We're immersed in something all right. For all our talk of inclusivity, the path to power in Canada is open only to a select few—and language, not merit, is the key.
A lot of good points in this post. One question is: what is language? I learned "Parisian" French in France, where there are many distinct regional accents. Partly while living with a family, taking classes at a small institute, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and cheap wine and watching the TV news where the newscasters speak in carefully articulated Parisian French. After all these years, my ear gravitates to it.
Meanwhile, all countries have many varieties of the native tongue. English in Canada has many regional varieties, including vocabulary and argot/slang. So does French in Canada. Driving through Quebec and NB, most of the time my Parisian friends did not think they were hearing "real" French. These regional differences make a mockery of the notion of linguistic purity. All big cities have many versions of the so-called native tongue. Try walking the streets of Boston or New York, Toronto or Montreal -- it can vary block by block, even among so-called educated speakers. Influxes of immigrants change it up, as they always have.
My Norwegian father came to Newfoundland and then Canada after WW II. He had learned English in London in the 1930s and made fun of the snobbery that kept the top jobs for those whose accents indicated they had attended the right schools. By a fluke he had gone to one of them as a scrawny young teenager who at first spoke no English. Relatives on both sides of my family speak multiple languages, partly from living in different countries when they were young. On my father's side, barely surviving both the Russian Revolution and the Nazi occupation of Norway (my uncle practiced his German in Buchenwald, where he also spoke English and Russian.) On the other side, as girls my grandmother and her sisters lived in France, Italy and Germany, and for a brief time in Spain, so they could learn the languages, peregrinations that were affordable in pre-World War II Europe. Although these experiences were not easy, they made the girls open-minded, always ready for the next adventure.
In much of the world, English is the de facto second language. In many places you can hear five people from five countries getting along fine in their various forms of imperfect English. Languages spread along with trade, exploration, and conquest. My father went on one of the first foreign trade missions to China in 1974, after Nixon opened it up. Although he was anti-communist from experience as well as philosophy, he could sense the gradual rise of that massive country. "Forget French," he said. "Teach your children Chinese."
It is probably true that both French immersion and the CSAP schools are better than most regular schools but surely this is an argument for learning how they do things better (smaller class sizes etc) and expanding that into the public system than simply abolishing them. My children went to Immersion in Montreal in the 70's and that might have been a gateway in one case but it was not automatic. I have worked in French in Montreal, depending on my high school French, and it was a levelling experience where I had a lot of friendly patience from my coworkers. I think it is a mark of a Canadian to recognize the French-Canadian fact in our history: driving into Quebec from NB/NS, I would never dream of starting the conversation in English; the French fact in Rural Quebec particularly is simply there. And it is GOOD to know at least one other language; uses a different part of the brain! The thing here for Maritimers though is surely that we need to ensure functional bilingualism in services while there are still separatist movements in Quebec. Should Quebec separate, the Atlantic provinces have no other real alternative than joining the US. Which, NO!
I think the days of being defined by the fear-based threat of separation need to be put behind us. And if anyone needs a list I can think of about 100 alternatives to becoming part of the US, most notably, being an awesome, wealthy, and prosperous country that we have always had the resources and talent to be. Think Norway + Washington state and you can get a pretty good idea of what a MAritime country would look and feel like. like.
So, French as a classist or politically exclusionary idea goes at least back to the Normans taking over England in 1066, all the nobles from then on spoke French until we get to Henry IV 300 years later. I'm pretty sure most kept speaking French and other languages later than that date too.
What you're missing here is that the French language requirement gives Quebecers some stake. Take away all requirement for French, and language can be said to be the basis of lots of different parts of culture, if not perhaps culture as a whole, and they have no reason to stay in Canada at all. We actually need Quebec's manufacturing capacity and I'd argue that their thought processes either culturally or linguistically derived need to be heard too. Further to that, I think speaking at least two languages makes you smarter generally. Just the exercise of thinking in another language stretches the mental muscles.
Instead of abolishing French why don't we liberalize the degree to which we need to speak it? I think a Prime Minister does need to be able to interact with all of their constituents, so I'd keep it as a requirement for Federal ministers (and maybe Ontario generally) but perhaps at the BBB level. In Quebec and New Brunswick (which does an excellent job of bilingualism, btw) it should be perhaps at the CCC level. Whereas the rest of the Maritimes and the West could get by with AAA levels or less. Look, if you want the job of Prime Minister (you’re nuts), you should probably have to do the work of learning the other language. It keeps tourists out of the office. Yeah, you should have to work for it, hard. How can I trust your sincerity otherwise?
I think French Canadians bend over backwards to accommodate us most of the time. They need a powerful lever on government to maintain their position or they risk losing it completely and being subsumed into English language culture (which is not the be-all, end-all many English speakers seem to think it is). Talk to the people trying to preserve Gaelic in all its forms if you don't believe me. And while having one language might make us more coherent as a country, I argue that it won't make us more cohesive or a better country. In fact, I'd argue that BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, maybe Ontario and the Northern territories should require some form of Indigenous literacy as well. Half the meetings I go to mention that, "we are all treaty people," yet I see little to no work going into actually making that a real reality. We mouth the words yet do almost nothing to even attempt to be inclusive. It's as if we think we're better than them or something (I don't think that, but I'm left with the impression that lots of other people do). All this yelling about Palestine 9,000 kilometres away, yet no one looking in their own back yard to the Colonial pink elephant standing right here in the room! I mean, Nova Scotia (Mi'kmaq)would be relatively easy compared to the multiple different languages in, say, BC.
Last, but not least. I think you're disparaging of rural Nova Scotians. First, I think plenty are capable of learning French if they want to or find a professional need for it later on in life. Somehow people think rural and disadvantaged are the same thing. I don't think they are. I come by that anecdotally, having worked in Hollywood for years, but you might be surprised just how many people from small towns and rural areas thrive there and do incredibly complex or creative work. Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you have to come from there. I lived on a farm, in relative poverty, and soldered my first computer together when I was 12 on one. In the 70's computers weren't even a thing out there but I was interested and self motivated and saved and did odd jobs for a year and a half for a kit from England. I'd spent previous years building small radios and steam powered devices out of Meccano (also purchased with my own gumption), all on the farm. Why do you think I initially got into tech? Don't count rural people out so easily. Sure, I cribbed a lot from interesting adults and was aided by the diverse but small community around me. It's not that different where I live though. There's a guy who works in Africa half the year down the road, an old local farmer, an old money American ex-pat half the year, a local engineer, several carpenters and sailors, all within (long) walking distance! But most rural people aren't going to be interested in the same things. Some of us don't live in the city precisely because we can see the issues with it. I could easily have bought in Halifax, but I like it here better. I have enough access and more day-to-day nature and freedom. Some of us are comfortable with rural life and want it to continue more or less as it is.
The most interesting responses I’ve received privately since publishing this piece have been from people who have firsthand experience with both the regular public school system in Nova Scotia and the French-language school system—a system I hadn’t even realized existed in the way they describe it. And what they describe is fascinating: essentially a government-funded elite private school system with admissions based on race and cultural background.
Most people in the province know about French immersion, the program within English public schools where students can take their education primarily in French while still being part of the standard provincial school system. But there’s a second, far more exclusive system: the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial (CSAP), Nova Scotia’s publicly funded French-language school board.
Unlike French immersion, which is open to any student, CSAP schools are designed exclusively for children of francophone parents or those who can prove a strong cultural or linguistic connection to the French-speaking community. These schools operate with separate funding, separate administration, and separate admission criteria—and, according to those who have responded to my piece, they offer a dramatically better education than standard English public schools.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. Unlike regular public schools, where any student can enroll based on geography, CSAP schools have an openly selective admissions process. To be eligible, families must demonstrate:
Francophone heritage (having a parent or grandparent who speaks French)
A history of speaking French at home
A commitment to maintaining the French language and culture
This means that a child of English-speaking parents cannot simply apply, even if they want to learn French. But a child from a historically Acadian or francophone family gets automatic access to what is, by all accounts, a superior school system.
Those who have responded to my piece describe this as a racially and culturally exclusive admissions policy, one that quietly creates a two-tiered public school system where access to the better-funded, higher-performing schools is determined by ancestry.
This is precisely what I was arguing: bilingualism in Canada is not just an opportunity—it is a quiet form of gatekeeping. A ticket to better education, better job opportunities, and better access to government power—but only for those who meet the unspoken criteria.
It’s worth asking: if a parallel school system existed for another group—let’s say, children of Scottish or German descent or Catholic—would it be tolerated... or funded!? Would it be defended? Would it even exist?
The fact that this system is not widely discussed is revealing. And now that I know about it, it further changes the way I see the entire conversation around bilingualism in Canada.
I ran into this doing some research on GSAs, not sure I realized it was that extensive. Mind you, Catholic schools, etc. have been around for a while too. The Jesuits realized very early on that education was a key if you wanted to go farther.
A lot of good points in this post. One question is: what is language? I learned "Parisian" French in France, where there are many distinct regional accents. Partly while living with a family, taking classes at a small institute, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and cheap wine and watching the TV news where the newscasters speak in carefully articulated Parisian French. After all these years, my ear gravitates to it.
Meanwhile, all countries have many varieties of the native tongue. English in Canada has many regional varieties, including vocabulary and argot/slang. So does French in Canada. Driving through Quebec and NB, most of the time my Parisian friends did not think they were hearing "real" French. These regional differences make a mockery of the notion of linguistic purity. All big cities have many versions of the so-called native tongue. Try walking the streets of Boston or New York, Toronto or Montreal -- it can vary block by block, even among so-called educated speakers. Influxes of immigrants change it up, as they always have.
My Norwegian father came to Newfoundland and then Canada after WW II. He had learned English in London in the 1930s and made fun of the snobbery that kept the top jobs for those whose accents indicated they had attended the right schools. By a fluke he had gone to one of them as a scrawny young teenager who at first spoke no English. Relatives on both sides of my family speak multiple languages, partly from living in different countries when they were young. On my father's side, barely surviving both the Russian Revolution and the Nazi occupation of Norway (my uncle practiced his German in Buchenwald, where he also spoke English and Russian.) On the other side, as girls my grandmother and her sisters lived in France, Italy and Germany, and for a brief time in Spain, so they could learn the languages, peregrinations that were affordable in pre-World War II Europe. Although these experiences were not easy, they made the girls open-minded, always ready for the next adventure.
In much of the world, English is the de facto second language. In many places you can hear five people from five countries getting along fine in their various forms of imperfect English. Languages spread along with trade, exploration, and conquest. My father went on one of the first foreign trade missions to China in 1974, after Nixon opened it up. Although he was anti-communist from experience as well as philosophy, he could sense the gradual rise of that massive country. "Forget French," he said. "Teach your children Chinese."
It is probably true that both French immersion and the CSAP schools are better than most regular schools but surely this is an argument for learning how they do things better (smaller class sizes etc) and expanding that into the public system than simply abolishing them. My children went to Immersion in Montreal in the 70's and that might have been a gateway in one case but it was not automatic. I have worked in French in Montreal, depending on my high school French, and it was a levelling experience where I had a lot of friendly patience from my coworkers. I think it is a mark of a Canadian to recognize the French-Canadian fact in our history: driving into Quebec from NB/NS, I would never dream of starting the conversation in English; the French fact in Rural Quebec particularly is simply there. And it is GOOD to know at least one other language; uses a different part of the brain! The thing here for Maritimers though is surely that we need to ensure functional bilingualism in services while there are still separatist movements in Quebec. Should Quebec separate, the Atlantic provinces have no other real alternative than joining the US. Which, NO!
I think the days of being defined by the fear-based threat of separation need to be put behind us. And if anyone needs a list I can think of about 100 alternatives to becoming part of the US, most notably, being an awesome, wealthy, and prosperous country that we have always had the resources and talent to be. Think Norway + Washington state and you can get a pretty good idea of what a MAritime country would look and feel like. like.
So, French as a classist or politically exclusionary idea goes at least back to the Normans taking over England in 1066, all the nobles from then on spoke French until we get to Henry IV 300 years later. I'm pretty sure most kept speaking French and other languages later than that date too.
What you're missing here is that the French language requirement gives Quebecers some stake. Take away all requirement for French, and language can be said to be the basis of lots of different parts of culture, if not perhaps culture as a whole, and they have no reason to stay in Canada at all. We actually need Quebec's manufacturing capacity and I'd argue that their thought processes either culturally or linguistically derived need to be heard too. Further to that, I think speaking at least two languages makes you smarter generally. Just the exercise of thinking in another language stretches the mental muscles.
Instead of abolishing French why don't we liberalize the degree to which we need to speak it? I think a Prime Minister does need to be able to interact with all of their constituents, so I'd keep it as a requirement for Federal ministers (and maybe Ontario generally) but perhaps at the BBB level. In Quebec and New Brunswick (which does an excellent job of bilingualism, btw) it should be perhaps at the CCC level. Whereas the rest of the Maritimes and the West could get by with AAA levels or less. Look, if you want the job of Prime Minister (you’re nuts), you should probably have to do the work of learning the other language. It keeps tourists out of the office. Yeah, you should have to work for it, hard. How can I trust your sincerity otherwise?
I think French Canadians bend over backwards to accommodate us most of the time. They need a powerful lever on government to maintain their position or they risk losing it completely and being subsumed into English language culture (which is not the be-all, end-all many English speakers seem to think it is). Talk to the people trying to preserve Gaelic in all its forms if you don't believe me. And while having one language might make us more coherent as a country, I argue that it won't make us more cohesive or a better country. In fact, I'd argue that BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, maybe Ontario and the Northern territories should require some form of Indigenous literacy as well. Half the meetings I go to mention that, "we are all treaty people," yet I see little to no work going into actually making that a real reality. We mouth the words yet do almost nothing to even attempt to be inclusive. It's as if we think we're better than them or something (I don't think that, but I'm left with the impression that lots of other people do). All this yelling about Palestine 9,000 kilometres away, yet no one looking in their own back yard to the Colonial pink elephant standing right here in the room! I mean, Nova Scotia (Mi'kmaq)would be relatively easy compared to the multiple different languages in, say, BC.
Last, but not least. I think you're disparaging of rural Nova Scotians. First, I think plenty are capable of learning French if they want to or find a professional need for it later on in life. Somehow people think rural and disadvantaged are the same thing. I don't think they are. I come by that anecdotally, having worked in Hollywood for years, but you might be surprised just how many people from small towns and rural areas thrive there and do incredibly complex or creative work. Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you have to come from there. I lived on a farm, in relative poverty, and soldered my first computer together when I was 12 on one. In the 70's computers weren't even a thing out there but I was interested and self motivated and saved and did odd jobs for a year and a half for a kit from England. I'd spent previous years building small radios and steam powered devices out of Meccano (also purchased with my own gumption), all on the farm. Why do you think I initially got into tech? Don't count rural people out so easily. Sure, I cribbed a lot from interesting adults and was aided by the diverse but small community around me. It's not that different where I live though. There's a guy who works in Africa half the year down the road, an old local farmer, an old money American ex-pat half the year, a local engineer, several carpenters and sailors, all within (long) walking distance! But most rural people aren't going to be interested in the same things. Some of us don't live in the city precisely because we can see the issues with it. I could easily have bought in Halifax, but I like it here better. I have enough access and more day-to-day nature and freedom. Some of us are comfortable with rural life and want it to continue more or less as it is.
The most interesting responses I’ve received privately since publishing this piece have been from people who have firsthand experience with both the regular public school system in Nova Scotia and the French-language school system—a system I hadn’t even realized existed in the way they describe it. And what they describe is fascinating: essentially a government-funded elite private school system with admissions based on race and cultural background.
Most people in the province know about French immersion, the program within English public schools where students can take their education primarily in French while still being part of the standard provincial school system. But there’s a second, far more exclusive system: the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial (CSAP), Nova Scotia’s publicly funded French-language school board.
Unlike French immersion, which is open to any student, CSAP schools are designed exclusively for children of francophone parents or those who can prove a strong cultural or linguistic connection to the French-speaking community. These schools operate with separate funding, separate administration, and separate admission criteria—and, according to those who have responded to my piece, they offer a dramatically better education than standard English public schools.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. Unlike regular public schools, where any student can enroll based on geography, CSAP schools have an openly selective admissions process. To be eligible, families must demonstrate:
Francophone heritage (having a parent or grandparent who speaks French)
A history of speaking French at home
A commitment to maintaining the French language and culture
This means that a child of English-speaking parents cannot simply apply, even if they want to learn French. But a child from a historically Acadian or francophone family gets automatic access to what is, by all accounts, a superior school system.
Those who have responded to my piece describe this as a racially and culturally exclusive admissions policy, one that quietly creates a two-tiered public school system where access to the better-funded, higher-performing schools is determined by ancestry.
This is precisely what I was arguing: bilingualism in Canada is not just an opportunity—it is a quiet form of gatekeeping. A ticket to better education, better job opportunities, and better access to government power—but only for those who meet the unspoken criteria.
It’s worth asking: if a parallel school system existed for another group—let’s say, children of Scottish or German descent or Catholic—would it be tolerated... or funded!? Would it be defended? Would it even exist?
The fact that this system is not widely discussed is revealing. And now that I know about it, it further changes the way I see the entire conversation around bilingualism in Canada.
I ran into this doing some research on GSAs, not sure I realized it was that extensive. Mind you, Catholic schools, etc. have been around for a while too. The Jesuits realized very early on that education was a key if you wanted to go farther.
Yes, but they are not tax-funded, and are not competing with other possible public governance strategies.