Dispersed Minorities and
Segmental Autonomy:
French-Language School Boards in Canada
EDMUND A. AUNGER
___________________________________________________________________________________________
An ethnic minority is
more likely to gain political autonomy if it is geographically concentrated;
such autonomy is rare when the minority is territorially dispersed. This article examines Canada's recent
experience in granting segmental autonomy to its dispersed French-speaking
minority. After more than a century of
majority rule in the field of education, most Canadian provinces have only now
established French-language school boards responsible for administering
minority schools. The adoption of this
new policy was unexpected; its implementation was achieved with great
difficulty. The province of Alberta,
where French-language school boards were established in 1994, serves as an
instructive case study of the implementation, the organization and the
structure of segmental autonomy in education.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The
difficulty in governing a society characterized by separate and self-contained
ethnic groups has been widely acknowledged.
Gabriel Almond, in his classic typology of comparative political
systems, asserted that all fragmented societies were likely to be unstable.[1] A fragmented society was defined by its
multiple political cultures, rather than by multiple ethnic groups;
nevertheless, the proposition has been frequently generalized to encompass any
plural society regardless of the dividing cleavage. Ethnic divisions have proved to be a particularly durable
cleavage, refusing to dissipate with political development and with functional
modernization as Rokkan once predicted so convincingly.[2]
While
recognizing the dangers posed by deep social divisions and conflicting ethnic
loyalties, Lijphart has proposed a model of political governance that holds out
the promise of democratic stability.[3] In Lijphart's
view, majoritarian and adversarial governments stimulate violence and
disintegration in plural societies, while coalescent and consociational
governments contribute to both democracy and unity. The defining characteristics of consociational government are
grand coalition, mutual veto, proportionality and segmental autonomy.
Segmental
autonomy means minority rule, not in all domains, but in the area of the
minority's exclusive concern. While
matters of mutual concern are to be resolved by joint agreement reached through
the mechanisms of coalition, veto and proportionality, matters of particular
concern are to be resolved by delegating authority to the individual
segments. In this way, segmental
autonomy removes sensitive and potentially destabilizing issues from the larger
political arena. It reduces the
likelihood that such issues will be subject to inter-ethnic competition. Further, although this is often left unsaid,
such autonomy is likely to provide a just guarantee of minority rights. Important minority concerns will not be left
to the discretion of an unsympathetic majority.
The
separation and isolation of the various segmental groups have been deemed an
important condition of consociational government.[4] Clear
boundaries have the advantage of limiting contact between such groups and
thereby reduce the possibilities for conflict.
Leaders become the chief bridge between the segments and the possibility
of elite cooperation is enhanced. These
boundaries are maintained by separate political and social institutions or by
territorial segregation.
Territorial
segregation, in particular, facilitates segmental autonomy. In Belgium, for example, the geographic
separation of the official language communities has contributed significantly
to the recent creation of a federal state, where each community has
responsibility for educational, cultural, linguistic and personalizable matters
within its language region.[5] In Northern
Ireland, on the other hand, the territorial mixing of the two religious groups
has undermined consociational strategies, and particularly efforts to increase
minority autonomy. Catholics very
seldom constitute regional majorities and they have had great difficulty
gaining political control in local affairs.[6]
Education
is almost inevitably an issue of particular concern to ethnic minorities, not
the least because of its intrinsic links to such crucial areas as language,
culture and religion. A 1982 amendment
to the Canadian constitution, and subsequent jurisprudence, has guaranteed
official language minorities substantial control over their schools. This guarantee has had particularly
significant consequences for Canada's dispersed French-speaking minority.
This
article will examine the evolution of the minority education question and the
recent establishment of French-language school boards, with particular emphasis
on those Canadian provinces, notably Alberta, where French-speakers constitute
a dispersed minority. It is suggested
that these school boards provide an instructive example of segmental autonomy.
Dispersed Minorities
Taken as a whole, Canada's French-speaking
minority is not dispersed but concentrated: 87.5 per cent live in census
divisions where they are a majority (see Table 1). This situation may be attributed to the fact that 84.5 per cent
of Canada's French-speakers live in one province--the province of Quebec--where
they constitute a substantial, and ever-increasing, majority of the
population. According to the most
recent census, in 1991, French-speakers make up 83.3 per cent of Quebec's
population; and virtually all (99.9 per cent) of Quebec's French-speakers live
in census divisions where they are a majority.
In 1837, French-speakers made up 72 per cent of Quebec's population; in
1871, 78 per cent and, in 1931, 79 per cent.[7]
In
the other nine Canadian provinces, however, French-speakers are a relatively
small minority and their proportions have steadily declined. While in 1951 French-speakers made up 7.3
per cent of the population of Canada, excluding Quebec, by 1986 they numbered
only 5.0 per cent of this population.[8] The decline
was particularly marked in the most English-speaking regions of the country
where the proportion of French-speakers decreased during the same period from
3.4 per cent to 2.4 per cent.
In
each of these nine provinces, except New Brunswick, the minority is also
territorially dispersed. This
dispersion may be measured by calculating the level of minoritization in
Canada's 290 census divisions (see Table 1).
It should be noted, however, that this measure is influenced by the size
of the census divisions. In New
Brunswick, for example, where there are 15 divisions, the resulting
calculations show that 63.4 per cent of the French-speakers live in areas where
they constitute a majority. However, a
somewhat different measure, based on the smallest unit available, the
province's 277 census subdivisions, has previously shown that 74.3 per cent of
the French population live in areas where they are a majority.[9] If smaller
census units were used for other provinces, our measurements would similarly
show a somewhat greater concentration of the minority population.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF FRENCH-SPEAKERS IN CANADIAN PROVINCES,
BY CENSUS DIVISIONS, 1991
|
Province |
French-speaking |
Distribution by
Proportion |
|||
|
|
Population |
In Census Division |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
% |
10%+ |
50%+ |
90% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
British Columbia |
58,685 |
1.8 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Alberta |
64,655 |
2.5 |
8.4 |
- |
- |
|
Saskatchewan |
24,300 |
2.5 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Manitoba |
55,300 |
5.1 |
19.9 |
- |
- |
|
Ontario |
547,300 |
5.4 |
62.1 |
8.8 |
- |
|
Quebec |
5,746,625 |
83.3 |
100.0 |
99.9 |
62.1 |
|
New Brunswick |
250,175 |
34.6 |
92.9 |
63.4 |
14.0 |
|
Prince Edward Is |
6,285 |
4.8 |
73.3 |
- |
- |
|
Nova Scotia |
39,425 |
4.4 |
54.5 |
- |
- |
|
Newfoundland |
3,235 |
0.6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Canada |
6,798,575 |
24.9 |
93.6 |
87.5 |
53.0 |
Note. The French-speaking population is defined to include all those who
claimed French as their mother tongue.
It includes, for example, those who claimed French as their sole mother
tongue (95.7%) and those who claimed it as only one of two or more mother
tongues (4.3%). The latter situation is
most common in those regions, such as western Canada, where French-speakers are
a dispersed minority.
There are a total of 290 census
divisions in Canada, including 30 in British Columbia, 19 in Alberta, 18 in
Saskatchewan, 23 in Manitoba, 49 in Ontario, 99 in Quebec, 15 in New Brunswick,
3 in Prince Edward Island, 18 in Nova Scotia, 10 in Newfoundland, 5 in the
Northwest Territories and 1 in the Yukon Territory.
Source. Calculated from: Canada,
Statistics Canada, Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions, 13 vols
(Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1992).
For some purposes, the
absolute number of French-speakers in a region is more relevant than the
proportional number. The granting of
regional autonomy, particularly in educational services, for example, often
depends on the existence of a sufficient number of clients. Canadian legislation frequently limits the
provision of minority services to areas ‘where numbers warrant.’ Figure 1 shows
the regional dispersion of French-speakers (and English-speakers in Quebec) based
on the absolute number in each census subdivision. It confirms our earlier observation that French-speakers are
generally dispersed throughout the country, although there are important
regional variations. In New Brunswick,
the French-speaking minority is relatively concentrated; in Alberta and
Saskatchewan, however, it is much more widely scattered.
FIGURE 1
MAP OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE MINORITIES IN CANADA:
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, BY CENSUS SUBDIVISION, 1986
Note. This map shows the distribution
of English-speakers in Quebec, and French-speakers outside Quebec. Each dot is equal to 100 persons.
Source. Adapted from: Canada, Department of the Secretary of State, Annual
Report by the Secretary of State on his mandate with respect to official languages,
1988-1989 (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1989), p. 86.
If each of Canada's ten
provinces are treated as individual cases, and a measure of minoritization is
used to evaluate dispersion, then it may be concluded that French-speakers are
generally a dispersed minority. Quebec
and New Brunswick are the only exceptions to this conclusion. In both these provinces French-speakers
constitute local majorities. Indeed, as
noted earlier, Quebec's French-speakers are also a provincial majority and, for
this reason, the Quebec case will not be examined here. On the other hand, the New Brunswick case
will be retained for reasons of comparison; it provides an example of a
regionally-concentrated minority.
Majority Rule
Education is a provincial responsibility under
the Canadian constitution and, until 1982, no guarantees existed for
French-language schooling. Section 93
of the Constitution Act, 1867 protected denominational schools, both
Protestant and Catholic, in provinces where these schools already enjoyed legal
rights at the time of union. Insofar as
French-speakers were also Catholics, they thereby benefited from partial
protection, at least in some parts of the country. This protection was not needed in Quebec, of course, where they
enjoyed majority status. Since the
federal system recognized provincial autonomy in education, French-speaking
Quebecers were ultimately assured that they would control their own school
systems.
Elsewhere,
in the decades following Confederation, French-speakers were a minority and
subject to the dictates of an English-speaking Protestant majority. This majority lashed out against both
French-language and Catholic schools wherever these were perceived as
sufficiently important to warrant attention: English was imposed as the only
language of instruction. Majority rule
thus worked against the French-language minority. Minority rights were often suppressed. Stormy conflicts were the usual result.
In
New Brunswick, the provincial government adopted the Common Schools Act in
1871 and thereby imposed universal, non-denominational and, in effect,
English-language education, financed from public funds. Denominational schools were excluded from
such funding and Catholics withheld their school taxes in protest. The government took a hard line against this
opposition, confiscating private property to meet unpaid taxes. This policy garnered majority support and in
1874 the government was re-elected on the platform of `Vote for the Queen
against the Pope.' The resulting
polarization, however, lead to an outbreak of rioting in the French-speaking
village of Caraquet, following a contested school meeting.[10] Two people
were killed.
The
riots shocked the province and the Protestant government immediately initiated
negotiations with the Catholic opposition, derisively referred to as the
`French Brigade.' The negotiations were
secret and the resulting compromise was concealed from the public for some
eighteen years. The most significant
long-term consequence of the riots was a complete reversal in political
behaviour, from majority rule to overarching cooperation. Subsequent cabinets
were coalitions between English and French, Protestants and Catholics, Liberals
and Conservatives.[11] Various
cooperative strategies were introduced, including depolitization,
proportionality and compromise.
A
particularly important element in the new compromise was the authorization to
communicate and study in the French language in elementary schools.[12] English,
however, remained the primary language of instruction. The success of this agreement was due, in no
small part, to the regional isolation of the French-speaking community of the
time. Religious and language
concessions could be implemented with little effect on the English-speaking
Protestant majority and, often, without its knowledge. Further, because of their territorial
concentration, the French could easily exercise some local control in school
and municipal affairs. In 1967, when
the educational system was completely overhauled as part of the Equal
Opportunity Programme, there were some 422 school districts in the province,
each with financial and administrative autonomy.
In
western Canada, the demographic balance that had existed between the English-
and the French-speaking populations at the time of Confederation was upset by a
wave of immigration from Ontario during the 1880s. By 1901, French-speakers constituted only six per cent of the
population of the future province of Alberta and seven per cent of the
population of Manitoba. In both cases,
majority rule meant an end to minority rights.
In
Manitoba, the legislative assembly passed an Official Language Act in
1890 imposing English as the only language of the assembly and the courts,
thereby cancelling the official status of French. The same year, the legislature voted a Public Schools Act
that established a system of non-denominational schools under the direction of
a provincial advisory board.
Denominational schools were not entitled to public funding while, within
the public system, instruction in French and the teaching of religion were
prohibited by the advisory board.[13] The
establishment of a non-denominational English-language system met with vigorous
protests from the French-speaking Catholic minority. A temporary compromise was negotiated between the federal and
provincial governments in 1896 permitting religious instruction and the use of
French where numbers warranted. These
provisions were repealed in 1916, however.
In
the Northwest Territories, the legislative assembly similarly adopted a
resolution in 1892 declaring English to be the sole language of its proceedings
and records. The same year, the School
Ordinance was amended to establish English as the only language of
instruction.[14] A subsequent
modification allowed for the teaching of a primary course in the French
language, if this instruction was limited to one hour per day and if the
parents were willing to pay a special rate.
These provisions were carried over into the newly-created provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905.
English continued to be the only language of instruction permitted in
the schools of these provinces, with minor exceptions, until 1968.
In
Ontario, the province with the largest French-speaking minority, the School
Act originally made no provision for the language of instruction. French-language instruction was tolerated in
publicly-funded schools until at least 1889.
This tolerance was apparently based on the assumption that the
assimilation of Ontario's French-speakers was inevitable in such an
English-speaking province, and that it could best be achieved voluntarily,
without coercive measures.[15] Nevertheless,
when the French-speaking population showed no sign of waning, sterner measures
were deemed necessary. In 1885 new
regulations imposed the use of English (for a minimum of two hours in the lower
grades and four hours in the upper grades) and also required that every
teaching candidate pass examinations in English grammar. In 1889 further regulations removed all
French-language textbooks from the list of authorized books. A more draconian measure was adopted in 1912
when Regulation 17 prohibited the use of French as a language of instruction. This regulation was actively resisted, and
even defied, by many Franco-Ontarians; indeed, some French-language elementary
schools continued to operate within the separate school system. The regulation was repealed in 1927.
Historically,
then, majority rule has not worked to the advantage of Canada's dispersed
French-speaking minority. Wherever
French-speakers were found in significant numbers, the provincial governments
intervened to prohibit the use of French as a language of instruction. New Brunswick is the major exception to this
trend. However, in that province, the
French-speaking population was territorially concentrated and the government
adopted a consociational strategy.
Segmental Autonomy
In this context, the introduction of segmental
autonomy in French-language education appears as an unexpected and unusual
development. Except in New Brunswick,
this autonomy may be traced in large measure to the adoption of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a part of the Constitution Act, 1982. This charter provided for minority-language
educational rights; it was not immediately apparent that these rights also
included the management and control of minority schools.
The
modern roots of the movement to establish French-language schooling may be
found in the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.[16] This
commission of inquiry was appointed in 1963 in response to growing political
unrest in Quebec: an ever-increasing number of French-speakers demanded greater
protection for their language and greater autonomy for their province. André Laurendeau, editor-in-chief of the
influential Montreal daily newspaper Le Devoir, was the first to express
the need for such a commission, and he was subsequently appointed its
co-chairman.
In
its 1968 volume on education, the commission recommended that the
official-language minority be guaranteed its owns schools in districts where it
constituted ten per cent or more of the population and in urban centres where
the number of eligible students made it practicable.[17]
Significantly, however, no recommendation was made for autonomous
minority-language school boards. On the
contrary, where there were French and English schools in a district, these
would be under the jurisdiction of the same school board. It was, however, suggested that this board
include representatives of each language group.
Although
the recommendations of the federal commission were in no way binding, they were
to have considerable influence on public opinion and government policy. Pierre Trudeau, prime minister of Canada
between 1968 and 1984, was eager to expand French-language services throughout
Canada, rather than to devolve greater political autonomy to Quebec. By strengthening the French-speaking
presence outside Quebec, Trudeau hoped to successfully combat separatist sentiments
within Quebec: French-speaking
nationalists might thereby be induced to identify with Canada, rather than with
Quebec. The Canadian government, rather
than the Quebec government, could then claim to be most appropriate spokesman
for the country's French-speakers.[18] Thus, the
political dissatisfaction expressed by Quebecers provided the impetus for
increased services to French-speakers living outside Quebec. In 1968, Trudeau's government adopted its
first Official Languages Act, granting official status to both English
and French and promising bilingual services in districts throughout Canada
where there was sufficient demand.
New
Brunswick was the first province to respond in a substantial way to the
commission's recommendations when it adopted its own Official Languages Act
in 1969. Section 12 of this act, as
proclaimed in 1976, required that instruction in the province's schools be in
the mother tongue of the pupil: English instruction for English pupils and
French instruction for French pupils.
In 1981, however, New Brunswick went even further by amending section
3.1 of the Schools Act to provide for the organization of both schools
and school districts on the basis of official language. Because of the geographic concentration of
the two language groups, this language-based structure was largely compatible
with a traditional territory-based administration. In one area, however, the bilingual Moncton region, a
French-language district and an English-language district occupied the same
territory.
This
act also provided for the creation of minority school boards in regions where
the population density was too low to justify the creation of a second
district. For example, an
English-language minority board was created to administer a single school in
the French-language district of Edmundston.
There are now a total of six French-language majority school boards in
New Brunswick, with responsibility for nearly 50,000 pupils and 145 schools.[19]
In
the decade following the commission's report, the question of French-language
education in the other English-speaking provinces became an increasingly
prominent political issue. Federal
language legislation, proclaiming as it did the official equality of English
and French, greatly enhanced the social and political status of the French
language in the country as a whole; but it could not extend language equality
to education since this was a provincial responsibility. Federal declarations concerning the equal
status of the two languages appeared strikingly incongruous when confronted
with the reality: publicly-funded French-language schooling was virtually
non-existent outside Quebec and New Brunswick.
In
1976, when the Parti Québécois, a party seeking to create an independent
Quebec state, was swept to power in the provincial elections, political
attention was again focused on the crisis in French-English relations. The new Quebec government deliberately drew
attention to the harsh treatment of the French-speaking minority outside Quebec
and publicly compared it with the privileged situation of the English-speaking
minority in Quebec. French-language
education became a political issue associated with national unity and
constitutional reform.
In
1977, the ten provincial premiers, following a meeting in St. Andrews, New
Brunswick, issued a statement of support for minority-language education:
Recognizing our concern for maintenance and where
indicated, development of minority language rights in Canada; and recognizing
that education is the foundation on which language and culture rest; The
Premiers agree that they will make their best efforts to provide instruction in
education in English and French wherever numbers warrant.[20]
This consensus later found expression in section 23 of
the Constitution Act, 1982 where provision was made for minority
language educational rights (see Table 2).
For example, the French-speaking minority was guaranteed the right to
have their children educated in French, at both the primary and secondary
school level. More specifically, they
were entitled to ‘minority language educational facilities provided out of
public funds’ wherever the number of eligible children so warranted. Similar provision was made for the
English-speaking minority in Quebec.
Children
were entitled to receive a French-language education if their parents met any
one of three possible conditions: they were citizens of Canada who had French
as their mother tongue, or had received their primary school instruction in
French, or had a child who had received school instruction in French. Since French-language education was, until
this time, relatively rare in most of the English-majority provinces, the first
criteria, based on mother tongue, was generally the most relevant.
An
important issue, given the dispersion of French-speakers, was the
interpretation to be given to the qualification ‘where the number of those
children so warrants.’ This was
interpreted quite differently by each provincial government. In the primary schools, for example, the
right to French-language education in a school district was warranted to exist
if, in British Columbia, there were 10 pupils; in Manitoba, 23 pupils; in
Ontario, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, 25 pupils; in New Brunswick, 30
pupils.[21] In general,
however, the courts were unwilling to set an exact number, claiming instead
that each case should be judged on its merits.
TABLE 2
MINORITY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS IN CANADA,
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, 1982
Section 23.
(1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned
and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority
population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their
primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a
province where the language in which they received that instruction is the
language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the
province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary
school instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom
any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction
in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children
receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of
Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and
secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French
linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the
province the number of children of citizens
who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of
public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number
of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction
in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Source. Canada, Department of Justice.
A Consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982
(Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services,
1989).
It
was not immediately obvious that the right to French-language schooling might
also include a guarantee of segmental autonomy. This question hinged on the interpretation given to the
expression ‘minority language educational facilities’ or, as the French text
indicated, ‘des établissements d'enseignement de la minorité linguistique’. The term ‘facilities’ appeared to refer
simply to a physical site while the expression ‘établissements de la
minorité’ seemed to imply a management structure. The fact that the Canadian parliament had explicitly chosen ‘établissements’
as a replacement for the more restrictive term ‘installations’ found in
the original French-language draft of the bill, underlined the significance of
this wording.
Several
minority group representatives had requested that the minority's right to
manage their schools be recognized in the constitution. However, Jean Chrétien, the minister of
justice at that time, did not support this request, arguing that the proposed
constitutional guarantee should not go beyond the provincial consensus; since
education was a provincial responsibility it was judged unwise for the federal
government to impose its views in the matter.
In proposing that the bill be amended to include the term ‘établissements’,
Chrétien suggested simply that this would permit minority schools to adopt
modern educational technologies that extended beyond the walls of a specific
facility.[22] In any case,
it was to be left to the courts to ensure that the provinces did not
discriminate against the French-speaking minority and that schooling of equal
quality was made available.
The
courts supported a generous interpretation of minority- language education
rights. In 1984 the Ontario Court of
Appeal ruled, in the Education Act Reference, that s.23 implicitly
granted French-speakers the right to participation in the management and
control of their French-language educational facilities.[23] This right
would be realized if French-speaking representatives were given exclusive
authority over their facilities, including the responsibility for the
expenditure of funds and the appointment of administrators. In the view of the court, majority rule had
in the past led to unfortunate consequences, including the denial of French-language
schools. In 1987, the Alberta Court of
Appeal, in Mahé v. R., arrived at a similar conclusion when it asserted
the need for exclusive control by the French-speaking minority: ‘Any diminution
in that power inevitably dilutes the uniqueness of the school and opens it to
the influence of an insensitive if not hostile majority.’[24]
The
Supreme Court of Canada, in its 1990 judgment in the Mahé case, confirmed the
right of the French-speaking minority in Canada (and the English-speaking
minority in Quebec) to manage and control its schools. Where the number of students was sufficient,
the court ruled that the required degree of control could be attained through
the creation of an independent French-language school board. Otherwise, the condition could be met by the
representation of the French-speaking minority within an existing school
board. Even in this latter case,
however, the minority was to be given exclusive power for decisions pertaining
to instruction in its French-language schools, including: the expenditure of
funds for these schools; the appointment and the supervision of administrators
in these schools; the establishment of school programmes; the recruitment and
the placement of personnel, particularly teachers; and the concluding of agreements
for teaching minority students and for providing services.[25] The public
funds provided must be sufficient to ensure that the schooling given the
French-speaking minority is equal in quality to that given the majority.
Clearly,
then, the Canadian constitution guarantees the French-speaking minority
significant autonomy in the control of its schools although this autonomy may
be accomplished using various management models. Most provinces, however, were recalcitrant in granting this
autonomy and yielded only when so obligated by the courts, following litigation
by the French-speaking minority. At the
time of the Supreme Court decision in the Mahé case in 1990, the most common
management model was the optional advisory committee.[26] These
committees were composed of French-speaking parents and established at the
discretion of the English-language school board. They existed in six provinces but had only a consultative role;
they did not give the minority decision-making power.
As we
have noted, the first autonomous French-language school boards were created in
New Brunswick in 1981, i.e., before the adoption of the constitutional
amendment guaranteeing minority language educational rights. Ontario followed next with the creation of
French-language school boards for Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton in
1989, and for Prescott-Russell in 1991.
Elsewhere in the province, however, responsibility for French-language
schools belongs to English-language school boards, although it is shared with
their French-language sections or advisory committees. Prince Edward Island created a province-wide
French-language school board in 1990.
Nova Scotia established a French-language school board for Halifax in
1992, but the situation remains unresolved in other regions of the
province. The western provinces of
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba each created French-language school boards
in 1994. Alberta established three
French-language school boards and three coordinating councils, while
Saskatchewan established eight French-language school boards. Manitoba, on the other hand, established a
province-wide Franco-Manitoban School Division regrouping 20 schools and 4,200
students.[27] No agreement
has yet been reached concerning French-language school boards in British
Colombia or Newfoundland.
It is
not feasible to examine each of these cases in detail. However, the Alberta situation will be
studied further in order to cast light on the characteristics of the
newly-established French-language school boards, as well as the conditions
leading to their creation. This will
allow a better understanding of the segmental autonomy granted to Canada's
dispersed French-speaking minority.
Alberta
The Alberta government supported the principle
of French-language minority schools in 1977 at St. Andrews and subsequently
approved the 1982 amendment to the Canadian constitution. Nevertheless, it vigorously resisted the
actual establishment of these schools in the province.
In
its policy statement on minority language instruction, formally announced in
1978, the government explained that French-language instruction might be
offered, but it was to be open to all language groups. Alberta refused to make a distinction
between a French immersion school, where French was taught to English-speakers,
and a French minority school, where French was taught to French-speakers: ‘It
will continue to be our policy to allow admission to French language programmes
regardless of mother-tongue.’[28] The result,
given the minority status of French-speakers and the widespread interest among
English-speakers for French instruction, was that Alberta's French-language
schools were, in reality, French immersion schools. The schools were largely oriented to English-speakers and became
yet another instrument for assimilating the French-speaking minority. In 1981-82, when the Canadian constitution
was amended, there were 13,131 students registered in Alberta's French-language
schools. It is doubtful that more than
20 per cent of these were native French-speakers.
In
1982 a group of French-speaking parents in Edmonton contacted, first, the
minister of education and then, subsequently, the Edmonton Public School Board
and the Edmonton Catholic School Board, to request a French-language minority
school. When this request was refused,
the parents took their case to court claiming that the province's School Act
contravened s.23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the Mahé case, the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench supported the parents and, in 1985, it ordered the province to
make specific provision for French-language minority schools. The province agreed to recognize minority
schools, as distinct from immersion schools and, in 1988, adopted a new School
Act that provided an explicit declaration of the right of the
French-speaking minority to school instruction in French.
The
new School Act still did not provide for the management of these schools
by the French-speaking minority, however, and the parents of the Bugnet
Association continued their court battle.
In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, as noted earlier, that
French-speakers were entitled to manage and control their schools. French-language schools that were not
managed by the French-speaking minority were not true minority schools and did
not meet the standards imposed by the constitution. The court ordered the province to enact legislation that would
put into place a minority language education scheme consistent with s.23 of the
charter.
The
provincial government reacted negatively to this decision and it threatened to
override the minority guarantee by using the constitution's so-called
`notwithstanding' clause. When advised
that this clause was not applicable to s.23, the government reluctantly
produced a working paper that reviewed the key points of the court decision and
examined two different models of school management.[29] In 1991 it
appointed a French Language Working Group, chaired by a member of the
legislative assembly and composed of nine members representing the principal
stakeholders, including the French-speaking population. This group was charged with making
recommendations for a management model that would meet the criteria set out by
the Supreme Court and that would be relevant to the situation in Alberta. Its recommendations were unanimous and, a
year later, the minister of education appointed a Francophone School Governance
Implementation Committee, chaired by an assistant deputy minister and composed
of seven other members. The committee's
mandate was to propose a strategy for the implementation of the working group's
recommendations. Finally, in 1993, the
legislative assembly adopted an amendment to the School Act that
provided for minority school boards and coordinating councils. These were established in 1994.
The
Alberta government had doggedly resisted the introduction of French-language
minority schools for many years.
However, following the Supreme Court decision in 1990, it initiated
school reforms that were consistent with the constitutional guarantees and with
Alberta's particular situation.
Significantly, these reforms were developed in close consultation with
the French-speaking population of the province.
An
important feature of the new school system was the creation of seven new school
districts, described in the newly-amended School Act as Francophone Education
Regions (see Figure 2.) The decision to
create a regional system, rather than one province-wide system, reflected a
consensus in the French-speaking community that a regional system would provide
closer links with the population, thus ensuring: greater popular participation,
more efficient response to different needs and better delivery of services. In general, it was felt that such a system
would be more democratic and more sensitive to regional differences within the
province.[30]
FIGURE 2
MAP OF FRANCOPHONE EDUCATION REGIONS IN ALBERTA, 1994
Note. The cities and towns marked on
the map are communities that currently possess French-language schools.
Source. Guide de mise en oeuvre de la gestion scolaire francophone
(Edmonton: Alberta Education, School Business Administration Services, 1994),
p. 8.
Given the size of the province and the distribution of
its French-speaking population, a regional system was an appropriate
choice. The province of Alberta has an
area of 661,190 sq. km., making it 16 per cent larger than France. On average, each of the new education
regions is three times the size of Belgium and more than twice the size of
Estonia. Further, the French-speaking
population in Alberta, like that in Saskatchewan, is not concentrated in any
one region of the province. This
contrasts considerably with the situation in Manitoba or in Prince Edward
Island, where there is greater concentration and where province-wide districts
were created. In Prince Edward Island,
for example, the original French-language school board had jurisdiction only
for the Evangeline Region, home to the great majority of the province's French-speakers. Later, at the request of the French-speaking
minority, the board's jurisdiction was extended to all French-speakers,
whatever their place of residence, thereby giving the board province-wide
authority.
TABLE
3
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN ALBERTA SCHOOLS,
BY FRANCOPHONE EDUCATION REGION, 1993
|
Francophone |
|
Students |
Students |
Students |
|
||
|
Education |
Urban |
enrolled in |
eligible for |
enrolled in |
French |
||
|
Region |
centre |
all schools |
French schools |
French schools |
schools |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. 1 |
Peace River |
29,838 |
2,420 |
8.1 |
265 |
0.9 |
1 |
|
No. 2 |
Fort McMurray |
9,239 |
525 |
5.7 |
60 |
1.5 |
1 |
|
No. 3 |
St. Paul |
14,836 |
2,435 |
16.4 |
362 |
2.4 |
3 |
|
No. 4 |
Edmonton |
197,581 |
9,895 |
5.0 |
951 |
0.5 |
5 |
|
No. 5 |
Red Deer |
34,550 |
925 |
2.7 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
No. 6 |
Calgary |
155,789 |
4,810 |
3.1 |
434 |
0.1 |
2 |
|
No. 7 |
Lethbridge |
43,678 |
860 |
2.0 |
33 |
0.4 |
1 |
|
Total |
|
485,511 |
21,870 |
4.5 |
2,105 |
0.4 |
13 |
Note. The figures for student enrollments are for grades one through
twelve in publicly-supported schools as of 30 September 1993. The 17,103 students enrolled in private
schools are not included. The number of
students eligible for French-language schooling under s.23 is an estimate
calculated from the 1991 census results.
It measures the number of students, ages five to seventeen, who have a
French-speaking mother or father.
Sources. Calculated from: `Inscriptions
dans les écoles francophones de l'Alberta', Le Chaînon: Bulletin
d'information de la Fédération des parents francophones de l'Alberta v7 n2
(1993), p. 3; Enrollments by School
and Grade within Original Jurisdiction as at September 30, 1993 (Edmonton:
Alberta Education, Grants Planning and Administration Branch, 1993); Guide
de mise en oeuvre de la gestion scolaire francophone (Edmonton: Alberta
Education, School Business Administration Services, 1994), p. 10.
The regional system adopted in
Alberta was generally preferred to another possible alternative: a system based
on a large number of small local districts.
It was feared that if the districts were too small, the population base
would also be too small; it would be difficult to create educational
institutions comparable to those of the majority. Further, the choice of a regional system was consistent with the
provincial government's announced intention to amalgamate smaller school
districts and to establish larger regional divisions. (The number of English-language districts was subsequently
reduced from 146 to 57.)
The
Francophone Education Regions are a realistic reflection of the geographic
distribution of the French-speaking minority.
Examination of the distribution map (see Figure 1) shows that the great
majority of the province's French-speakers are located in four major areas of
the province. These are: Edmonton,
Calgary, St.Paul-Bonnyville and Peace River-Fahler. There are also smaller populations in Red Deer, Fort McMurray and
Lethbridge. These various urban
clusters provide natural centres for education regions that encompass the
entire province (see Table 3).
The
amended School Act also provided for the creation of Francophone
Regional Authorities in each region, that is, French-language school
boards. (According to s.6, any
reference in the law to a school board is deemed to apply to a regional
authority.) The new authorities were mandated
to manage and control the French minority schools of their region. This includes responsibility for: tracking
eligible students and facilitating their education in French, representing
French-speaking parents, promoting French-language instruction in the province,
maintaining links with other regional authorities, and developing rules and
regulations for French education.[31] As school
boards, they were also empowered, by the School Act, to: establish
policies for the provision of educational services and programmes; offer
courses, programmes and instructional materials for use in schools; to employ
teachers and non-teaching personnel including administrators and supervisors;
to maintain and furnish their real property; to make rules respecting the
attendance and transportation of students and, generally, all matters within
their jurisdiction.
Each
regional authority is composed of five members elected by the French-speaking
population of the region. The School
Act grants voting rights, first and foremost, to the parents of students
registered in the minority schools of the region. However, it also authorizes the minister of education to extend
the franchise to other French-speakers, particularly those whose children are
eligible for the minority schools, even if these children are not yet (or are
no longer) registered. The first
elections were organized in 1994 by the Fédération des parents francophones
de l'Alberta. Subsequent elections,
held in October 1995 and then every three years thereafter, are the
responsibility of the regional authority.
The
amended School Act also provides, in section 223.3, for the transfer of
the necessary facilities and employees from the existing school boards to the
new regional authorities. It is
incumbent on the boards and the authorities to negotiate the transfer of this
property; however, the minister reserves the right to intervene where no
agreement is reached within three months.
In 1994, employees in the minority schools were free to transfer to the
new authority or to remain with their existing board. The authorities were required to respect the employment contracts
currently in effect until their normal expiry.
Where the property and the employees were already closely identified
with the French minority schools, these transfers generally took place without
incident. Other cases were more
controversial. For example, in St.
Paul, where the existing French minority school was badly overcrowded, the
regional authority requested the transfer of an English-language school
attended, in great majority, by students eligible for the French minority
programme. The school board refused
this request and the minister of education was forced to settle the issue. A new French minority school will be
constructed.
In
1994 the school boards lost their traditional power to levy school taxes. This had been the source of 42 per cent of
their income in 1993. These taxes are
now to be collected solely by the provincial government and then redistributed
proportionately according to the number of students served by the board. School boards currently receive a provincial
grant of about $4,200 per student for school maintenance and teaching. Additional grants are determined by the
specific characteristics of the district, including its size, population density,
student needs and programme costs. Thus,
for example, in 1994-95, regional authorities received a further grant of $332
per elementary student and $406 per secondary student to meet the costs of
French-language instruction.[32] As the result
of an agreement signed with the Government of Canada in October 1993, the
Government of Alberta received federal funding to assist the implementation of
the new French-language school system. It received, for example, federal grants
of $5.4 million for school management costs, $6.4 million for programme development
and $4.5 million for school construction.[33]
In
planning the management of minority education in Alberta, the provincial
government had considered two possible models.[34] The first
model, a `designated positions' model, would have reserved places for
French-speaking trustees on existing English-language school boards. The second model, a `regional board' model,
proposed the creation of new French-language school boards in regions where
there were large numbers of French-speaking students. Both models would have met the standards imposed by the Supreme
Court in the Mahé case. However, the
major interest groups, the Fédération des parents francophones de l'Alberta,
the Alberta School Trustees Association and the Alberta Teachers Association,
all gave their support to the second model.
Consequently, the government decided, with some reluctance, that the
`regional board' model would be `more workable.' Compared to its alternative, this model seemed likely to ensure
that, in the future, disputes between English and French trustees over
jurisdiction and rôles would be avoided.
The
new regional authorities were intended for regions where there were a
sufficient number of minority students.
Nevertheless, the actual establishment of an authority by the minister
of education was to be made at the request of the region's French-speaking
parents. Four regions, centred in
Edmonton, Calgary, St. Paul and Peace River, appeared to meet the required
minimum for students (see Table 3).
However, French-speakers in Calgary opposed the immediate creation of a
regional authority, undoubtedly because it would have jeopardized the Roman
Catholic School Board's plan to construct a new French minority school and
community centre. Thus, only three
regional authorities were established in 1994.
Francophone
Coordinating Councils were established in Calgary and in the two other regions
where there were French minority schools.
The amended School Act charged the councils, in section 223.7, to
facilitate the French-language education of minority students and to advise
school boards on all matters relating to this education. The councils lacked the autonomy granted to
the school boards, but they were clearly expected to be a temporary measure. If successful in expanding French-language
instruction in the region, the councils would contribute to their own demise:
they would be dissolved, to be replaced by a regional authority.
Alberta's
French-language school boards have been in operation for less than a year and a
full assessment is undoubtedly premature.
Some preliminary observations may be made, however. First, it is evident that, by freeing the
French minority schools from English-language school boards, the potential for
English-French tensions has been significantly reduced. This is particularly true in the Edmonton
region where disputes over minority schools have marred relations for more than
a decade. Second, it appears that
French-language schooling will now be more responsive to the needs of the
French-speaking community. This
community is now able to take a more active role in the development of its
education and to provide a wider-range of French-language educational services.
Significant
problems remain. While the granting of
minority education rights was clearly intended to repair past injustice, the
clock cannot be turned back. The great
majority of French-speakers in Alberta were, until recently, educated in
English. Their children often speak
English as their mother tongue. It is
estimated that only 20 per cent of those students who are eligible for minority
schooling, as guaranteed by s.23, are in fact native French-speakers.[35] The
English-speaking children of French-speaking parents are more likely to be
registered in French immersion schools, than in French minority schools.[36] Nevertheless,
these children pose a particular dilemma for the French-language school boards.
For
many French-speaking Albertans, religion is as important as language in
defining their cultural values. Most
French-speakers are also Roman Catholic and most French-language schools were,
until 1994, governed by Roman Catholic separate school boards. In the battle for French-language schools,
some French-speakers have seen separate English and French educational systems
as creating an undesirable schism within the Catholic community. Other French-speakers, a minority, have
actively sought the creation of non-denominational French-language
schools. The first major decision
facing the new regional authorities has been the determination of their
denominational status. In Edmonton, the
authority has chosen a Roman Catholic identity.
It
should also be noted that the autonomy accorded the regional authorities and,
indeed, all school boards, has limits.
Ultimate responsibility for education remains with the provincial
government, and with the minister of education. This includes, for example, the right to collect school taxes, to
certify teachers and to determine curriculum.
French-speakers generally lack autonomy within Alberta Education,
although a separate branch, the Language Services Branch, exists to provide
support to French-language and other non-English schools. Consequently, the French-speaking community
has called for the creation of a separate Francophone Division responsible for
French minority schooling.[37] This
division, to be headed by an assistant deputy minister, would ensure that
French-speakers have even greater control of their education system. A similar, but more comprehensive reform,
was adopted in New Brunswick in 1981 when the ministry of education was divided
into separate French and English sections, each headed by a deputy minister.
Conclusion
The
Canadian experience suggests that it is difficult for a dispersed minority to
obtain segmental autonomy. Many
provincial governments effectively banned French-language instruction until the
1960s. A combination of political
events, notably the statutory recognition of French as an official language in
1968 and the electoral victory of an independence party in Quebec in 1976,
contributed to the constitutional reform that guaranteed minority schools in
1982. This constitutional guarantee was
the all-important step on a tortuous path, marked by frequent litigation, that
is only now culminating in the establishment of French-language school
boards. Nevertheless, in most cases,
this autonomy was conceded by the provinces under duress. Segmental autonomy was implemented because
it was ordered by the courts.
A
recent referendum in Quebec has raised some questions as to the future of
Canada's French-speaking minority and their constitutionally-guaranteed
language rights. In a referendum held
on 30 October 1995, Quebecers narrowly defeated (50.6% to 49.4%) a proposition
to create an independent Quebec state.
The narrowness of this margin has convinced many that the future
separation of Quebec is inevitable.
Further, the governing Parti Québécois is committed to a third
referendum on this question. (In the
first referendum, held in May 1980, a government proposition to negotiate
independence while continuing political association, a regime described as
Sovereignty-Association, was defeated 60% to 40%.) If Quebec became independent, would Canada maintain its
constitutional guarantees for the French language?
In a
Canada without Quebec, the remaining one million French-speakers would
constitute only 5.2 per cent of the population. Although they would still be the country's largest language
minority, some analysts suggest that their numbers would be too small to justify
their current constitutional rights, particularly in the face of an
English-speaking majority angry at the break-up its country. According to Roger Gibbons: ‘The francophone population, stripped of the
political protection afforded by Quebec, would be too small to warrant
constitutional protection . . . . In
all probability, the official-languages sections of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms would be repealed at the first opportunity.’[38]
It is
difficult to predict the full consequences of the possible break-up of
Canada. Certainly, there are other
countries where language minorities have achieved official recognition even
though they number less than five per cent of the population (and much less
than one million persons). Switzerland,
for example, has long recognized Italian as a national language (since 1874)
and as an official language (since 1938), although today only 4.5 per cent (and
less than a quarter-million) of its citizens are Italian-speaking. Nevertheless, the Italian-speakers are not a
dispersed minority: the great majority live in the canton of Ticino.
Estonia
adopted a Law on the Cultural Self-Government of National Minorities in
1925 that permitted the German, Russian, Swedish and Jewish minorities (indeed,
any minority numbering at least 3,000, i.e. about 0.2 per cent of the
population) to control their cultural and educational institutions.[39] The most
dispersed minorities, the Germans and the Jews, availed themselves of this
opportunity, although they numbered only 1.8 per cent and 0.4 per cent,
respectively, of the total population.
Latvia similarly recognized the autonomy of its dispersed minorities, in
1919, although this was limited to educational institutions.
The
Estonian and Latvian examples suggest that it is not impossible for a small,
dispersed minority to obtain segmental autonomy in the field of education. While the recent establishment of Canada's
French-language school boards owes much to the demographic and political
importance of Quebec, its justification does not disappear with the possible
separation of Quebec from the Canadian federation. Further, the advantages of these school boards become even more
apparent as they become increasingly well-established. Indeed, at this point, any attempt to
eliminate French-language schools would entail substantial financial and social
costs. Nevertheless, as some observers
have commented, it is impossible to guarantee the good humour of a couple
involved in divorce proceedings. In the
event of Quebec's separation, French-language schools might be targeted by a
vengeful English-speaking majority.
Education
is an area of critical concern to the French-speaking minority. The granting of limited autonomy in this
area constitutes an interesting application of a consociational strategy. For the minority, it provides greater
democratic participation, increased security from arbitrary decisions and, in
general, new hope for the future. The
longer term effects on English-French relations remain to be seen. A similar model for minority autonomy could
by applied to other areas, notably cultural and health services. In the current political context, however,
this seems improbable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An earlier version of
this article was presented at the Conference on the Governance of Dispersed
Ethnic Groups held at the University of Ottawa on 3 June 1995. I would like to thank Jean Laponce for his
kind invitation to present a paper at this conference. I am also grateful to my colleagues France
Levasseur-Ouimet and Frank McMahon for their helpful comments on French
minority education in Alberta; and to Francine Roy for her capable assistance
with the preparation of the tables.
NOTES