Canadian Public Opinion on Official Bilingualism: Ambivalent Consensus and its Limits

With the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Official Languages Act celebrated in 2019, the question of its degree of acceptance by the Canadian public is in order for review. When the national policy on official bilingualism was first advocated by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, it frankly acknowledged that it was highly controversial and opposed by substantial portions of the Anglophone public. Nevertheless, they insisted that the policy was necessary for the survival of the country and maintained that the firm resolve of united political elites at federal and provincial levels eventually would generate political success for the policy. While elite unity was elusive and only partially realized, the essential elements of official bilingualism were adopted, expanded and have survived to celebrate its 50th anniversary. The evolving pattern of public opinion over the past three decades demonstrates that official bilingualism is accepted as an essential component of Canadian political life, but that acceptance is hedged by some important qualifications, and indications that any further expansion would not enjoy public support. Nevertheless, it is firmly established as a core operating principle of Canadian public policy.

Reflecting on the Official Languages Act at 50: Was the Advent of the Charter so Great After All?

This piece examines more closely the relationship between the OLA and the Charter, arguing that the relationship between the two rights instruments is much more fraught than commonly believed. The advent of the Charter and its entrenchment of language rights have always been seen as unquestionably positive for the OLA. However, it may be time to re-evaluate that belief. Using the concept of “constitutional displacement,” the article suggests that the Charter also had the effect of overshadowing the OLA, which limits its potential for reform. A similar fate befell other statutes, such as the Canadian Bill of Rights. By way of contrast, the OLA is compared to the Inuit Language Protection Act (ILPA) in Nunavut to suggest that the latter enjoys a higher profile in the territory and has more potential for expansion precisely because of the lack of clearly defined, entrenched Indigenous language rights in the constitution.

La couverture médiatique du bilinguisme des juges de la Cour suprême du Canada

Cet article analyse la couverture médiatique du bilinguisme obligatoire des juges de la Cour suprême du Canada dans les quotidiens d’information généralistes francophones et anglophones au Canada entre 2006 et 2018. Durant cette période, dix projets de loi ont essayé sans succès d’enchâsser dans la loi l’exigence de « bilinguisme fonctionnel » pour les juges de la Cour suprême. On constate toutefois que le débat s’est déroulé dans des termes différents dans l’espace public médiatique francophone et anglophone. Les journaux francophones ont adopté une position éditoriale beaucoup plus favorable que les journaux anglophones. L’Acadie Nouvelle au Nouveau-Brunswick et Le Droit en Ontario se sont également démarqués particulièrement par l’intensité et le positionnement éditorial de leur couverture. L’attention médiatique aux questions de bilinguisme judiciaire a aussi été à la remorque des débats parlementaires plutôt que l’inverse et ne s’est pleinement articulée qu’à partir de 2010. Finalement, les journaux anglophones et francophones ont mis de l’avant des arguments différents et ont donc participé à un dialogue de sourds dans une large mesure. En présentant le débat sur le bilinguisme des juges comme un enjeu de politique partisane plutôt que comme un facteur influençant le comportement des juges, la Cour suprême elle-même est demeurée à l’extérieur du débat préservant ainsi le cadrage légaliste du comportement judiciaire.

A Little Give and Take: What Garneau’s Paintings Give When They Take, and Other Stories From Future Past

This article examines the possibilities related to conciliation that are closed, and those that might be opened, through Métis contemporary visual artist David Garneau’s paintings, Aboriginal Curatorial Collective Meeting and Aboriginal Advisory Circle Meeting. I argue that Garneau’s explicit and manifest exclusion of settlers and the colonial gaze on his paintings is also, at the same time and in actuality, a form of invitation into something else. To do this, I first briefly explore how thinkers have problematized settlers’ recognition of Indigenous knowledge, ways of knowing, and art. I then pose the question of what ought to be the normative limits around settlers’ access to Indigenous knowledge and spaces, using Garneau’s own written work about his paintings. I then bring several scholars into conversation around why certain spaces should remain exclusive, some or all of the time, to Indigenous peoples. Finally, I conclude by explaining how the existence of these spaces—and the communication of their existence—is a necessary and otherwise impossible step in the conciliation process. Indeed, I propose in this paper that to experience and confront our own limits to comprehension, as settlers, is a gift; that by creating and sharing his paintings with settlers, Garneau simultaneously reveals settlers’ exclusion from Indigenous spaces to ourselves and invites us into new imaginary spaces of conciliation—ones that are actually possible, because not predicated on an ongoing colonial system of power distribution, but instead on uncertainty, a condition of continued and active relatedness.