"An action plan for official languages designed for the beginning of the 21^st century"

I am in a good position to know how much Canada’s official languages policy, which is certainly one of the greatest success stories ever, is the result of an exceptional research effort. My father, the political scientist Léon Dion, was the special research advisor to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. He devoted several years of his life to that task. So I am grateful to the Association for Canadian Studies for inviting me to this symposium on the occasion of the 40^th anniversary of the establishment of that Royal Commission of inquiry, which so marked our country.

Without dwelling further on the metaphor of the filial link, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the continuity running through the Government of Canada’s official languages policy, from the recommendations of the Commission up to the Action Plan for Official Languages.¹

The Commission was supported by the most extensive humanities research program ever known in Canada. André Laurendeau mentioned in his memoirs that Lester B. Pearson had even expressed some concern: he was afraid the research would never finish.² But in fact, thanks to the Commission, legislators were able to take action on solid foundations.

Although some of the Commission’s suggestions were not retained, some of its recommendations form, even today, the basis of the Government of Canada’s official languages policy. In keeping with its mandate, the Commission identified ways to help Canadians learn English and French, but it also recognized that a bilingual country is one whose main institutions must provide their services in both languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may be unilingual. On the basis of that general principle, the Commission formulated a number of insightful recommendations:

that English and French be formally declared the official languages of the Parliament of Canada, of the federal courts, of the federal government, and of the federal administration;

that the federal Parliament adopt a federal Official Languages Act and that the Governor in Council appoint a Commissioner of Official Languages;

that the right of Canadian parents to have their children educated in the official language of their choice be recognized (depending on demographic concentration);

that the Constitution be amended so as to incorporate the fundamental principles supporting the proposed policy.

It took several years to implement those recommendations. The Official Languages Act of 1969 constituted the first major step, for which we are indebted to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Since that legislation was purely declaratory, however, it did not provide for any legal remedy.

The second step in implementing the Commission’s recommendations was of course the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. In addition to establishing in law the equality of status of Canada’s two languages, it conferred minority English- and French-language education rights. The advent of the Charter necessitated a legislative amendment, which came in 1988 in the form of the Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. That legislation was the third major step in implementing the work of the Commission. It updated enforcement measures for equality of status in terms of the use of official languages within federal institutions, and contained measures for fostering both languages within Canadian society and minority-language communities.

When the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, asked me in April 2001, to prepare an action plan to give new momentum to Canadian linguistic duality, I agreed with my colleagues that it was important to follow the same kind of process as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. By that I mean we needed to take the time to properly diagnose the situation before launching what we hoped would become the next step in the official languages policy. That is what we did, in close consultation with official-language communities.

We have made a dual finding: first, our linguistic duality has made impressive progress since the time of the Commission; but second, that duality faces challenges that were not as extensive 40 years ago.

The progress made can be seen first in terms of mentalities: the Anglophone majority is much more open today to linguistic duality than it was then. Indeed, opinion polls show that support for the official languages policy is especially high among youth. Those same polls also highlight a strong desire by parents for their children to learn the other official language. The results, however, do not live up to those expectations. Mastery of English among Quebec Francophone youth (15-24) rose from 31% in 1971 to 42% in 2001. Mastery of French among Anglophone youth outside Quebec also increased from 7% in 1971 to 14% in 2001. We are making progress, but slowly - too slowly.

The evolution of our law has been just as spectacular as the evolution of mentalities. Our case law now affords much better protection to the equality of status of English and French in Canada. In recent decades, court decisions have taken into account the vulnerability of French or official-language minorities for reasons of equity specific to our Constitution and our vision of Canada.

Great progress has also been made in terms of institutions. The public service is no longer the almost unilingual institution it was 40 years ago. Today, Francophones are well represented in the federal government at all hierarchical levels, and the number of designated bilingual positions has increased steadily, rising from 21% in 1974 to 37% in 2001.

Even more noteworthy has been the transformation in educational institutions in minority Francophone communities. There were no French schools in half the provinces in 1982. In 1990, French-speaking minorities were running only some French schools in Ontario and all French schools in New Brunswick. What a contrast with today, when minority school management structures are in place in all provinces and territories. Enrolment in Francophone schools in minority communities has risen from 56% of students eligible under the Charter in 1986, to 68% in 2001.

However, despite that substantial progress, the situation of French remains fragile. I would like to stress one challenge in particular. A key factor for the future of minority Francophone communities, no doubt the most important, is the transmission of the French language to children. The transmission rate of French is 62%, according to the 2001 Census. Why is it not closer to 100%, given the cultural, institutional and legal progress that has been made? We have found that the main element of response lies in the fact that, increasingly, one of the two parents is not Francophone: this is known as exogamy.

When both parents are Francophones, transmission of French is around 95%. But when one of the two parents is not Francophone, that rate drops to 42%. And exogamy is becoming more widespread. Indeed, nearly two thirds of children now live in families where only one of the parents is mother-tongue French. That phenomenon was much less pronounced at the time of the Commission, and today’s official languages policy needs to reflect that.

A very important factor to consider in this respect is that when the Anglophone parent does not speak French, the likelihood of the children’s learning French is only 32%, whereas it rises to 70% when that parent speaks French.

This same phenomenon can be seen among English mother-tongue Quebecers, although the consequences are less significant given the strong attraction to their language. The rate of transmission of the languages is 86%, but drops to 54% when one of the parents is Francophone. So the transmission of English to children is not automatic among exogamous couples. And couples that make up the Anglophone community are now exogamous almost six times out of ten.

So there is a positive link between learning of the other official language by the majority and the vitality of minority official-language communities: the more minority parents have a spouse who speaks their language, or at least has a certain mastery of it, the more likely it is they will transmit their language to their children.

Building on that finding, the Government of Canada has designed its action plan for official languages. The first priority is education, of course, because it is through education that we can help parents pass on their language. The Government of Canada is reinvesting in minority-language education and second-language instruction, including immersion schools. It is devoting the necessary funds to that end. It is adding to the existing $929 million over five years an additional amount of $381.5 million. But it is more than a matter of just increased funding. More stringent objectives are required to meet the challenges I have just described.

Together with its partners, and fully respecting their constitutional jurisdiction, Canadian Heritage wants to fund measures accompanied by clear objectives, in terms of both access to education in the language and the quality of that education, from daycare through  to post-secondary studies. A major objective is to substantially increase the proportion of eligible students enrolled in Francophone schools. It now stands at 68%; we want to increase it to 80% in ten years. Another ambitious but realistic objective: to double, within ten years, the percentage of Canadian youth 15 to 19 with a knowledge of the other official language. That percentage now stands at 24%. The objective is that in ten years’ time, one out of two Canadian youth will master our two official languages. To achieve that goal, we need to improve core English and French, revitalize immersion, increase the number of qualified teachers, and give graduates the opportunity to put their skills to good use.

But we need to go beyond the classroom if we want to ensure the vitality of our official-language communities. The great novelty of the Plan from that perspective is to target  specific priority areas and allocate substantially increased funding to them. Those areas are early childhood, health, justice, immigration, and economic development. In all these areas, the Plan expands communities’ access to quality public services in their own language and appropriate government programs that will help them better develop, which hinges on communities themselves. The Government of Canada is giving itself the means to be a more effective, present and attentive partner.

But for that to happen, the Government of Canada must lead by example in terms of official languages practice. Much remains to be done before the federal public service is in line with the Canada envisioned at the time of the Commission. The fact is that offices that are supposed to provide services in both languages cannot always do so, not all bilingual positions are staffed by bilingual incumbents, and shortfalls in language evaluation and training are accumulating. Therefore, the Action Plan is designed to make official languages a government priority again and change the organizational culture of the public service accordingly.

To that end, in the next five years the Government will invest a total of $64.6 million in new funding to create an exemplary public service. For Treasury Board, that new funding represents a 208% increase to its official languages budget. The measures provided will be determining factors, including the new Regional Partnerships Fund, the new Innovation Fund and a much better equipped Official Languages Branch. All federal institutions will be better able to not only fulfill their obligations under the Act, but also to be truly grounded in the official languages culture.

Moreover, to ensure that official languages remain a day-to-day priority in the design and implementation of public policy and government programs, the Action Plan provides the Government with an accountability and coordination framework. The framework accomplishes two things. First, it sets out for the first time the existing responsibilities of federal institutions. Second, it adds new responsibilities. Henceforth, all federal institutions are required to analyse the impact of proposals contained in memoranda to Cabinet on the language rights of Canadians and federal public servants. The general execution of their mandate must provide for the consultation of official-language communities. A minister responsible for official languages ensures the horizontal coordination required to implement and evaluate the Action Plan.

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, bolstered by an imposing research program, set good objectives: helping Canadians learn to speak the two official languages and giving them the institutions to serve them in both languages. Spectacular progress has been achieved in the meantime. For instance, minority Francophone communities could only dream 40 years ago about the institutions or rights they enjoy today. Similarly, linguistic duality was a value much less integrated into our political culture.

Canada must continue to pursue the objectives set by the Commission. But it must do so taking account of today’s context. At the time of the Commission, the fertility rate was much higher and more youth remained in their communities than now. By the same token, youth of different languages did not start families in comparable proportions to the situation today. Therefore, we need to rethink our policies to help youth strengthen their ties with their language and their community, in a context where they are much more mobile than before. We also need to help the many exogamous couples pass on their dual linguistic heritage to their children.

We need to help Canadian youth learn their two official languages not only to strengthen the cohesion of our country. It is also because our linguistic duality is an asset for our future, at the beginning of the 21^st century, in an increasingly global world, where communications are ever more important and the economy is increasingly knowledge- and innovation-based. Canada has the great fortune to have two official languages of international stature. Our two official languages are two wonderful wide-open windows that give us access to the world. They familiarize us with linguistic pluralism and with learning other languages spoken at home and abroad.

At a time when other developed countries are investing heavily in the language skills of their populations, Canada has a duty to build on the legacy of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. We need to realize the full potential of our linguistic duality. That is what Canadians are asking. And that is what the Government of Canada’s Action Plan will help them. do.

1. Privy Council of Canada, The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada’s Linguistic Duality – The Action Plan for Official Languages (Ottawa: Canada, 2003).
2. "The Prime Minister talked about the criticism levelled against him in connection with the Commission and its research program. ‘If I sometimes get impatient with you,’ he said, ‘(research that doesn’t finish and proliferates indefinitely), it is understandable that others are at the point of exasperation." [Translation] André Laurendeau, Journal tenu pendant la Commission royale d'enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme (Montreal: VLB Éditeur/Le Septentrion, Montreal, 1990), p. 358.