Université d'Ottawa | University of Ottawa



CHAPTER SIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FUTURE OF CANADA'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGE MINORITIES

TREND LINES 1

MINORITY LANGUAGE EDUCATION 4

IMMIGRATION 8

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 9

SECOND LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAMS 13

FERTILITY RATES 14

INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION 15

FRENCH AS A LANGUAGE OF WORK 16

LANGUAGE PLANNING 17

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 22

CULTURE 24

GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24

ECONOMIC STRUCTURES 25

THE WORK OF THE COURTS 26

CONCLUSION 31

ENDNOTES 34

CHAPTER SIX

THE FUTURE OF CANADA'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGE MINORITIES

TREND LINES

Canada's French speaking communities outside of Quebec are shrinking. The trend line is more than one hundred years old. The process of decline is speeding up. Outside of Quebec French speakers are decreasing as a percentage of total population, and also decreasing in real numbers.

Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have passed the point of no return. In each of these provinces less than 1% of the population report French as their home language.[i] In 1991 the tiny francophone community in Newfoundland represented a mere 0.2% of the provincial population. In British Columbia, only 0.4% of the population reported French as their home language. Franc-Saskois comprised 0.7% of Saskatchewan's population. Franco-Albertans represented 0.8% of the Alberta's population. Practically speaking, the francophone populations in these provinces are gone.

Saskatchewan and Alberta provide portentous examples of how rapidly the French speaking communities outside of Quebec are disappearing. Whereas ten thousand Saskatchewan residents used French in the home in 1981, only seven thousand did so in 1991 - a disappearance of 30% of the Franco-Saskois community in ten short years. Franco Albertans declined 31% in the same ten year period. If current trends continue, the rapidly shrinking French communities in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Manitoba will also become extinct in short order.[ii]

Anglophones in Quebec have had relatively stable numbers until recently, making up approximately 13% of the total provincial population from 1951 to 1971. An important trend is the decline of anglo-celts as the mainstay of the English speaking community. Eighteen percent of English speaking Quebecois came from anglo-celtic backgrounds in 1901; only 11% were of this stock in 1981. At the same time, the ethnic component assimilating into anglophone ranks climbed steadily, and in about equal proportions to the decline of anglo-celts. Incorporation of ethnics replenished the ranks of the English speaking community and kept its numbers stable.[iii]

Bill 101[iv] targeted this process of immigrant anglicization. Bill 101 sent clear and sharp direction to Quebec immigrants to assimilate into the francophone community by prohibiting their children from attending English school and by francizing the language of work. The result is that Quebec anglophones are in the process of rapid and ineluctable decline.

Many more anglophones leave Quebec than come in.[v] The English speaking population of Quebec shrank thirty per cent between 1971 and 1991, from 13.1% to 9.2% of total Quebec population. The community is already close to, and may soon plunge below, the point at which it will no longer have the numbers to maintain its institutional infrastructure, even if provincial funding continues at present levels. The near future may bring profound changes to the linguistic character of traditionally anglophone hospitals, universities, schools, libraries and media. If that should happen, anglophones in Quebec will become like their francophone counterparts in English Canada - "a family whose home has been destroyed by fire...without shelter...with eyes fixed on odd belongings scattered here and there" - a people with an empty soul.[vi]

Demo-linguistic forces are relentlessly separating Canada into two linguistic enclaves. Quebec is increasingly French speaking with the English community in Quebec in a long term process of decline. The other provinces (excepting New Brunswick) are increasingly English speaking with the French community outside of Quebec in a long term process of decline, on the road to extinction.[vii]

The decline of English in Quebec is attributable to migration, not assimilation. Many more anglophones leave Quebec for other regions than enter the province from other regions. Between 1976 -1981, 106,000 more anglophones left Quebec for other parts of Canada then came to Quebec from other provinces. Between 1981 and 1986, 41,000 more anglophones left Quebec for other parts of Canada then came to Quebec from other provinces.[viii]

The rate of assimilation may be measured by examining language transfers using the language continuity index.[ix] The French language within Quebec has a continuity index of 1.00 which indicates that French is merely holding its own; it does not attract anglophones. The continuity index of the English language is greater that 1.00 (1.19) even though it is in a minority position[x]. This indicates that the English language attracts francophones, even within Quebec. New immigrants to Quebec tend to adopt English as their home language, notwithstanding Quebec government efforts. In Quebec in 1991, 63% of language shifts by those having a mother tongue other than English or French were toward English and only 37% toward French[xi].

The decline of French outside of Quebec results largely from assimilation, not migration. The impact of language transfers in provinces outside of Quebec has been greatest in the three western provinces. The Francophone population in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia has declined by over fifty percent as a result of language transfers. Such transfers have also resulted in substantial declines in the Francophone populations in Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario[xii].

The future of Canada's official language minorities may be discerned better by examining those factors which, theoretically, impact upon future trends.

MINORITY LANGUAGE EDUCATION[xiii]

As discussed in Chapter 4, education is central to the socialization of individuals. Education shapes the individual's values, morality, reasoning processes and perceptions of the world. Like language, education colours the person's mode of being in the world. For that reason, minority language education under the control of the minority language community is critical in reproducing the language and culture of minority language communities by forming the mindset of its children. Cultural continuity is an important key to community survival.

"Minority language education is designed to offer the minority group (Anglophones in Quebec, Francophones outside Quebec) education in their mother tongue".[xiv] Minority language education programs intend to counteract the demise of Canada's minority language communities. In order to succeed the programs would have to contribute at least to the ability of minority language communities to maintain their size either in real numbers or as a percentage of total population.

In Quebec minority language (English) education is in a process of long term decline because Anglophones have been leaving Quebec for other provinces. Enrolment in English schools in Quebec has decreased steadily, going from 249,000 in 1970-71 to 100,000 in 1991-92 (a decrease of 60%)[xv]. The process of declining enrolment is accompanied by shrinking access to English language education and diminished quality of education.[xvi] In 1986 just under 87,000 Anglophone children were enrolled in English language schools in the Quebec. In addition, 8,000 Francophone and 26,000 Allophone students attended English schools.[xvii]

The situation of minority language education for French language communities outside of Quebec is also affected by declining enrollments.[xviii] Between 1970-71 to 1991-92 enrolment in minority language education programs outside of Quebec dropped from 196,000 to 159,500 (a decrease of 19%)[xix]. Among the provinces with Anglophone majorities, only Ontario educates more students in minority language programs than belong to the minority language group. Alone among the provinces, Ontario's minority language education appears to be reviving a small portion of the assimilated Francophone population.[xx]

The legal entitlement to minority language schools will likely mean that even small schools will remain open and offer minority language education to those who demand it. Section 23 of the Charter will have a palliative effect in provinces where the Francophone minorities see their very survival in doubt. It will give these communities the sense of greater control over their development. But it will not protect these communities from the demographic forces producing their assimilation into the English linguistic community. The availability of minority language instruction does not blunt the impact of other demographic forces such as immigration policy, fertility rates inter-provincial migration and economic opportunity. In most cases, French communities are not being revitalized by minority language education.

In certain cases, however, minority language education does play a role in minority language survival. In Northern Ontario and New Brunswick, the impact of existing demographic forces is such that the minority language communities are able to maintain their numbers. Minority language education increases survivability of these communities because it encourages transmission of the minority language to the next generation. Minority language education is also important in cultural identification and in community bonding. This is likely to impact on the rate at which persons marry outside of the community, which is an important factor in assimilation.

Minority language programs showed small enrolment increases between 1986 to 1991. Data for 1991-92 and 1992-93 show that all provinces except Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan continue to increase enrolment. Francophone enrolment is estimated to have increased by 1,705 students between these two years. These small increases in enrolment are not likely to be terribly significant to survivability outside of the bilingual belt, so long as the Francophone communities continue be assaulted by other, stronger assimilative forces.

Newfoundland may be illustrative of what is to come. The Francophone community in Newfoundland accounts for only 0.5 per cent of the provincial population.[xxi] Minority language students account for a mere 0.2 per cent of the total school enrolment, or 261 students.[xxii] The community is too small to have its own minority language schools or other French institutions. It has virtually no economic opportunity in the French language. It is unable to replenish its numbers through immigration.

Consequently, although section 23 is designed to alter the political status quo, it is an insufficient engine to change Canada's linguistic demography or to seriously affect demographic trends. Section 23 is a palliative measure in the sense that it makes minorities feel better by exercising greater political power, but it leaves intact the forces which are killing them. Notwithstanding proclamation of s. 23, the official language minorities will continue to be assimilated into the dominant language and culture.

This is not to say that proclamation of section 23 should be considered futile. The provision of minority language educational rights operates on a principle deducible from the Canadian experience: generous treatment of linguistic minorities alleviates tensions between the linguistic communities. In turn, linguistic harmony promotes national stability and makes the Canadian federation a more viable enterprise.

IMMIGRATION

Most immigrants to Canada adopt the English language. In 1986, French was the home language of only 5% of foreign born Canadians, compared with 27% among native born Canadians.[xxiii] Within Quebec, only 29% of foreign-born persons reported French as their home language, compared with 88% among those born in Canada.[xxiv]

The proportion of immigrants to Quebec which adopt the French language varies from group to group. More than 50% of certain immigrant groups to Quebec adopt French. This trend is found among those immigrant populations whose substantial growth, fed by recent immigration, began in the last 15 or 20 years[xxv]. Specifically, French language shifts were over 50% among those groups whose mother tongue was one of the Creole languages (97%), Vietnamese (88%), Spanish (72%), Arabic (70%) and Portuguese (57%).

In general, the English language within Quebec exerts an attractive force despite the government's efforts with Bill 101, although the attractive power of English varies among immigrant communities. Immigration policy may thus be an effective tool to manipulate the linguistic composition of Quebec. Greater control over immigration policy is one of Quebec's historic constitutional demands. Quebec achieved greater control over immigration in the Cullen-Couture federal provincial agreement of 1977, and would have achieved yet greater control over immigration had the Meech Lake or Charlottetown Constitutional Accords been proclaimed in force. The power Quebec exercises under the Cullen-Couture agreement is not used to stem the decline of the anglophone linguistic minority. It is reasonable to expect that if Quebec's historic demand for greater constitutional devolution over immigration policy ever takes place, it is unlikely to reverse long standing demo-linguistic trends towards eclipse of the English language community within Quebec.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT

In 1969 the Official Languages Act[xxvi] sought to make the Federal Government open and accessible to francophones by instituting a comprehensive program of language equality. This program included provision for bilingual services to the public, the use of English and French as languages of work in the public service and the equitable participation of anglophones and francophones in public service employment. At the same time, Ottawa provided new support to official language minorities in the provinces - support for their political lobbies, cultural activities, educational structures - even support for court actions brought by them to enforce constitutionally guaranteed language rights. The purpose of Ottawa's efforts was "to resist the blandishments of a Canada split along language lines ... to construct a society in which the minorities can expect to live much of their lives in their own language"[xxvii].

In 1992, 72% of federal employees were Anglophones and 27% were Francophones.[xxviii] When the occupational categories are divided among "officer" (ie. management) and "support" the numbers vary slightly. Francophones account for 26.5% of officers and 30.1% of support.[xxix] The trends change little when language requirements for public service positions are examined. In 1992 30% of positions were classified as bilingual, virtually identical to the 1988 level.[xxx] The majority of positions are English essential (59%); very few are French essential (5%).

The linguistic composition of the public service of Canada is now roughly reflective of the linguistic composition of the general Canadian population. This represents a dramatic recasting of the linguistic configuration of the public service of Canada since institution of the official languages policy in 1969. This must be accounted as a significant achievement.

It is of interest to note parenthetically that the province of Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) has the largest under-representation of the official language minority within the federal public sector (13.2% of the population is Anglophone but only 5.4% of public sector employees in Quebec are Anglophone)[xxxi]. This is a long-standing phenomenon.

The cost of official language programs in federal agencies for 1992-93 was 655 million dollars[xxxii]. The majority of these expenditures were devoted to education: funds transferred to support minority language instruction and second-language courses. The cost of translation, language training, bilingual bonus and administration totalled just under 325 million dollars.

One might ask: is the official languages policy capable of maintaining or rebuilding Canada's official language communities? The answer is no. Canada's official languages policy does not intend to, nor will it, counteract those demo-linguistic trends which are producing a Canada territorially split along linguistic lines. The official languages policy does not address the principle socio-economic factors which drive the polarization of Canada's two language groups: fertility rates, interprovincial migration, immigration, and language shift. While the official languages policy tries to impact on the language of work, it only operates in the Federal public sector. Few efforts in the provincial public sector have been made. The official languages policy does not touch the vastly larger private economy.

The official languages policy also attempts to address the language of schooling. Nevertheless, only 7% of students outside of Quebec participate in French immersion programs. Arguably, these programs (combined with "core French" programs) may be making Canadians more bilingual, if not changing the make-up of the official languages communities. However, in 1991, only 10% of the Canadian population (excluding Quebec) report knowledge of both official languages.

Canada's official languages policy does not significantly alter the trend towards territorial separation of Canada's French and English communities. It does provide some economic opportunity in French, but this would appear to have reached a limit. The communities are now equitably represented in the public service. Government's long term intention is to shrink the public service of Canada. In other respects, the official languages policy does not significantly impact on those demolinguistic forces shrinking official language minorities.

For this reason, the official languages policy may be considered palliative as respects the survivability of official language minorities outside the bilingual belt. The policy will make the minority communities feel better since something substantial has been done for them. At the same time the policy leaves unaltered the forces which are killing them -- immigration, their relative size and concentration, and Canadian patterns of migration, marriage and fertility.

This is not to say that Ottawa's official languages policy failed to redress important grievances. Whereas prior to the policy, the federal public service had been the preserve of English speaking Canadians, the official languages policy opened public service work and public services to francophones. The policy's impact in that respect was profound. Nevertheless, one can map the influence of the policy in the flow of forces impacting on the future of Canada's official language minorities. In that confluence of forces, the Official Languages Policy is unlikely to make significant difference to the future survivability of Canada's official language minorities.

SECOND LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAMS[xxxiii]

The official languages policy seems to have affected Canada's language minorities in ways unforeseen by the 1969 policy. By promoting francophones and the knowledge of French in the federal public service, the policy conveyed the message that bilingualism eases travel along the path of upward mobility in Canada. Perhaps in response, parents in the provinces with anglophone majorities sent their children to immersion schools in record numbers. French immersion programs in English schools outside of Quebec were virtually non-existent in 1969. By 1980-81, 2% of students were enrolled in such programs and by 1991-92 that number rose to 7% (an increase of 71% in 12 short years)[xxxiv]. The immersion programs brought the language communities into contact with each other. The result was a profound transformation of attitudes in English Canada -- an increasing open-mindedness[xxxv]. Francophone minorities viewed the phenomenon as a mixed blessing. It was seen as an opportunity to replenish their declining ranks, and also, anxiously, as a new source of competition for economic opportunities which formerly had been open to them alone because of their bilingual ability.

Despite its strong beginnings, the annual relative increase in French immersion enrolment has declined from year to year, dropping from 19% between 1983-84 and 1984-85 to 7% between 1990-91 and 1991-92 (up from 3.2% between 1989-90 and 1990-91). For 1991-92, New Brunswick was the only province to register a decrease in the number of students enrolled in French immersion programs over the previous year (-10.2%).[xxxvi]

Participation rates vary greatly according to grade level. In every province except for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the participation rate in immersion programs at the 7 - 12 level is lower than that at the K - 6 level.[xxxvii] Within the province of Quebec, English is a mandatory subject for all students from grades 4 to graduation and comprises approximately 12% of the school week.[xxxviii] English immersion programs do not exist in Quebec.

Immersion programs do not increase the Francophone population outside of Quebec or the Anglophone population within Quebec per se. Rather, immersion programs in Canadian schools are intended to contribute to a growth in bilingualism. However, it is unlikely that immersion programs will have any effect on demo-linguistic trends in Canada. Only 7% of the school population is participating in such programs - and this number appears to have reached a plateau. In addition, many students do not finish the program; they drop out before high school. Approximately 10 per cent of the English speaking community outside Quebec speaks French. This percentage has not changed significantly since the beginning of the immersion programs.[xxxix]

FERTILITY RATES

The survival of the French language also depends of the fertility of the French speaking community. Until 1981, in Quebec and in all other provinces, Francophone fertility was significantly higher than that of Anglophones. However, between 1981 and 1986, the fertility rate among Francophones decreased below that of Anglophones. In 1986, the fertility rate was 20% lower in Quebec then in the other provinces[xl].

These differences in fertility between Quebec and the other provinces have significantly affected the demographic situation. For example, 85,000 births were recorded in Quebec in 1986. If the fertility rate for women in Quebec had been equal to that of other Canadian women (1.75 children per woman), there would have been 106,000 births, or 25% more[xli]

The differences in fertility impact upon the linguistic composition of the population. In 1986, 26% of the Canadian population of child-bearing age spoke French as a mother tongue; however, only 24% of the children under five years of age had a mother with French as their mother tongue. This difference is attributable to the lower fertility rate among this population[xlii]. It is easy to see the important impact these trends are going to have in the future in diminishing the relative size of the Francophone population within Canada.

INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION

Interprovincial migration is the most important factor shrinking the anglo-quebec community. Anglophones left Quebec primarily because they have no economic future. This is partly the result of a shrinking economy, but the plight of anglophones is exacerbated by governmental determination to make French the only language of work, an initiative to which many anglophone emigrants could not quickly adapt. Anglophones equally left Quebec because of the perceived punitive nature of Bill 101. Only time will tell how Anglophones will feel towards Bill 86. However, since the amendments are merely superficial and do not go to the root of the problems facing Anglophones within Quebec, it is likely that little has changed[xliii].

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians are free to move from one part of the country to another. Since no records are kept of these movements, it is difficult to determine the exact effect inter-provincial migration has on the Canadian linguistic profile. However, based on the limited data which is available, some authors have concluded that

[I]nterprovincial migration is no longer promoting a blending of Canada's two major language groups and that, on the contrary, recent migration has actually been acting to increase polarization, with those who prefer to use the English language moving out of Quebec and with francophones tending to concentrate within the province.[xliv]

FRENCH AS A LANGUAGE OF WORK[xlv]

Francophones outside of Quebec are assimilated into the English community by the overwhelming use of English as the language of work. Outside of the bilingual belt,[xlvi] French has little economic value apart from second language teaching and translation. Anglophones earn, on average, higher incomes than francophones within Canada ($18,799 compared with $16,893). This trend holds true for every province except Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories where the average income for those with French as their mother tongue is higher. It is interesting to note that even within Quebec anglophones earn more, on average, than francophones ($19,839 and $16,796 respectively).

It may be that people are attracted to the language of business, the language which provides the high paying jobs. In Canada, 8.5% of anglophones earn over $40,000 per year compared with just 5.7% of francophones. Only Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories report a higher percentage of francophones earning over $40,000 per year compared with anglophones. Again, even within the province of Quebec anglophones are more likely than francophones to earn over $40,000 per year (9.6% and 5.6% respectively).[xlvii]

LANGUAGE PLANNING

Constant battles over the language of schools, government services, health care institutions and media have worn francophone minorities down, sapped their will to resist and caused further losses by emigration to Quebec. Some commentators view the portending disappearance of official language minorities with equanimity. They reason from sociolinguistics. English is the dominant, French the weaker language in Canada. Knowledge of English is the norm among the Quebec elite; knowledge of French the exception among its English Canadian counterpart. "The shift of a French Canadian to English" argues Professor Laponce, "is increasingly likely to have negative effects on the speaker alienating him from self and from his cultural group".[xlviii] The conclusion drawn is that the only sensible language policy is one that protects the dominant language in a given territory. Guarantees for minority languages are ineffective and harmful. Professor Laponce argues that it is preferable for Canada to divide into two linguistic islands: French in Quebec, English elsewhere. Canadian language policy should concentrate on reinforcements for French in Quebec, and English in the other provinces. Protection for linguistic minorities should be withdrawn. The faster linguistic minorities disappear, the more stable will be Canada's political system, the more rational will be relations between Quebec, Ottawa and the other provinces, the more secure the position of the English and French languages.[xlix]

This line of reasoning is buttressed by developments in the general theory of language planning. Language planners postulate "two main principles ... the principle of personality and the principle of territoriality"[l]. These principles are explained by Professor Mackey:

According to the first [personality principle], it is the institution which accommodates the individual: according to the second, it is the individual who accommodates the institution. Countries such as Canada, for example, where each person has the statutory right to be served by the government in the official language of preference, (according to the provisions of the Languages Act), are governed by the principle of personality. Countries such as Switzerland, where the citizen's relations with the state are in the language or languages of the canton, are governed by the principle of territoriality according to which, cuius regio, eius lingua, the language of the region is that of its ruler[li]

Those who agree with Professor Laponce see Canadian language planning options as a choice between these two principles. Professor Laponce examines the experience of other multilingual societies through the prism of Mackey's theory. His conclusion is irremediably coloured by the assumption of "two main principles", and the need to choose between them. So Professor Laponce is led to say: "Whether I induce from the Canadian, Swiss and Belgium cases or deduce from the laws of specialization, I conclude in favour of the solution which seeks to give distinct areas of monolingual security to each linguistic group"[lii]. In shorter language - "let the minorities disappear".

The first point to notice is that Canada's linguistic complexion is utterly different from Switzerland and Belgium. Switzerland has four principle languages, not two. The Swiss and Belgian language groups are territorially compact, not territorially diffuse. Canada, by contrast, must accommodate a population of 636,630 francophones widely diffused in the provinces outside of Quebec and 761,812 anglophones who are somewhat less diffused in Quebec[liii]. That is alot of people (5% of the total Canadian population) to condemn to extinction against their strongly expressed will because they do not fit in with academic theory. The second point is that the theory is unsophisticated. Each case of language planning is unique. Policy must be adapted to specific local circumstances. I know of no country that presents the same spectrum of problems about linguistic accommodation as does Canada. As Canada's problems are singular, so must be its solutions[liv].

A final point must be made in this regard. Language policy need not be limited to support for demographically viable linguistic groups. Language policy may equally strive to revive dying, dead or ancestral languages. The revivification of Hebrew as the national language of Israel is a spectacular case in point. At the time the resuscitation attempts began, not a single person spoke Hebrew as a language in the home. Other revival efforts are being made in Ireland, Wales and Scotland (Gaelic), France (Flemish), Holland (Frisian) and elsewhere. Many national governments have implemented language revival policies in order to stem the rise of "more radical separatist movements", or otherwise to pacify national minorities[lv].

Canada's efforts to support French in Manitoba have already been characterised as a language revival policy[lvi]. Even if that be true, the effort does not for that reason lose legitimacy. A language revival policy such as is alleged to be occurring in Manitoba is certainly in furtherance of appropriate political objectives. The intricate political interface between Canada and Quebec which implicates Canada's national stability, the desire to increase mobility for Quebec francophones so as to give them a greater sense of belonging to Canada, and the intention to respect the determined will of 1.4 million affected people in Canadian linguistic minorities is justification enough for French revival efforts in Manitoba and elsewhere, if, indeed, those efforts can even be characterised as revival, as opposed to maintenance.

In certain circumstances determined governments can counterweight the principle forces causing declining numbers in official language communities. Economic development, language of work, language of education, immigration policy, and language of media are phenomena on which governments can and do impact profoundly. It is thus appropriate to inquire whether the political circumstances impacting on Canadian governments favour coordinating policies of the type that would be required to bring about change.

It is also worth considering whether Canadian circumstances allow for a third approach to the "two main principals" of linguistic accommodation delineated by Professor Mackey. This third possibility is a modification of the territorial approach. The third approach conceptualizes territorial groupings as small separate linguistic islands, linked together by massive information and communications technology, and by a network of common institutions. The information and communications revolutions makes feasible the linking of communities together in ways that isolated linguistic communities have never before experienced. The information and communications revolutions also allow the communities to share universities, libraries, hospital diagnostic services, data processing centres, media production and distribution services, and the like. The communities would also be supported by overarching institutions in the central state that, on language matters, deal with linguistic minorities on the same basis as they deal with Canada's two nations, the English and French speaking majorities within and without Quebec. Many linguistic minority communities could be linked in this way -- St-Boniface, Mattawa, Sudbury, eastern Ontario, Gravelsborg, and other sub-provincial, municipal or sub-municipal groupings where official language minorities are concentrated -- and they could be linked also to institutions in Quebec and New Brunswick.

The third approach may be useful because it concentrates attention on the conditions necessary to promote the survival of linguistic minorities. Linguistic minorities may be able to resist the attractive power exerted by the dominant language on two conditions: (1) That linguistic communities be territorially concentrated in large or small areas; (2) That linguistic minorities be supported energetically by a meaningful network of institutions, services, economic opportunity and inter-community communication.

Although the first condition is met in Canada -- there are concentrated groupings of linguistic minorities in Montreal, St-Boniface, Gravelsborg, eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, P.E.I., New Brunswick and elsewhere -- most of these communities are in the final stages of a long term process of extinction. The second condition is not met. There is no meaningful network of services or economic opportunity in the minority language and little inter-community communication.

Without an adequate institutional infrastructure and economic opportunity, francophones outside of Quebec rightly perceive that their communities will not long survive. What would be included in the network of institutions necessary to support official language communities? There are four principal ingredients: educational institutions, culture, government services and economic structures.

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Educational institutions are crucial. As the Symons and Mayo Commissions on French language education found "... with the decline of the parishes, the schools are now becoming the centre of cultural life for the French speaking [outside of Quebec]"[lvii].

... minority schools themselves provide community centres where the promotion and preservation of minority language culture can occur; they provide needed locations where the minority community can meet and facilities which they can use to express their culture[lviii].

One important cause of assimilation is the lack of effective control of French language education and facilities by French linguistic minorities[lix]. Francophones watch their children being swept into the net of English in "mixed schools". These schools are cauldrons of assimilation. Courts, legislatures and executive commissions have independently found, on extensive expert evidence, that the grouping of anglophones and francophones together in "mixed schools" is harmful to the linguistic minority child and community and leads directly to assimilation[lx].

As we saw in Chapter 4, the Courts have been astute in utilizing s. 23 of the Charter of Rights to cure this mischief. The Courts have required Provincial legislatures to design educational facilities which can be said to be of or appertain to the linguistic minority in the sense that the minorities control the facilities, and the facilities reflect the minority's social and cultural fabric.[lxi] Provincial governments outside of Quebec have been slow to respond. Most are unwilling partners in minority language education. As late as 1993 in Reference Re. Public Schools Act (Manitoba) the Supreme Court of Canada noted that, by the Manitoba Government's own admission, the province had "failed to live up to its constitutional obligation since the release of Mahe in 1990".

Litigation in the education sector is inescapable for francophone minorities in the future. The recourse to the Courts made available by s. 23 is likely to produce mixed results. Litigation wears the minorities down and further saps their will to fight. Litigation requires strong leadership -- an item at a premium in minority language communities. In the past, governments that resorted to symbolic, palliative measures while the shrinkage in numbers continues found many linguistic communities willing partners in the enterprise. This is likely to continue.

CULTURE

A second serious problem is Ottawa's failure to exercise its constitutional powers intelligently to support official language minorities in the areas of broadcasting and culture. While the Broadcasting Act guarantees services in English and French to all Canadians subject to availability of public funds[lxii], the reality falls far short of that promise. CBC consistently refuses[lxiii] to provide francophones outside of Quebec with programming that relates to the vital concerns of their communities. This is why the Fédération des francophones hors Quebec stigmatizes CBC programming as contributing "to the anglicization of Francophones outside Quebec"[lxiv]. In addition, since television viewers are at the mercy of cable distributers, the availability of French programming varies greatly from province to province, and even region to region. For example, the French service TV5 is only available in half the city of Edmonton since the other cable company does not wish to offer this service[lxv].

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Ottawa's most significant failure has been with respect to the language of work. Ottawa's only effort in this regard relates to the federal civil service. Ottawa has made no substantial effort in the private sector, and no serious attempt to co-operate with Quebec's initiate to make French the language of work in that province, despite the recommendations of the federal Laurendeau-Dunton Commission to this effect[lxvi]. The failure of Ottawa to support Quebec's language of work initiatives by complimentary legislation for firms outside of Quebec impedes Quebec's efforts to give French economic value. Quebec is placed in the position of erecting defensive linguistic barriers around the province, a strategy that could contribute to the further weakening of Quebec's economy and the ghettoization of French in Quebec. Altogether, the French language lacks serious economic value outside of the Bilingual belt.

ECONOMIC STRUCTURES

Ottawa could support official language minorities by intervening directly with French language economic structures. French language research centres and specialized services, such as laboratories and data processing centres, could be decentralized and located in francophone communities such as St-Boniface and Sudbury[lxvii]. Research centres could be blended into existing French language institutions, for example St-Boniface Hospital or Laurentian University. Ottawa could make significant investments in existing francophone institutions like College St-Boniface and Université d'Ottawa. With appropriate funds, College St-Boniface could strive to become a major research centre, networking and contracting with compatible French language institutions throughout western Canada. With appropriate direction, College St-Boniface could strive to become self-supporting through research contracts. This kind of activity would provide much needed economic opportunity for francophones outside of Quebec, would imbue French with significance beyond family and church, and could contribute to the long term survival of official language minorities.

Economic development in the minority language is the critical initiative so far lacking in governmental support for linguistic communities. If progress could be made here, all else could be forgiven. Needless to say, competition for economic development opportunities is ferocious.

THE WORK OF THE COURTS

In order to counter-act Ottawa's failures to support their communities, minority language communities attempted to use litigation throughout the 1980s to expand the system of official bilingualism. At first, the minorities seemed to find a willing partner in the Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada expanded s. 133's protection beyond the express language of the Constitution Act, 1867. "Section 133", said the Court, "ought to be considered broadly". It contained a principle "of growth". On that principle the Court augmented s. 133 beyond its express terms to subject a wide spectrum of institutions and statutory materials to the discipline of official bilingualism. In the Manitoba Language Rights Reference[lxviii] the Supreme Court continued to breathe life into official bilingualism through a robust, expanding, purposeful interpretation of constitutional guarantees. The Court used impressive rhetoric: "The purpose of [constitutional guarantees for official bilingualism], the Court stated, "was to ensure full and equal access to the legislatures, the laws, and the courts for francophones and anglophones like". The Court began to read constitutional guarantees for official bilingualism "purposive[ly]"[lxix], finding in them "a specific manifestation of the general right of Franco-Manitobans to use their own language", and imposing upon the judiciary "the responsibility of protecting the correlative language rights of ... the Franco-Manitoban minority"[lxx]. In short, the Court had found in the terse phrasing of ancient constitutional texts a system of minority protection. Through a purposive, expanding, dynamic interpretation, the Court set out to reconstruct these special protection so to ensure full and equal access for the minority, in a meaningful way, to the range of governmental institutions to which they applied.

The minorities did not realize the extent to which their litigation efforts were opposed by the federal government, especially since Ottawa funded their court cases. At first, the Federal positions in official languages litigation seemed merely incompetent. The Department of Justice repeatedly intervened in court against francophone attempts to expand official language rights. In some cases the action was explained as an oversight or error, and the Department moved to amend its position[lxxi]. In key cases in Manitoba[lxxii] and Quebec[lxxiii] designed to inflate the court clause and records and journals clause of official bilingualism guarantees the Department of Justice sent only observers, who took no position at all. Finally, in the MacDonald case, Ottawa showed its true colours. In MacDonald's case the minorities tried to expand the court clause in s. 133, an action supported by the Official Languages Commissioner, who "hope[d], by considered and effective involvement, to help achieve the most generous settlement possible in th[is] case"[lxxiv]. The Justice Department intervened four-square against the minority's attempt to achieve expansive reading of official language rights. "A broad and generous interpretation [of language rights]", Ottawa maintained in its factum, "cannot be used"[lxxv]. This position provoked opposition members to question the Prime Minister about the matter in the House. The opposition asked that Canada's factum be withdrawn. Ottawa refused to withdraw its factum.

Ottawa got everything it asked for in MacDonald. The Court described constitutional language rights as a "constitutional minimum". "It is not open to the courts, under the guise of interpretation, to improve upon, supplement or amend this historical constitutional compromise". This brought language rights development to an end in the Courts. The expanding and dynamic reading of constitutional language rights came to a curt halt. The Court turned onto a new decisive path. The reason why, explained by the majority in S.A.N.B., was that developments in the language rights area were to be left to the provinces[lxxvi].

If this is the real reason, the Court would seem to have travelled to the other side of the reality principle. The provinces are not in the mood - and never have been in the mood in Canadian history - to advance language rights. Canadian history is a history of bitter, dangerous conflict fought over language rights as a result of stingy, vindictive aggression by provincial majorities. It is a dangerous history, resulting in federal provincial conflict, heightened tension between Ottawa and Quebec, sullen brooding in French Canada, suspicion, hostility, and growth of nationalism in Canada's regions, particularly in Quebec. The Manitoba School crisis, Regulation 17, Penetanguishene, Gens de l'air, Bill 101, the Manitoba Language Rights crisis - these bitter language wars threaten to tear Canada apart at the seams. Canada's political system cannot control these pathological crises. Each new conflict threatens the security of this country. That is why they are given to the courts. Courts are expected to channel political conflict into legal procedure, and to enforce a consistent bright line.

The Supreme Court of Canada made a significant, costly error. The real reason behind the Court's decision is that the Court does not want to present the spectacle of a Federal institution in Ottawa challenging provincial authority over language initiatives in Quebec. The Court is concerned that this portrait will increase separatist sentiment in Quebec, a point which counsel for Quebec forcefully made during argument of the cases testing the constitutionality of Bill 101. The Court sat silent as he spoke.[lxxvii] A year later the Court returned the issue of bilingual signs to Quebec politics from whence it emerged.

The Quebec government moved quickly to break its promises to the English speaking community by reenacting modified unilingual French requirements in commercial advertising and signage. The reaction in English Canada was fury. It led directly to failure of the Meech Lake Accord, and from there to the most serious Constitutional crisis in Canadian history, still raging today.

The Court was wrong -- its reasoning hopelessly wrong. The results the Court produced are serious, creating strains in the Federation much worse than those the Court seems to fear. Premier McKenna of New Brunswick summed up the situation: "Canadians" he said "are adopting an attitude of to hell with minorities that threatens to divide the nation and pit anglophones against francophones. ... We are beginning to see a reversal of the vision we have seen emerge in the last 20 years ... The Province of Quebec is increasingly looking to become unilingual French and the other provinces unilingual English - to hell with minorities. We are going to be facing, in the future, two solitudes in this country.". The Court should have enforced a consistent, bright line -- one way or the other. When charged linguistic issues are thrown into the Court by dysfunctional provincial political systems, the Court should resolve those issues decisively. The issue should never be returned to provincial politics. This prolongs and magnifies the split between French and English. Wherever possible, the Court should act on the principle deducible from Canadian experience: generous treatment of linguistic minorities best promotes linguistic peace. The Court should turn a blind eye to hostile race-bating sentiment, whether it comes from reactionaries in the West or from separatists in Quebec. The Court must learn to resist the siren's song of majoritarian pressure. This harmony has too often lured the Justices onto the constitutional rocks.

CONCLUSION

Parliament, the legislatures, and the courts have no serious policy to counteract the forces demolishing Canada's official language minorities. In the absence of a determined policy aimed at altering clear demographic trends, numbers tell all. In Canada the numbers are clear and the trends are unmistakable.

Outside of Quebec francophones are declining in real numbers, and also as a percentage of total provincial population. Anglophones within Quebec are declining in real numbers, and as a percentage of total provincial population. The decline is swift, steep and alarming. The assimilation rates are extraordinary. The official language minorities are disappearing rapidly. Canada is quickly developing into two monolingual enclaves: French in Quebec, English in the rest of Canada (excepting New Brunswick).

The forces assimilating Canada's linguistic minorities are clearly discernable. Francophone fertility rates are low, 20% lower then that of Anglophones. Low fertility shrinks each subsequent generation of francophones as a proportion of the Canadian population. Immigration attracts groups that assimilate to the English speaking community, even in Quebec. Anglophones are migrating out of Quebec. Francophones (to a lesser extent) are migrating out of the provinces with English majorities. There is much more contact between the minorities and the majorities, and much more tendency thus to intermarry. There is little economic opportunity in the minority language. There is insufficient cultural stimulation. There is an inadequate network of institutions. There is inept communication trunks between communities.

What can be done to counter these trends? This chapter has examined a number of possibilities. Whichever alternative is chosen it cannot succeed without the support of a committed government. History has taken a different course: neither level of government is willing to mount a co-ordinated effort for the promotion and maintenance of minority official language communities. Given today's climate of economic restraint, it is difficult to see how this will change in any future scenario.

Francophones outside of Quebec realize that: "A race disappears when it depends entirely on the benevolent kindness of others for its survival"[lxxviii]. They therefore speak of "taking charge of their future". What does taking charge entail? It includes representation in "provincial governments, regional or municipal councils, diocesan administrations and even hospital boards and banks, credit unions, [and] Chambers of Commerce"[lxxix].

How realistic is this plan? The programs and changes required to implement this vision require resources. Unless the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is able to generate sufficient funds from the private sector, which is unlikely, federal and provincial governments will be required to restructure institutions and provide considerable monies. Minority language communities represent five per cent of the Canadian population. Is it reasonable to expect governments to overweight the political representation of language minorities in important institutions given the traditional behaviour of governments? Is it plausible to expect that the governments will provide substantial moneies to these communities given the current fierce competition for scarce resources and the potential political backlash which this may generate?

The demographic trends are likely to continue relentless, accelerating in a final terminal stage as the last minuscule mass of the minorities melts away. The unilingual character of a predominantly French Quebec will be reinforced, as will the unilingual character of a predominantly English Canada outside of Quebec. These populations will be joined along a bilingual belt, and they will be inhabited by a slightly increased population of bilinguals, both in Quebec and in the other provinces - the result of the immersion phenomenon. Superimposed upon these populations will be an increasingly bilingual federal administration, and a robust official languages policy. This policy will strive to lessen the pain of official language minorities -- to palliate them -- while current demographic trends conclude their demolition. This policy may differ from what is parroted by the authorities, but it is the real policy, judged by the only acceptable measure -- what it actually does.

This is where the demographic trends tell Canadians that they are heading -- rapidly. Is this where Canadians want to be?

ENDNOTES

-----------------------

[i]. Statistics Canada, Home Language and Mother Tongue (1992). In the 1991 census, 97% of respondents reported a single mother tongue while 3% reported more than one. Unless otherwise indicated, multiple responses have been divided equally between the languages reported.

Home language refers to "the language spoken most often at home by the individual at the time of the census" (Statistics Canada, Home Language and Mother Tongue, Catalogue no. 93-317 (Ottawa, 1993) 299.

Mother tongue is defined as the "first language learned at home is childhood and still understood by the individual at the time of the census" (Statistics Canada, Mother Tongue, Catalogue no. 93-313 (Ottawa, 1992), 239. The mother tongue question was asked of all respondents.

It should be noted that use of mother tongue data has been criticized for illustrating trends that are "a generation behind the facts" (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Report, Book 1 (Ottawa 1967), 18. However, the data on home language are also flawed because only a sample of the population (20%) is asked the question and "the language spoken at home is often determined by the unilingualism of one of the member of the household" (Richard J. Joy, Canada's Official Languages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1992), 18 translating D'Iberville Fortier, in Minutes of the Joint Committee on Official Languages, 28 November 1989, 5:34.

[ii]. In the ten years preceding 1991 Prince Edward Island declined by 22.6%, Nova Scotia declined by 13.8% and Manitoba declined by 25.8%. When home language is considered, francophones outside of Quebec are shrinking in real terms in addition to shrinking as a proportion of total provincial population. Fewer Canadians use French at home in 1991 (635,000) than in 1981 (664,000). Only New Brunswick and Quebec reported increases in the number of persons using french as a home language; however, their percentage of the total provincial population remained virtually unchanged since 1981.

[iii]. Caldwell, "Anglo-Quebec: Demographic Realities and Options for the Future", in Bourhis, Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec (Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1984), at 206-8.

[iv]. Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. c. c-11.

[v]. Census data based on 20% of the Canadian population indicate that 53,390 Anglophones within Quebec (by mother tongue) left Quebec between 1986 - 1991 while only 31,465 entered into the province.

[vi]. The Heirs of Lord Durham: Manifesto of a Vanishing People (F.F.H.Q., 1978), 19 - 20.

[vii]. In 1991, 85.3% with a French mother tongue resided within Quebec and 95.4% of persons with an English mother tongue resided outside of Quebec: Home Language and Mother Tongue, Catalogue no. 93-317 (Ottawa, 1993).

[viii]. Language in Canada, Canadian Social Trends, No. 12, Spring 1989.

[ix]. The language continuity index "represents the relationship between the number of persons speaking language "x" at home and the number of persons for whom language "x" is the mother tongue (Statistics Canada, Canada: A Linguistic Profile, Catalogue no. 98-131 (Ottawa, 1986), 25).

[x]. Statistics Canada, Canada: A Linguistic Profile, Catalogue no. 98-131 (Ottawa, 1986). It should be noted that the French share of the language shift has been increasing over the years: the French share was 29% in 1986, up from 28% in 1981.

[xi]. Home Language and Mother Tongue, Catalogue no. 93-317 (Ottawa, 1993).

[xii]. Language in Canada, Canadian Social Trends, No. 12, Spring 1989.

[xiii]. "The minority language education programme is designed to offer the minority group (Anglophones in Quebec, Francophones outside Quebec) education in their mother tongue. The minority language is used as the language of instruction for a minimum of 25% of the school day" (Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992), 38.

[xiv]. Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992), 38.

[xv]. Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992).

[xvi]. Brief by Alliance Quebec on bills 106 and 107 presented to the commission de l'éducation, monograph, 1988, as quoted in Martel, ibid. at 142.

[xvii]. The total English system is slightly in excess of 111,000 pupils. Approximately 12,000 English mother tongue students were educated in the majority French system by choice or because they did not qualify to receive and English education: Angeline Martel, Official Language Minority Right in Canada: From Instruction to Management (Ottawa: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1991).

[xviii]. It is difficult to record an accurate statistical portrait because access to minority language education is not consistent in the provinces with Anglophone majorities, nor are the minority language programs at similar stages of development. Furthermore, some provinces do not keep statistics for minority language programs separate from immersion enrolments.

[xix]. Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992). Note, however, that since 1986-87 slight increases of approximately 1% per year have occurred.

[xx]. In 1986 there were over 77,000 students enrolled in minority language programs, but only 70,000 school aged children were considered to belong to the minority mother tongue group (Martel, Official Language Minority Education Rights in Canada, Ottawa: Commissioner of Official Languages, 1991, p. 68). All subsequent references to enrolment numbers are derived from this study unless otherwise indicated.

[xxi]. Population by First Language Spoken, 1991, supra at 9.

[xxii]. Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and secondary Levels, Catalogue 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992) at 19.

[xxiii]. Statistics Canada, Profile of the Immigrant Population, Catalogue no. 93-155 (Ottawa 1989), Table 1.

[xxiv]. Statistics Canada, Profile of the Immigrant Population, Catalogue no. 93-155 (Ottawa 1989).

[xxv]. Home Language and Mother Tongue, Catalogue no. 93-317 (Ottawa, 1993).

[xxvi]. R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2, as rep. by S.C. 1988, c. 38.

[xxvii]. Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1983, preface.

[xxviii]. According to mother tongue.

[xxix]. Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1992.

[xxx]. Approximately three-quarters of bilingual positions require an intermediate level of proficiency (B). However, the superior level (C) has experienced a slow but steady growth over the past 5 years (from 11.4% in 1988 to 15.9% in 1992) (Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1992).

[xxxi]. Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1992.

[xxxii]. Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1992.

[xxxiii]. Second language immersions programs are defined as ones "whereby students learn the second language by receiving a minimum of 25% of their education in that language" (Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992), 38. However, in practice, for French language schools outside of Quebec, the percentage of education provided in the minority language are much higher. On average, French immersion programs provide 68% of the instruction in French. The percentages range from a high of 82% in the Yukon to a low of 57% in Prince Edward Island: Statistics Canada, Minority and Second Language Education, Elementary and Secondary Levels, Catalogue no. 81-257 (Ottawa, 1992).

[xxxiv]. The percentages vary greatly across the provinces. New Brunswick has the highest overall participation rate in French immersion programs at 18.9%. The Northwest Territories have the lowest rate (2.9%) followed by Nova Scotia (3.3%) and Newfoundland (3.4%).

[xxxv]. See generally, D. Cliff, "Towards the Larger Community" (1984) 12 Language and Society 65 at 66.

[xxxvi]. This is at a time when overall school enrolment within the province increased from 132,843 in 1990-91 to 140,791 in 1991-92.

[xxxvii]. The total participation rate, excluding Quebec, is 9% at the elementary level and 5.3% at the secondary level.

[xxxviii]. Students enrolled in vocational programs are exempt from this requirement.

[xxxix]. This number was obtained through a comparison of data in volumes for provincial and territorial data in Dallaire, L. and R. Lachapelle. Demolinguistic Profiles of Minority Official Language Communities: Canada, 1986 Census. (Ottawa: Department of Secretary of State).

[xl]. Changes in Fertility Among Canada's Linguistic Groups, Social Trends, Autumn 1989.

[xli]. Changes in Fertility Among Canada's Linguistic Groups, Social Trends, Autumn 1989, p.4.

[xlii]. Changes in Fertility Among Canada's Linguistic Groups, Social Trends, Autumn 1989.

[xliii]. Following the United Nation's ruling that Bill 101 violated free expression guarantees, the Quebec government introduced Bill 86: An Act to amend the Charter of the French Language. Section 18 of this Bill provides that, subject to government regulations to the contrary, public signs, posters and commercial advertising must be in French. The legislation permits use of another language on the sign provided that the French text is markedly predominant. However, in reality, Bill 86 is merely an attempt to appease opinion makers in the human rights community by meagre compliance with the Committee's views. At the same time, the legislation is respectful of that portion of francophone opinion which shies away from "true bilingualism." Bill 86 reflects a middle ground devoid of principle.

[xliv]. Richard Joy, Canada's Official Languages: The Progress of Bilingualism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 49.

[xlv]. In this section the terms anglophone and francophone are based on mother tongue. As well, only single responses are considered. This decision is based on the rational that individuals who are able to speak both official languages will be more marketable and therefore will skew the results for the "pure" language groups.

[xlvi]. See Joy, Languages in Conflict. Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1972 who describes the bilingual belt which stretches from Moncton to the Sault.

[xlvii]. One possible explanation is the fact that, as previously mentioned, the majority of Anglophones within the province reside in Montreal, the largest urban centre in the province.

[xlviii]. Laponce, "Relating Linguistics to Political Conflicts: The Problem of Language Shift in Multilingual Societies", in Multilingual Political Systems: Problems and Solutions Quebec, C.I.R.B. 1975 at p.195-6. Professor Laponce reaffirmed this view in August 1984 in a colloq sponsored by the Royal Commission on Economic and Development Prospects for Canada held in Ottawa.

[xlix]. Id., p. 201. Professor Laponce reaffirmed and amplified on these views at a colloquium sponsored by the Royal Commission on Economic and Development Prospects for Canada in Ottawa in 1984.

[l]. Mackey, "Prolegomena to Langue Policy Analysis" (1979) 30 Word 5, 9. Mackey's statement of two main principles is not only accepted by Laponce, supra, note 39, but by most commentators on language planning theory: see Bourhis, "Language Policies in Multilingual Settings", in Bourhis, Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec, Multilingual Matters, 1984, 1, at 14.

[li]. Id.

[lii]. Laponce, "Relating Linguistics to Political Conflicts: The Problem of Language Shift in Multilingual Societies", in Multilingual Political Systems: Problems and Solutions Quebec, C.I.R.B. 1975 at p. 201.

[liii]. Statistics Canada, Home Language and Mother Tongue (1992). (Table 1 Population by home language).

[liv]. Accord: Cartwright, Official Language Populations in Canada: Patterns and Contacts, Montreal, IRPP, 1980, p. 147. As I read Professor Mackey, I understand him to agree with the desirability of tailoring language policy to specific circumstances: supra.

[lv]. Bourhis, "Language Policies in Multilingual Settings," in Bourhis, Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec, Multilingual Matters, 1984, 1 at 10.

[lvi]. Id., p. 9.

[lvii]. Report of the Ottawa-Carleton Review Commission [The Mayo Report] (1968), p. 133; Report of the Ministerial Commission on French Language Secondary Education [The Symons Report] (1972), p. 13 - 15).

[lviii]. Mahe v. A.G. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342 at p. 363.

[lix]. Reference re Minority Language Education Rights, Ont. C.A., June 16, 1984, p. 68.

[lx]. S.A.N.B. v. Minority Language School Bd. No. 50 (1983), 48 N.B.R. (2d) 361. This conclusion was reached independently by the N.B. legislature (School Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. s-5 as amended, secs. 3.1 - 3.3, 18.1); and by the Official Language Commissioner, Report (1978), p. 35.

[lxi]. Reference re. Minority Language Education Rights, [1984] 47 O.R. (2d) 1, 71; Mahe v. A.G. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; Reference Re. Public Schools Act (Manitoba), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839.

[lxii]. Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. c. B-11, s. 3(k).

[lxiii]. In a meeting with ACFO, CBC officials said: "The CBC's position is firm: our radio programming will not change and televised production outside Quebec will not exceed 5 to 7 hours per week. This objective is already considered as ideal and it will not be achieved in the near future": see The Heirs of Lord Durham, (F.F.H.Q., 1978), p. 61.

[lxiv]. The Heirs of Lord Durham: Manifesto of a Vanishing People, F.F.H.Q., 1978, p. 60. Recent amendments to the Broadcasting Act appear to take account of this criticism, and may produce changes on the ground. In particular, section 3(c) provides that "English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements;" and section 3 (m)(iv) provides that "the programming provided by the Corporation should be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities."

[lxv]. Fédération des Communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada, État des Minorités Linguistiques au Canada, 1990.

[lxvi]. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Ottawa, Queen's printer, 1969, Book 3, p. 554 ("We recommend that in the private sector in Quebec, governments and industry adopt the objective that French become the principle language of work at all levels ...").

[lxvii]. See Allaire and Miller, Canadian Business Responses to the Legislation on Francization in the Workplace, C.D. Howe Institute, 1980, p. 43 ff, for a discussion of organizational structures and modalities of francization in various organizational units.

[lxviii]. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721. This reference was occasioned by the failure of Manitoba politics to resolve the constitutional difficulties posed by the 1979 Forest case. A Manitoba francophone forced the issue by challenging the validity of two unilingual Manitoba statutes in a Highway Traffic Act prosecution. At the request of the Société Franco Manitoban, the Federal government referred the issue to the Supreme Court directly.

[lxix]. Ibid. at 751.

[lxx]. Ibid. at 744-5.

[lxxi]. Bilodeau v. A.G. Manitoba, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 449, (Justice withdrew its factum); Reference re. Minority Language Educational Rights, [1984] 47 O.R. (2d) 1 (Justice filed supplementary notes); Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 721 (Justice intervened against the position of the francophone minority and did not amend its position); MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 450 (Justice intervened against the anglophone minority and refused to change its position). If there were not something to be said on both sides of the issue, these cases would not be in the Supreme Court of Canada. This is what makes Justice's choice of positions difficult to understand.

[lxxii]. Robin v. Le College de St-Boniface (1984), 15 D.L.R. (4th) 198 (Man. C.A.).

[lxxiii]. A.G. Quebec v. Collier, Que. C.A. (Mtl.) Sept 19, 1985, no. 500-36-000189-830.

[lxxiv]. Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report, 1985 at 16.

[lxxv]. MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, Factum of the Attorney General of Canada at 10.

[lxxvi]. S.A.N.B., p. 579: "The Charter reflected "a principle of advancement or progress in the equality of status or use of the two official languages ... this principle of advancement is linked with the legislative process ... The legislative process, unlike the judicial one, is a political process and hence particularly suited to the advancement of rights. ... If the provinces were told that [constitutional language rights were] inherently dynamic and progressive .. that the speed of progress was to be controlled mainly by the courts, they would have no means to know with relative precision what it was that they were opting into. This would certainly increase their hesitation in [advancing language rights]".

[lxxvii]. Ford v. A.G. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, Devine v. A.G. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790.

[lxxviii]. Lacasse, Maurice, Le lion de la Péninsule, Biography and poems of Senator Gustave Lacasse (1890 - 1953) in Fédération des communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada, Project 2000: For a Francophone Space (Final Report), 1992 at p. 10.

[lxxix]. Fédération des Communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada, État des Minorités Linguistiques au Canada, 1990 at p. 30.

-----------------------

42

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download