual French-speaking province, Quebec,” Fraser says.
Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have French-language service
laws, while Manitoba has a language policy that is not yet legislated.
In Saskatchewan and Alberta, meanwhile, guarantees of French services on
the provincial level were essentially wiped out in the early 20th century;
Alberta now has a languages act that specifies English as the official
And in British Columbia, a provincial court ruled it would not accept
documentation in French—a decision that was upheld in the Supreme Court.
“So we go from one end of the spectrum to the other,” Fraser says. “But I
think what that means is that it is very important that the federal
government take every measure it can to ensure that both languages be
present on the national scene.”
The federal government has come under fire for breaching the spirit of the
law after appointing a unilingual anglophone as auditor general in late
“As agents of Parliament, we are accountable to parliamentarians, and I
think any parliamentarian should feel they can have a private meeting with
me or any of my colleagues and speak in their language of choice,” Fraser
says, reflecting on the controversy. “They should not have to learn a
second language to be able to speak to one of us.”
The immediate outcry from Canadians, evidenced in newspapers across the
country, demonstrated just how strong the spirit of the law actually is,
Fraser says. As a consequence of that appointment, the official Opposition
tabled a bill requiring officers of Parliament nominees be able to speak
and understand English and French at the time of their appointment. The
bill received support from all parties.
Fraser’s term was recently extended three years, until 2016. With the extra
time, he said, he hopes to move in three key areas: laying the groundwork
for the 2017 celebrations commemorating 150 years since Confederation,
examining the ongoing challenge immigration presents for language issues,
and developing a means for Canada to share what it has learned with other
countries where language is an element of social conflict.
“You have to remember that when the royal commission was launched, there
were terrorist bombs going off in Montreal,” he says. “It was developed as
a policy that would ease deep-rooted social discontent and serious
While those tensions have waxed and waned throughout the decades, Fraser
says he believes Canadians are finally beginning to understand that
linguistic duality is part of being Canadian.
“I think increasingly there’s a sense that this other language belongs to
us as a Canadian, even if we don’t speak that other language,” he says.
“It’s part of what it means to be Canadian.”
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
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
More information about the Lgpolicy-list