Bilingualism: A Prescription for National Unity

MR. MACDONALD:

One could imagine a conversation between two young history students in the year 2000, each of them proficient in six or seven languages. Robert says to Pierre: "It would appear that a great debate raged in Canada in the 1960's over bilingualism and that there were those who saw hidden threats, needless expense, and impractical consequences in the whole procedure." "But," replied Pierre, "they could not see how easy it would be to learn painlessly by cerebral injections, nor could they know that Martians spoke French and how important it would be for trade and commerce between the planets."

It is true that not all Canadians are convinced that bilingualism is a necessary prescription for the Canadian body politic, at least until drug prices come down. However, the policies of provincial governments as well as the federal government and the expressed attitudes of individuals and corporations indicate an increasing acceptance. One of the major reasons for this change is the controlled persuasiveness and perseverance of our guest speaker. It was in 1965 that three wise men came out of the East to Ottawa Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier and told of wondrous things that awaited French-Canadians in the capital. But, for several years before, Jean-Luc Pepin had been speaking to fellow members of Parliament and travelling thousands of miles across this continent, to explain the peculiar position of Quebec, the aspirations of FrenchCanadians, and the price of national unity.

Now it would appear, Sir, that you have begun to direct your energies into another bi-way. Last Saturday in Toronto, the three daily newspapers carried a picture of a smiling Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, between two charming young women Canada's first female trade commissioners since 1884. I am not certain how far along the road your Department has gone to bilingualism, but obviously bisexualism has arrived.

Born in Drummondville, Quebec, Jean-Luc Pepin came to Ottawa before he came to Parliament, for he studied art, philosophy and law at the University of Ottawa. This was followed by further studies at Institut des Etudes Politiques de Paris, prior to joining the Faculty of Social Science of the University of Ottawa in 1951. Believing, apparently, that the message can be disseminated by various media, he joined the National Film Board in Europe from 1956 to 1958, returning to the University of Ottawa to become Director of the Department of Political Science in 1959. His flirtation with the media continued through appearances on English and French radio and television and writing for newspapers and magazines, including the Ottawa Editorship of "Le Magazine Maclean".

First elected to Parliament in April 1963 for Drummond-Arthabaska, he quickly amassed a variety of governmental experience: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Minister Without Portfolio, and Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the general election of June 1968, he became Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Minister of Industry, carrying out a major reorganization in the form of the merger of the two departments.

Monsieur le ministre, je suis extrement heureux d'avoir l'occasion de vous accueillir au Club de l'Empire. Vous personnifiez la vigeur et le dynamisme qui illustrent tellement la personalite de quelqu'un qui Bait si bien mettre en pratique le principe du bilinguisme. Vous symbolisez, tant dans votre carriere que dans vos convictions, l'unite nationale qui represente pour nous au Canada un patrimoine precieux.

Mr. Minister, it is my great pleasure to welcome you to the Empire Club of Canada. You exemplify so well the health and vitality of one who has been taking and dispensing the bilingualism prescription for a long time. In your career and in your beliefs, you are a symbol of the national unity that is such a precious Canadian treasure.

Gentlemen, may I invite the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin to describe the ingredients of "Bilingualism: Prescription for National Unity."

MR. PEPIN:

You might say to yourselves: "What, good Lord, another speech on bilingualism? Why?" There are at least three good reasons.

In the first place, you suggested that I should talk on a subject of concern to French Canada and that is one, a positive and challenging one. There are also, secondly, many misconceptions about bilingualism still existing which should be rectified. Thirdly, the subject is constantly evolving, as it did recently, for example, with the publication of Book III of the B and B Commission, which I had time to read during the Christmas recess, and we must keep our information up to date on that important subject.

Some people might say, "Why is he not talking about trade and commerce, about wheat, automobiles, or inflation?" Well, there have been many occasions for that in the recent past--I will send any one of you free copies of all my previous speeches if he insists! Another reason is that a Minister, like a businessman, should not limit his interests to his immediate professional concern.

So here goes--"Bilingualism".

It is a very complex subject!

We have to clarify first--and I am being very scholarly today with reference books on the table--we need to clarify a few concepts pertaining to bilingualism.

First, bilingualism is a political idea. We are talking politics when we talk bilingualism. Bilingualism is an essential part of the political nature and definition of Canada. The "two founding groups" have created here a state--a nation too, but that is sociological--a state in which they are expected to live "in partnership" with "equal opportunity". (You are all familiar with these words by now, I hope.)

Sociologically Canada is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-everything you want; but politically and constitutionally it is bilingual and bilingual in French and English only. You may very well tell me that it is more useful to speak Italian than French in Toronto and you may very well tell me that it is more useful in Vancouver to speak Chinese than French. I might even agree but this will not change anything. You will not learn Chinese if you are in Vancouver and you will not learn Italian if you are in Toronto because you know damn well the Italians here are going to learn English as are the Chinese in Vancouver.

Immigrants, while fortunately retaining many cultural traits from their homelands, are expected to integrate, and do integrate sooner or later, into one of the two linguistic streams, or into both occasionally. Bilingualism can, of course, be supported on cultural grounds but again, I repeat, in Canada it is also a political "position", in my view most defendable too.

Second preliminary remark. There is a distinction very well made by the B & B Commission Reports between "institutional" and "individual" bilingualism. Individual bilingualism is the competence acquired by some people in English and French. It is another of those relative concepts. You may be completely, reasonably, slightly, "lousily" (as M. Trudeau would say) bilingual. You may have a "working knowledge" of the other language. I'll come back to that.

There is and can be no constitutional obligation upon individuals to become bilingual--though not being bilingual may in fact exclude people from certain jobs just as not being an engineer might exclude them from certain jobs.

Here we touch on another aspect of bilingualism, which is "institutional" bilingualism. Institutional bilingualism is a characteristic acquired by an organization, by an association, by a country. Let us use the words of the Commission:

"A bilingual country is not one where all the inhabitants necessarily have to speak two languages; rather it is a country where the principal public and private institutions must provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may very well be unilingual . . . ."

Now--I am sorry, I told you this was complicated institutional bilingualism has itself two facets. This is very strongly brought out, and rightly so, by Book III of the B & B Commission.

First, the institutional language of service. An institution is then bilingual if it is able to deal with its clientele in either official language.

But you may also look for language of work, which is the language spoken by employees inside the institution in their day-today activities. You may have an institution that will be bilingual in the sense that it provides services outside in both languages but will not be bilingual in the sense that it does not provide the occasion for people to work in either French or in English within itself. So a language of service may very well not be much of a language of work. That distinction is essential. One of the very strong points the B & B Commission makes is that the Federal Government has developed remarkably along the line of bilingualism of service, but has not done enough yet by far, in providing for French-speaking Canadians (or bilingual English-speaking Canadians) the occasion to employ their French language as a language of work.

I must burden you with one more distinction. That is the concept of "receptive" bilingualism.

Receptive bilingualism--I believe a word coined by the B & B Commission--is a specific degree of excellence in the knowledge of the "other language". It does not mean you are sympathetic to bilingualism; it means you have a receptive capacity in the "other language". It is defined by the Commission as the kind of knowledge that "would enable a person to review documents and understand all presentations prepared in the other language". Your president, Ian Macdonald, is rather beyond that--he has just demonstrated it.

In the "old days", three or four years ago, it used to be called the "working knowledge of the other language". The chap who has a working knowledge can read a text, can understand a conversation but at times he has to tell his French-speaking colleagues "Slow down, guys. I need a bit of rest."

Is bilingualism acceptable as a political concept? That is easy to answer. I say Canada cannot exist without it, without some form of implementation of this concept.

Should Federal Government bilingualism be institutional or individual? I say basically the first, basically institutional, but there must be some appropriate blend of the other.

Are we talking about language of service or language of work? I say in much of the Federal Government and in business established in Francophone areas it would have to be both. It should be most of the first--that is of service and a good amount of the second.

How complicated! I resent people who have easy solutions, black or white ideas on these difficult matters. So let's try and refine things a bit further.

My next paragraph is entitled "Why Bilingualism and do we have it?" I have already indicated sufficiently the political reasons for having bilingualism. The French-speaking Canadians, those from Quebec particularly, cannot and should not accept the "traditional" unilingualism in Canada any more than the English-speaking Quebeckers can and should accept the "new" unilingualism demanded by some in their province. (It works both ways.) It's all a matter of dignity, of economic, social and cultural "opportunity". We must have bilingualism, the spirit and the reality of it, in order to realize "equal partnership", "equal opportunity", solid national unity. And what an example could we give to the more and more numerous multi-lingual old and new countries of the world that face the same problem! What a challenge! I always say that Canada's most important contribution in external affairs could be made in the way we run our domestic affairs! We have people here in Canada who are willing to work for unity in Cyprus and in Biafra, but not too keen to fight for it in Canada. Preaching on Biafra is easier than doing in Canada! It is easier to die for the woman you love than to live with her!

I don't think it is necessary to demonstrate to this distinguished audience the cultural advantages of knowing French and of knowing English, the two dominant Languages of the Western industrialized world and each part of an immensely rich civilization.

Voltaire puts it beautifully. (He speaks French!)

"Les Anglais ont beaucoup profite des ouvrages de notre langue; nous devrions a notre tour emprunter d'eux, apres leur avoir tant prete; nous ne sommes venus, les Anglais et nous, qu'apres les Italiens, qui en tout ont ete nos maitres, et que nous avons surpasses en quelque chose. Je ne sais a laquelle des trois nations il faudra donner la preference; mais heureux celui qui Bait sentir leurs differents merites!"

"The English have learned so much from us, we have given them so much, we could now borrow a little bit from them . . . ." The conclusion is: "Blessed is the one who can sense the different merits of these cultures."

The next part of the question is: have we Canadians realized those political and cultural ideals, have we lived by the spirit of bilingualism which should be one of our main articles of political philosophy? My answer is very simple: we have, up to very recent times, failed to do so . . . miserably! Is there a word stronger than that in English? This is demonstrated in almost every chapter of Canadian history. When you read them I hope that you will be discontented, that you will be embarrassed by the spectacle that we have given to ourselves and to the world.

I read during the Christmas holidays Schull's biography of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, "The First Canadian". Poor man! Laurier was not very demanding, he only asked that French could be made "here as elsewhere the language of good company and polite society." He came here to Toronto and he told the students, "If I were your age I would not leave school until I could speak and write in French."

After Regulation 17, or at about that time, he said, "I believe that in a civilized country the teaching of a second language, and such a language as French . . . should not be prohibited." He was not an "unorthodox" person and yet how was he treated? Schull says: "Ontario, the Ontario he had fought for all his life, faced him again and with blank eye and hackles erect, flexing its British muscles. He was still the rejected foreigner." He was "too French" here! (And too English in Quebec!)

Look in Book III of the B & B Commission Report. Lapointe writes C. D. Howe and asks, "Would it not be normal to appoint a French Canadian as purchasing agent in the City of Quebec?" C. D. Howe said, "No, that would be a violation of the principle of efficiency . . . ."

I am not saying that in a resentful fashion, not at all. I am way beyond that. I am just saying that collectively we have been at it, at building a bilingual Canada, for a very short period of time. We have been working at it--at the philosophy and the reality of it, for three or four years only. Before then nothing or almost nothing positive. It is shameful.

Read Ramsay Cook's recent book on Nationalism in French Canada. As a French Canadian, I am embarrassed by many things my people said. But I think the English Canadian history of bilingualism should give you even more cause for embarrassment.

An English-speaking Canadian gentleman has put it all very well. I'll quote him if you will bear with me. (I would not want to stop the economic life of Toronto.) I think it is useful to listen to what Hamilton Southam, now the director of the National Arts Centre, wrote a few years ago.

He is telling about his education . . . he says:

"My parents and I accepted as normal that I should complete my schooling without having learned to converse in French. During all those years, though I knew that my vocation was towards the humanities and history and literature in particular, I was taught French as I was taught Latin, by worthy Englishmen who thought of it as a dead language.

Second, my parents and I accepted as normal that I should read the history of French Canada at school in text books written by English-speaking Canadians. Although I was preparing to study history at Toronto nothing led me to suspect that the history of our country is in fact written in two languages which on certain crucial points offer two rather different versions of what has happened.

Third, my parents and I accepted as normal that I should regard French literature as pertaining to France and not to Canada. At school I was given a fair taste of Canadian prose and poetry written in English. I received not a hint that Canadian writers and poets have been wrestling with the same themes in French.

Fourth, I was able to spend five years here in Toronto taking the honours course in Modern History without any of those unconscious attitudes being modified in any way. I cannot remember any of my professors at this greatest of Canadian universities drawing my attention to the French Canadian contribution to Canadian history or literature. (. . .)

Fifth, when nevertheless I decided that during my undergraduate years I must learn to speak French I considered it natural to go to France to do so. The idea that I could learn French in Quebec never occurred to me and I don't remember anyone here pointing this out to me."

And Southam concludes:

"I suggest that we English-speaking Canadians have never shown even the awareness, let alone the respect we owe to the personality of our French-speaking compatriots. We have ignored it, so blandly and totally, and for so long that they have every right to ask today, it seems to me: 'Who was it that separated from whom in the very first place?' "

I couldn't say it better myself! I have a book in my files: "Confessions of English Canadians". (I hope somebody has a book in his file: "Confessions of French Canadians".)

Because of all that . . . and much more, I am appalled when people around me refer to separatism as something that is "coming". We have had de facto cultural, linguistic separatism, and a lot of political separatism too in this country from the "beginning"--whether you pick as a beginning 1763 or 1867. Let's stop talking about "coming" separatism. I have said that the only thing that the French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians used to share culturally was that they were suffering from the same cold in the winter and bitten by the same mosquitoes in the summer! That was the amount of cultural going-on between English Canada and French Canada twenty years ago .... I exaggerate but only a little!

English Canadians up to recent times have had a complex, two complexes--superiority and inferiority--about learning French. Ten years ago, I met more people speaking French in England than I did in Canada!

Again this is a complex, it is psychological. Mr. Stanfield in the House a few months ago was talking about the difficulty of learning French. How come? All around the world now people are speaking two, three or four languages . . . . To sell newspapers on the streetcorners in Kuala Lumpur you have got to be able to speak four, otherwise you're not in business. And we still make a problem in Canada of knowing two languages, two languages which are so similar that it has been said that English is French badly spoken . . . or French is English badly spoken!

But fortunately, things are changing in Canada. We are getting out of our mess. Ours are the pains of the birth of a nation and not of its death. And it takes more than five years to build a country.

There are many other things I would like to say. I can only read the headlines of much of my notes. I go on, in my notes, talking about what is happening at the federal level, the progress which is made in Canada as a whole. I talk, of course, mainly about the Official Languages Act and I explain what it is all about, emphasizing also what it is not all about.

The Act does not force English-speaking persons to learn French or vice versa. On the contrary, it ensures the right of the English-speaking persons to speak English and of French-speaking persons to speak French to their Federal Government. In a way the Act encourages unilingualism! I learned recently of a Toronto businessman who when asked about the Act stated he approved it in general but was very concerned that it might be carried too far. "What," he said, "if I have to make all my submissions to the Federal Government in both English and French?"

This businessman, of course, has turned government policy on its head. The Official Languages Bill preserves his right to deal exclusively in English with the Federal Government but it gives his confrere in Drummondville the right to deal with the Federal Government exclusively in French. Again the obligations of bilingualism are imposed on government institutions, not on individuals.

And the Act of course does not intend either to push French-speaking Canadians "toward assimilation". On the contrary, it ensures that French-speaking minorities through the country will be able to obtain service in French from their federal government . . . without having to move back to Quebec!

And the Act won't stamp out other languages and cultures in Canada. Section 38 specifically provides that nothing in the Act may affect the rights and privileges of other languages.

I must say a little more about what is going on in the federal public service with respect to bilingualism. This is terribly important because bilingualism in the public service is bound to have a snowballing effect. If it is to become fashionable, desirable, necessary at times to be bilingual to succeed in Federal Government services, then maybe Canadian universities will start teaching French better. If universities move, secondary schools will too, sooner or later; if secondary schools move, then primary schools might.

In my notes I demonstrate, I think, that it is only quite recently, really since the declaration of policy for the federal public service by Mr. Pearson in 1966, that principles and practice have developed with respect to bilingualism in the civil service.

Then at quite some length I try to summarize what has been done in terms of establishing language requirements in the public service. Every departmental unit operating in an area where between 40 and 60% of the population served has English or French as their mother tongue, must be staffed by employees with a sufficient knowledge of both languages to allow the people of the area to be served adequately.

By 1971 in the executive category 40% of the employees are expected to be bilingual; by 1975 60%. I don't want to belabour these things. I just want to tell you that in the civil service, objectives and methods have been established, the recruitment programme has been geared up, language training facilities have been expanded.

Just on that last subject: in 1964, the first public service language school was established with 42 students and four teachers. By 1971, a plateau of about 10,000 students will be reached, served by a staff of 500 academic personnel.

That was just to give you an idea of recent changes in the federal public service. Now the $64,000 question: are we on the right track? The B & B Commission in its Third Book, after describing the most unhappy situation of French-speaking employees in the federal civil service, after acknowledging that progress is being made in developing the use of French, after recognizing that its research was not able to take full account of the effects of post-1966 changes, and of changes in the education system in Quebec--changes that will have a direct bearing on recruitment in the civil service--nevertheless condemns the present orientation.

I quote:

"There has been no attempt to implement a policy on language of work, and nearly all the linguistic traditions and characteristics of the Public Service have put pressure on the Francophone employees to become assimilated into an Anglophone environment."

Their analysis is good. We are still far, far from the ideal of bilingualism in the civil service. Look at my own situation; for example, 85-90% of my work in the department is done in English. I happen to have been educated at the University of Ottawa, to have been close to English Canada, to have lived in England, so I get along in English. But is it fair to ask the same from the chap who has not had the same advantages, who hails from St. Gregoire or Nicolet? He hasn't got a chance to become Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce! The consequence of the system is that even I cannot easily talk copper, or nickel, or auto-pact, or even GATT in my own language, because all the briefings I have had on these subjects have been in English.

So in my case and in very many other cases, in a majority of cases, French is not really a language of work yet in the Ottawa offices of the Federal Government. The Commission, notwithstanding the progress being made, thinks that such a situation will not come about and that we should create unilingual French and English units, both at regional offices and at headquarters, to correspond to (although not to duplicate we are told) existing units in their function. It also recommends that some existing units be reorganized with French language sections or "clusters" so that in these clusters, French could become a fully accepted and generally practised language of work. In other words, "pools" of French-speaking personnel would become located here and there throughout the Public Service.

You have read that in the press. It has been reported rather strangely at times. Some people have not really bothered too much about reading what the Commission has said and if you read what the Commission said you will realize it is far from being crazy as some of the English papers have made it out to be.

What do I think about the concept? We will all need more time to assess the recommendations properly, to study them properly in the House and in the Cabinet; but my first reaction is to say that, while recognizing the need for the Public Service Commission to focus urgently on "language of work", in my way of thinking the conclusions are premature. The Commission doesn't give a fair chance to present policies to take effect or for present policies to be improved upon.

Secondly, the French unit and the English unit system (because there will be English units too) would be second best. It is a solution of second or last resort and one that should be adopted only if the present policy fails to make equality of opportunity a reality. I hope and believe this will not materialize. Even at that, unilingual units should be the exception and not the general practice as suggested by the B and B.

These are preliminary views. Again, I think the conclusions of the Commission are premature and I think the solution suggested is second-best, but I say that without drama because people should be aware, as the Commission itself observed, that such unilingual units already exist in Ottawa at headquarters and in Quebec. For example, already CBC works in both French and English separately, as does the National Film Board. There is a good list of examples in the B & B Report of such units, in both languages. So let's not be overly dramatic, let's not go to war too fast on these subjects.

The Commission has done a serious analysis and it is appalling to hear somebody, as did Mr. Hees yesterday in the House, regret that seven million dollars were spent on the Commission, when we know very well that this is the price at which the Bonaventure is being offered now for scrap! It seems to me that the B & B Commission is quite as important as a squadron of planes or the winter-works programme!

I would have liked to talk also, but I haven't got time, about what is being done in the provinces for bilingualism. I would have liked to talk about bilingualism in business also.

In business, as in government, language of service and language of work considerations must both be taken into account. Language of service poses less of a problem for business, because good business sense and self interest make it clear that, at least for consumer-oriented firms, bilingualism is necessary. Language of work considerations on the other hand, are more subtle. They apply mainly to firms with large holdings in Quebec or other French-speaking areas of Canada. I said a long time ago that it is quite normal that French should be the principal working language for firms established in Quebec and other French-speaking areas but I have always said up to a certain level, up to the highest possible level too.

My position is quite similar to that taken by Professor Scott in his dissenting view in the B & B Commission Report (Volume 3B) on that particular item. It is normal that French should become generally speaking the principal working language in Quebec in business. It is normal that in the plants and in the mines, the language of the local population should be predominant. There is nothing revolutionary about that. Go and see the oil wells in Venezuela and you will realize that the American engineers there speak Spanish. What is good enough for Venezuela is good enough for Quebec!

Any company which does not recognize that doesn't play the game fairly. Some do and many don't and, of course, things are improving here also and I agree with Bill 63 on that subject.

On the other hand the English language is the principal language of business and science and politics in the world. A company or an individual cannot operate in the context of the North American market or the even larger international market without being able to operate in English. It is a fact of life and neither legislation nor prayers nor riots will change that. As a matter of fact it will aggravate it .... I am not talking about prayers, I am talking about riots!

Consequently, any company or individual in Francophone Canada who does not possess a facility in English is handicapped; more or less of course depending on his ambitions, and the scope of his activity. If he intends to stay in some parts of my riding, he may not be handicapped at all.

Thus while I would agree with the Royal Commission that it is desirable that French become as widespread as possible in Quebec, I think that idealism should be tempered with pragmatism. The B & B Commission has recommended that: "In the private sector in Quebec, government and industry adopt the objective that French become the principal language of work at all levels," I repeat--"at all levels". I doubt very much if this is possible. It would certainly provide lots of work for translators! Once an employer's activities spread beyond, as I said, the French-speaking community into the world of business using English--and that may at times include France, and probably French-from-France companies working in Canada--the employee at a senior level would inevitably find himself obliged to know and use English.

I don't think we should be defeatist about it. I think francophones should fight back .... I always say, "Francophones of the world unite" and the invitation is extended to all intelligent Anglophones--for political, economic or cultural reasons!

So if we are really serious about the philosophy of bilingualism, about the "equal partnership", the private sector will become as involved as governments are. It is up to you too then. It is our business, it is your business. I hope I have done something to make you feel that way. This is not a subject on which one can say, "Well, leave that to Trudeau or Marchand or Pepin."

There have been many examples of people--some of those present here are among them -who have made a contribution to the subject. The government cannot do everything; the private sector has a crucial role to play.

Every legitimate means must be used to bring about the objective. I once tried to devise some slogans to promote bilingualism, modifying existing ones. Some of them might intrigue you:

"Does she or doesn't she--(speak French)?" "The man of distinction is . . . bilingual." "Bilingualism for those who think young." But I have recently found a still better one: "Bilingualism--it takes away the fear of being close."

It has been my pleasure, gentlemen, to be close to you today. I have enjoyed it. I hope you didn't mind it too much!

Mr. Pepin was thanked on behalf of The Empire Club by Mr. E. B. Jolliffe.