One-Way Bilingualism: Anglonormativity in the House of Commons

This article explores the language dynamics in Parliament, specifically in the House of Commons, and analyzes its impact on political relations and decision-making processes. The author asks how anglonormativity manifests itself, both on an individual and institutional level, in the House of Commons. Further, he asks how it affects the inclusion of francophone MPs and the House’s ability to legislate in French and for Canadian francophones. Through a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with Members of the 44th Parliament, he offers a methodical analysis covering four main areas: English as the de facto common language, the ‘burden’ of French, the francophone imperative, and legislation that is bilingual but not bicultural.

Ahdithya Visweswaran

Ahdithya Visweswaran participated in 2023-2024 Parliamentary Internship Programme.

Introduction

“There are two official languages in Ottawa:

English and simultaneous translation.”

– An old adage in the Parliament of Canada

Over the years, political scientists and sociologists have endeavoured to analyze the normative and descriptive aspects of official bilingualism in Canadian politics. Their work is based on a deep history characterized by two colonial peoples settling the land, leading to a bilingual linguistic framework recognizing both English and French as Canada’s official languages and where each group has equal language rights to ensure they can equally participate in parliamentary and democratic processes.

However, despite constitutional protections enshrined in the supreme law of the land, institutional realities and social attitudes do not always reflect these core principles. Studies point to an asymmetrical implementation of official bilingualism with an acute prevalence of English as the dominant language in political and administrative domains. Research on the disconnect between the legislative framework and the day-to-day reality is still scarce, casting doubt on language equality in an anglonormative space that often does not account for language issues. It also raises concerns regarding the effective representation of the interests of both language communities in modern Canadian democracy.

In November 2023, Rachael Thomas, the Member for Lethbridge, made national headlines by specifically asking Minister Pascale Saint-Onge to speak in English rather than in French when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.1 This request, challenging the principle of parliamentary bilingualism guaranteed by the Charter and official bilingualism as a whole, prompted strong reactions from MPs from every political party. Not only does this incident illustrate the anglonormative challenges that francophone parliamentarians face, but it also brings to light certain attitudes and perceptions surrounding French within the institution.

This article explores the language dynamics in Parliament, specifically in the House of Commons, and analyzes its impact on political relationships and decision-making processes. Specifically, it asks how anglonormativity manifests itself, both on an individual and institutional level, in the House of Commons? Further, how does it affect the inclusion of francophone MPs and the House’s ability to legislate in French and for Canadian francophones? Following a brief survey of the literature on parliamentary bilingualism and anglonormativity as underlying theoretical concepts, I present an empirical study of the challenges encountered in parliamentary practice based on interviews conducted with Members of the 44th Parliament. A methodical analysis will be conducted covering four main areas: English as the de facto common language, the burden of French, the francophone imperative, and legislation that is bilingual but not bicultural. Lastly, I provide a summary of the results and outline avenues for future research in this area.

Literature review on anglonormativity

Since Confederation, various incarnations of legislative and institutional bilingualism have been implemented to guarantee linguistic equality between English and French, “thus recognizing the right of both official language communities to participate equally in the parliamentary process.”2 This Canadian principle of two official languages, long a subject of controversy and debate, is part of a multifaceted environment, spanning the political, legal and social spectrum.

It is worth noting that optional legislative and institutional bilingualism is inherent to the operational structure of the Canadian Parliament, whose foundations can be found in the law of the land, the Constitution. Specifically, this constitutional obligation stems from section 1333 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which guarantees that:

133 Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.

133 Dans les chambres du parlement du Canada et les chambres de la législature de Québec, l’usage de la langue française ou de la langue anglaise, dans les débats, sera facultatif; mais dans la rédaction des archives, procès-verbaux et journaux respectifs de ces chambres, l’usage de ces deux langues sera obligatoire; et dans toute plaidoirie ou pièce de procédure par- devant les tribunaux ou émanant des tribunaux du Canada qui seront établis sous l’autorité de la présente loi, et par-devant tous les tribunaux ou émanant des tribunaux de Québec, il pourra être fait également usage, à faculté, de l’une ou de l’autre de ces langues.

Les lois du parlement du Canada et de la législature de Québec devront être imprimées et publiées dans ces deux langues.

Although this section of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not grant official language status to English and French, it does affirm the bilingual nature of the Canadian Parliament. This linguistic foundation was shored up in 1969 with the adoption of the Official Languages Act, following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism report, which reaffirmed several cornerstones of parliamentary bilingualism, notably establishing English and French as the two official languages of Canada. Part I states that everyone has the right to use the official language of their choice in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament, and to have access to simultaneous interpretation, while Part II ensures that every parliamentary document is drafted, adopted, printed and published in both official languages. However, these legal provisions did not enjoy constitutional protections until 1982, when sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutionalized the status of both languages as official and their use in federal parliamentary proceedings.

Despite legal advances seeking to guarantee equal status for English and French in the Canadian Parliament, disparities persist in their actual use. In fact, “parliamentary debates were predominantly in English throughout most of Canada’s history.”4 In an article, translator-interpreter Jean Delisle refers to the case of a francophone MP who spoke for the first time after three years in the House, exemplifying the historical practice where francophone MPs rarely spoke.5 Political scientist Scott Piroth also points out that before the introduction of simultaneous interpretation in 1959, “francophone MPs were likely to speak English if they wanted to be understood by a majority of their colleagues.”6 Nevertheless, following a detailed quantitative analysis of Question Period data from the 24th to the 39th Parliaments, Piroth concluded that the use of French had gradually increased since 1959 and that this trend was likely to continue in the future.7 In the Library of Parliament report “Official Languages and Parliament,” analyst Marie-Ève Hudon provides a detailed analysis of the use of English and French by MPs in the House of Commons and in committees between 2011 and 2021, as shown in figures 18 and 2,9 respectively. The data show that in 2021, French was used 26.5 per cent of the time in the House of Commons and 20 per cent in committee. Although the 2021 data are representative of the 21.4 per cent10 of the Canadian population for whom French is their first official language, the figures show that the use of French remains significantly lower than, and not equal to, English.

An interesting detail emerges when analyzing trends over time: according to the Library, between 2017 and 2019, the proportion of interventions in French was the lowest in both the House and committees.11 It is the lowest point in a trend that began in 2011, when the use of French became particularly limited, especially in committees where only 10 per cent of interventions were in French between 2012 and 2019. The drop in the use of French coincided with the “orange wave,” where the New Democratic Party (NDP) won 59 of Quebec’s 75 seats in the House of Commons, relegating the previously dominant Bloc Québécois (BQ) to just four seats and depriving it of its status as a recognized party. The subsequent increase in the use of French in 2019 coincided with the BQ, a party that participates in parliamentary debates almost exclusively in French, winning 32 seats. This correlation between the use of French in the House and the presence of the BQ has been brought up several times in the literature and illustrates the significant effect partisan dynamics have on the use of French in the Lower House.12

In the Canadian public service, Government of Canada reports and data show that the use of French as a language of work is steadily dropping,13 while “the organizational culture of the federal public service is predominantly English.”14

The Commissioner of Official Languages emphasized the impact of language insecurity as one of the main challenges hindering the appropriate use of French. In his report on language insecurity among federal public servants, he defined the concept as “a sense of unease, discomfort or anxiety experienced when using or attempting to use one’s first language or a second language due to a variety of environmental, perceptional, interpersonal, organizational, cultural and social factors.”15 The Commissioner said that this insecurity is the beginning of a vicious cycle, eventually leading to an organizational culture that does not promote equal use of the official languages.

Unlike linguistic insecurity, anglonormativity extends beyond the individual level and is both a consequence and a product of linguistic power dynamics and socio-political systemic forces. This concept has gone largely unexplored in academic literature, especially in the field of political science. In fact, the conceptualization of anglonormativity, which serves as the basis for this study, was coined by Dr. Alexandre Baril focusing on intersectionality as a theoretical framework, which explores the absence of linguistic perspectives in English academic texts on intersectionality. Inspired by the concepts of heteronormativity and cisnormativity, Dr. Baril describes it as “a system of structures, institutions, and beliefs that marks English as the norm. In anglonormative contexts, anglonormativity is the standard by which non-anglophone people are judged, discriminated against, and excluded.”16 Anne Lévesque, Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, goes even further, asserting that in an anglonormative environment, French is perceived as a disruption of the established order and status quo, a foreign element that is appropriate to reject and repress, sometimes even with open contempt and hostility.17

In other words, anglonormativity is not just a matter of individual perception or a lack of self-confidence. Rather, it refers to the systemic predominance of English in an environment that marginalizes non- English speakers, sometimes unwittingly. The lack of awareness of anglonormativity means that those who experience it may not have the conceptual tools to identify it. Nevertheless, the aforementioned literature indicates that anglonormativity may well be present in these contexts.

Moreover, other articles attest more generally to the prevalence of anglonormativity in society, highlighting its systemic nature. Jean Laponce details how English is the common language in personal interactions between anglophones and francophones,18 demonstrating not only anglonormativity in action, but also the notion of “asymmetrical bilingualism.”19 According to Simeon and Cameron, in Canadian civil society, francophones are often required to be perfectly bilingual and to contribute in their second language, whereas their anglophone counterparts are not held to the same standard.20 In other words, fluency in English is not only an asset, but often a requirement for francophones wishing to advance in their careers.

Attitudes towards languages could also contribute to anglonormativity. Piroth brings up the case of an MP in the 1960s who hoped French would disappear from the House of Commons, citing the “inevitable superiority of the English language as the universal language of economic development and communication.”21 These ideas are not so outlandish today: a survey done in June 2024 by Léger22 shows that 70 per cent of Quebecers are more likely to view bilingualism positively compared to 35 per cent for the rest of Canada. Further, while 83 per cent of Quebecers consider bilingualism as important for Canada, only 43 per cent of respondents in the rest of Canada share that view. This disparity reveals a clear divide between the only francophone province and the anglophone majority on the importance and promotion of national bilingualism.

Methodology

To understand the actual dynamics at play, interviews were conducted with MPs of the 44th Parliament sitting in the House of Commons, with the aim of determining in concrete terms whether and how anglonormativity manifests in the House. As part of this study, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted using targeted sampling. These interviews took place between April and June 2024. Participants were selected based on rigorous criteria designed to ensure a diverse representation of the different linguistic and political perspectives in the House of Commons. This included unilingual anglophone, bilingual and unilingual francophone MPs, as well as those who identify as English-Canadians, French- Canadians (i.e., francophones outside Quebec) or francophone Quebecers. The parliamentarians were from the four main political parties represented in the House of Commons: the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois (BQ). Interviews were conducted using a standardized procedure, with particular attention paid to creating an environment conducive to open and honest participation from the MPs. The data were processed using coding and categorization methods, while anonymizing participants to ensure that the information they shared remained confidential.

Results and analysis

Given the small sample size, the lack of scientific research in this area and the limited diversity of respondents, the aim of this section is not to demonstrate a corrective or causal relationship between responses, but rather to explore emerging themes in the data, subject to further investigation in future research.

 English as the de facto common language

In order to contextualize anglonormativity in its various forms in the House of Commons, MPs were first asked to share their thoughts on the place the two official languages have in the House’s activities, and also in their day-to-day parliamentary work in Ottawa. This question is core to this research, as it shows that language is not limited to linguistic skills and cultural affiliations, but also reflects the status and power of different language groups within a given institution. As noted by R. Breton (cited in Piroth), “the language that prevails in an institutional sector … provides a good clue as to the linguistic group that controls that institution.”23

MPs were asked to explore the level of French they use and hear on a regular basis. All MPs, whether members of the government or opposition parties, were unanimous that English prevails behind the scenes in the House, during debates in the House and committees, as well as in pre-committee meetings, caucuses, receptions, and negotiations. Every MP was also of the opinion that their political party is doing all it can to promote the use of French, but all agreed that despite these efforts, English prevails due to the anglophone majority, transforming it into the dominant language of use.

“Generally speaking, I would tell you that, for the most part, the debates happen in English.”24

“I’m now on a committee that is almost exclusively anglophone.”25

MPs’ assertion concerning the predominance of English, even anglonormativity, in House debates and in committee directly confirms the Library of Parliament’s 2022 findings. These crucial data shed light on the complex linguistic dynamics that characterize the House. In fact, they highlight not only the predominant use of English in parliamentary discussions, but also the ongoing challenges faced by francophones, particularly those who are unilingual, in a context where English is favoured as the primary language of use.

For their part, bilingual francophone MPs said that their proficiency in English, whether they like it or not, contributes to making it the dominant language used in interactions with their bilingual and unilingual anglophone colleagues. This corroborates the findings of Laponce’s research, where he observed that English tends to become the common language in interactions between anglophones and francophones.

“Most francophones speak English, so it becomes the language of use for meetings where there’s no translation, because otherwise an anglophone  won’t  be  able  to  participate.”26

“We can see that francophones have a certain advantage being able to speak English. They’re able to operate, to carry on. But at the same time, it becomes English. Some are perfectly bilingual, and that’s not a problem. Others get by in English, but they may have more trouble bringing up their ideas.”27

Francophone MPs from every political party also feel pressure to switch to English when an anglophone joins a conversation among francophones. At least one representative from each party said that when several francophones are chatting and an anglophone joins them, they immediately switch to English, even if this may disadvantage the unilingual francophones present, to facilitate communication with the anglophone.

The ease with which English can be clearly understood also is often mentioned as a determining factor. Bilingual anglophone MPs prefer to use English when they discuss topics that require technical precision.

“But there are times when it’s just I have to be really clear and precise and technical, so I would revert back to … my first language.”28

However, bilingual francophone MPs also feel this ease of communication in English, albeit for different reasons. They say that speaking in English helps them be understood more easily, avoiding the need to repeat themselves or rely on simultaneous interpretation to be understood by their colleagues. They also mention the spontaneity of interactions when communicating in the dominant language, as well as the ease of establishing natural relationships with their anglophone counterparts, which they find useful in political negotiations.

“So, French always takes a back seat to English in conversations, because it’s easier, because I’m lucky enough to be bilingual and it’s easy for me to speak English with colleagues.”29

“Making an effort [in French] means that conversations can become awkward because the anglophone has trouble finding the right words in French. So, for the sake of efficiency, we’ll quickly switch to English. Generally speaking, [negotiations] will be in English, with a few exceptions or in cases where francophone MPs are not comfortable speaking in English. In that case, their anglophone colleagues may make more of an effort or simply not negotiate with them. For example, we’re not going to talk to a colleague from the Bloc because he doesn’t speak English; it would be complicated.”30

The omnipresence of English as the dominant language creates a sense of unilateral responsibility in some francophone MPs to be or become bilingual, while their anglophone counterparts are not similarly driven to improve their French skills to the same extent. This disparity was highlighted by statements from francophone MPs saying they felt the need to improve their command of English as soon as they got to Ottawa, compared to anglophone MPs who did not share a similar sense of pressure during the interviews. This perceived asymmetry reinforces a dynamic where bilingualism is often seen as an additional burden for francophones when ideally it should be a shared objective in Parliament.

“Bilingualism in Parliament is a requirement for francophones for sure. Francophones much more than anglophones have the burden of having to speak both languages. It’s understood. You can get by just fine using only English in Parliament. It’s not as easy to get by using only French in Parliament.”31

“Anglophones don’t understand why a francophone doesn’t speak English. But [for] those who don’t speak French, it’s not necessarily something that’s seen [as] out of the ordinary.” 32

As a result, English is not only a core part of MPs’ day-to-day duties, but also an essential pillar to advance their political careers. Being fluent in English is key to their effectiveness in various parliamentary roles, providing access to strategic leadership positions such as minister, shadow cabinet member, whip or critic. In addition, advanced English language skills give them the ability to influence domestic and foreign policy in certain areas, strengthening their impact in crucial decisions that shape the political landscape.

“I don’t think you can sit in the House of Commons as a unilingual francophone and take on certain responsibilities like defence, international trade or industry. You need to be able to speak both languages. Because things are done in English, but rarely in French.”33

“When it comes to ministerial roles, [being a unilingual francophone] can be a major setback. But the fact remains that during internal meetings where there is no translation service, this puts francophones or those who have issues understanding English at a disadvantage. It really is a setback.”34

Unilingual francophone MPs report feeling isolated and shut out of various activities on Parliament Hill. This is particularly evident at informal events such as receptions and dinners, and casual get-togethers between MPs. These events foster social interactions and facilitate informal collaborations and negotiations that are crucial in the parliamentary environment. For unilingual francophone MPs, their inability to fully participate in these informal discussions due to the language barrier represents a significant barrier to their integration and effectiveness in carrying out their parliamentary duties.

“Let’s say the Speaker invites me to dinner with other parliamentarians. I’m not exactly excited to go because he often invites other officials, and I can’t participate. So, after an hour there, no matter how hard I try, I feel like I’m out of the game. … I didn’t necessarily feel included, but I was making an effort. After an hour of trying, I finally left, exhausted. Then I tried to get the Speaker to understand, saying that if the whole dinner had been in French, maybe [the anglophone MP] would have left exhausted after having made an effort to socialize, fraternize and speak in a language that wasn’t his own.”35

The burden of French

While English is the common language used in the House of Commons, French is seen, in Lévesque’s words, as “a departure from the natural order, an intruder to be rebuked and silenced.”36 This view highlights a dynamic shaped by anglonormativity, where the dominance of English shapes and influences parliamentary interactions, relegating French to a second-class role despite its official and constitutional status in Canada. This does present considerable challenges for those who use French as their primary language in their parliamentary work. Francophone MPs face additional challenges, notably in their ability to fully express themselves, to be heard and to participate equally in political debates and decisions, compared to their anglophone colleagues for whom English is predominant.

“Honestly, for an anglophone, of course, it’s always a burden. It’s a burden to have to deal with French.”37

“It’s really seen as a hurdle or an expense that the groups can’t afford.”38

Some MPs, particularly from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, mentioned recent cases where documents were tabled exclusively in English, arguing that translating these documents was deemed too costly and time-consuming. In other words, French is seen as an additional and unnecessary financial burden, but tolerated, nonetheless. In addition to regularly reporting motions and documents tabled solely in English, particularly in committee, these MPs also mentioned the Public Order Emergency Commission and the Foreign Interference Commission, both of which resulted in complaints to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. They argue that translating documents, as well as providing simultaneous interpretation, for a linguistic minority who are predominantly bilingual anyway, is considered an inefficient use of public funds. These attitudes towards translation and interpreting are not new. In fact, they existed even before these language protections were implemented. The delayed introduction of simultaneous interpretation was partly due to financial concerns, as evidenced by the reluctance of some MPs who felt that it would be too expensive to equip the 275 seats on the House floor and the 625 seats in the galleries with individual earpieces. The estimated $6,300 for the equipment plus the four interpreters’ salaries ($6,000 to $7,000 each) were deemed prohibitive.39

Beyond the view that interpretation services do not justify their cost, there has long been a disinterest, even a distrust, of French in the House of Commons. In the 1960s, very few MPs, whether anglophone or francophone, were bilingual, and some even called for the disappearance of the French language from the institution because of the “inevitable superiority of the English language.”40 Before the introduction of simultaneous interpretation, a parliamentarian speaking in French was often not understood by the anglophone majority, which frequently resulted in many MPs exiting the Chamber.41

Francophone MPs said that 65 years after the introduction of simultaneous interpretation, this disinterest towards interventions in French in the House and in committee persists, manifesting itself in different and less obvious ways than leaving the room. They often report seeing their unilingual anglophone counterparts not wearing their earpieces when they speak in French, leaving them feeling insignificant and powerless.

“When a francophone MP speaks in a parliamentary committee or in the House of Commons, we notice that English speakers don’t always wear their earpieces to hear the interpretation. Since there’s a lot of unilingual anglophones, a majority in the House of Commons, when a francophone speaks and [the anglophone] does not have their earpiece in, can we assume that this means that it’s not important for them to understand what the francophone MP is saying?” 42

“Simultaneous translation is provided by Parliament, but then you see all the simultaneous translation devices in the boxes, in the back of the room, nobody takes them or they’re on the tables. But when you start speaking in French, nobody listens.”43

“There are a lot of unilingual anglophone MPs who don’t even bother to put on their earpieces to listen to the interpretation. In that sense, French is being marginalized. There is less importance being placed on what francophone MPs have to say in debates. Because francophone MPs make an effort to listen to what every MP in the House is saying during debates. And it’s not being reciprocated. This is an imbalance that should give cause for concern.”44

“I see it especially during caucus. Sometimes you want to address the caucus, and then you realize that half of them don’t have their earpieces in. If I speak French, they don’t listen, they won’t know what I mean. So, I’m going to speak in English to make sure I’m understood. But it isn’t because the resources aren’t there.” 45

This sense that French is not received attentively by most MPs in the House, combined with a number of other factors that hinder their parliamentary work, results in the language becoming a heavy burden even for francophone MPs. In fact, having to rely on simultaneous interpretation is cited as the main drawback. Francophone MPs mention interpretation delays, the need to repeat what they have said, and the time spent waiting while their colleagues or witnesses put on their earpieces as factors that reduce their allotted time for their interventions, especially in committee. Alan Patten put it simply: “translation is expensive, inconvenient, and always imperfect.”46

MPs also spoke about losing spontaneity in debates and their ability to make a political point when speaking in French. This often leads to limited reactions or no response from witnesses or their colleagues, prompting them to favour English interventions if they want to make a point or elicit meaningful responses.

“We have very little time to ask questions. If we’re questioning witnesses who rely on interpretation, we’re guaranteed to lose time.”47

“When you have witnesses, there are disadvantages to using translation because there are delays. Sometimes we only have five minutes, so it goes fast. We speak, then wait a bit while the interpreter does their work and the witness listens. … But there’s a delay meaning that we have to wait, and it wastes time. … I’ve often had witnesses say, ‘can you repeat the question?’ because [the interpretation] wasn’t clear. I spoke in English a number of times because I didn’t want to waste time. I spoke in English because the translation hadn’t come through properly.”48

“[Interpreters]  are  experts,  they’re  really good. But, sometimes, it can mean that you’re 30 seconds behind on the discussion, and then your intervention is slower, less spontaneous, or you’ll have doubts about your understanding of the terms used by witnesses or other MPs. There are always downsides to using simultaneous translation.” 49

Committee chairs are not always able to accommodate the time that francophone MPs lose when using interpretation services. One anglophone Liberal MP, who previously chaired a committee, admitted to making sure he gave more time to MPs asking questions with interpretation support, but he did not know if this was standard practice.50 Other MPs said that this is not standard practice, and that some committee chairs do not always account for the extra time needed for interpretation.

“And not every committee chair is going to allocate more time to an intervention in French with interpretation.”51

“Not every committee chair will calculate the time to give to MPs for that kind of adjustment.”52

Francophone MPs also said that having to review bills or committee reports in French, while the majority of the committee, including the Chair and clerks, do so in English, makes it hard to effectively revise and suggest timely changes due to discrepancies in page or paragraph numbers. This is well documented in interviews by former parliamentary intern Élizabeth Bergeron: “If a committee chair is anglophone, or if your committee is mostly anglophones, then we revise the report on the basis of the English revision, which means, again, using different words, but also different pages.”53 Bergeron says that this double standard especially impacts francophones, who have to refer to the English version more often than anglophones do with the French version.

The French imperative

Due to the limited use of French in the House, some francophone MPs feel considerable pressure to maintain parliamentary bilingualism by actively promoting French and opposing anglonormativity. They see the need to strengthen language protections in day-to-day parliamentary work, but too often find that the responsibility for defending bilingualism mainly rests on francophones.

A considerable number of MPs interviewed mentioned the crucial role the Bloc Québécois plays in promoting and defending French in the House of Commons, confirming both Scott Piroth’s and Chantal Hébert’s assertions that it is integral to maintaining the presence of French and making Parliament a truly bilingual place.

“I am grateful for [the Bloc’s] presence in the House because of that. I am glad that they are there to be that reminder for us. However, I worry, if they weren’t the third party in the House, just how much French would be spoken in the Chamber. Not to be super partisan, but our Conservative colleagues tend to not have as many French-speakers and it is a bit more noticeable. So should the government change, I would be concerned about having that true bilingualism in the Chamber.”54

“I’d say what really helps is that Bloc Québécois MPs are there.”55

Numerous MPs have observed that the presence of a francophone or Quebecer at the head of the party lends greater prominence to bilingualism, more specifically to French, in the party’s internal and external activities. Conversely, an anglophone party leader often results in French being left out or being an afterthought.

“Our leader is a francophone and our government leader as well. So these are things that we don’t take for granted.”56

“Having a leader from Quebec like Tom Mulcair or even Jack Layton … changes the dynamic a bit. Jagmeet loves French, he speaks it well, but it’s not his go to and for him, it’s not a reflex.”57

“[The change in leader has] led to a move towards a bit more French in the caucus and in internal meetings. There’s a very clear effort from of our leader to ensure that French is emphasized, respected and then adopted in its own right.”58

Francophone MPs are often faced with a tough choice between speaking French, asserting their constitutional rights to expression and interpretation, and compromising. This choice is not solely about language; it is also about politics as it may impact their ability to influence decisions and promote the interests of their francophone constituents, while navigating in a place where English is predominant. This dilemma becomes exhausting due to its frequent repetition.

“The onus is always on us, and sometimes it can be tiring to keep saying that the translation isn’t coming through well. There are MPs who sometimes prefer not to mention it because they feel they are irritating their anglophone colleagues.”59

Another parliamentarian recounted an experience in caucus where, due to technical problems with simultaneous interpretation, his colleagues asked him if they could continue without interpretation, given that he is bilingual, rather than suspend or stop the meeting. Despite his compromised linguistic rights, he acquiesced to avoid the appearance of bad faith. Bergeron described a similar incident in her thesis, where a bilingual francophone senator was asked to make a “budgetary concession” by not requesting a francophone interpreter on a committee trip, even though bringing an anglophone interpreter was deemed justified despite it being expensive.60

Bilingual but not bicultural policies

The interviewed MPs unanimously agreed that there are no gaps in modern Canadian legislation due to under-representation or insufficient use of French in the House of Commons. Both anglophone and francophone MPs said that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that both versions of bills are consistent throughout the legislative process. They all mention the “expert”61 work that the Translation Bureau does in ensuring that the two language versions match and preventing any legal discrepancies in potential interpretations.

“The Translation Bureau does an excellent job. We don’t often see errors in the English and French versions. They are really thorough.”62

Another MP, also a lawyer, said that this consistency is ensured from the moment the bill is drafted, even before it is tabled in the House of Commons. This is due to the fact that “federal legislation has been co-drafted by pairs of law clerks, one anglophone and the other francophone, working together with the help of jurilinguists responsible for ensuring that the two versions match.”63 A number of MPs, especially bilingual francophones, say that they look at both versions of a bill during clause-by-clause committee meetings to spot any errors or discrepancies. Anglophone MPs said that their francophone colleagues, particularly those from the Bloc Québécois, are especially vigilant in pointing out any potential problems.

A notable distinction emerges among MPs representing francophone minority communities in Canada outside Quebec. They regularly see that their specific concerns, as well as the particular realities of their minority communities, are frequently overlooked in the House of Commons when bills are being drafted, debated and adopted. This raises concerns about adequate representation and an effective consideration of the needs of francophone minorities in the Canadian legislative process.

“I often notice that the legislation being prepared does not take into account francophone minorities. It’s horrible because we’re a bilingual country, we have a law that has to be respected, and it isn’t always automatic. There are gaps. Then, often thanks to the fact that we’re Acadians or francophones in government, who govern today, we can add, improve and intervene. We’ve done it at least a dozen times. I’ll give you an example: C-35 was about daycares where French did not have the same guarantees. In C-13, I brought in amendments that my government wasn’t in favour of at first, but that they accepted over time…. There have been at least fifteen times in my nine years in Parliament where the legislation wouldn’t have represented francophones if they hadn’t been at the table or around the table.”64

Another MP who identifies as French-Canadian also expressed this concern, indicating that it is the responsibility of francophone civil society organizations to lead advocacy actions to encourage all elected officials, not just francophones, to take their concerns into consideration.

Conclusion

The main goal of this study was to identify the various forms of anglonormativity in the House of Commons and to assess their impact on the inclusion of francophone MPs and on the House’s ability to legislate in French and to represent the interests of francophones. Following semi-structured interviews with twelve parliamentarians sitting in the House of Commons, several major findings have come to light. First, due to the significant prevalence of unilingual anglophones in Parliament and high rates of bilingualism among French speakers, English is the main language used in both formal and informal parliamentary work. This has a profound impact on the organizational culture of the House of Commons by excluding and marginalizing those who are not as fluent in the dominant language and by depriving them of the same opportunities to fully exercise their parliamentary duties as their anglophone counterparts. Bilingualism becomes a requirement for francophones, who often have to work in their second official language, while their anglophone colleagues are not held to the same standard due to the predominance of English.

Anglonormativity in the House of Commons contributes to the perception of French as a barrier or constraint. Indifference and even mistrust mean that using French is not easy for francophone MPs. Nevertheless, they feel it is their responsibility to make this difficult choice to promote and valorize French, francophones and their constituents across Canada. This choice becomes even more difficult for minority French-Canadian MPs, but remains essential, given the imperative of representing the interests of this linguistic minority within a legislative institution in which it is often forgotten.

Future research into parliamentary bilingualism and the use of both official languages could determine whether the challenges reported by francophone MPs are a matter of privilege, due to the limitations they impose on their ability to fully exercise their parliamentary functions. This would lead to a better understanding of the institutional dynamics that promote or hinder linguistic equality within Parliament and, by extension, in Canadian democracy.

These issues are not limited to francophone MPs in the House of Commons. They raise fundamental issues that go far beyond the simple question of language. They touch on the very essence of national unity in Canada, where peaceful coexistence between the two official languages has long been a pillar of our collective identity. Equitable recognition and respect for official languages play a crucial role in preserving our cultural and linguistic diversity, reinforcing our sense of belonging to a pluralistic nation. If Canada is to assert its identity as a country with two official languages and a rich cultural diversity, it is imperative that Parliament truly reflect this desire. These issues also reveal ongoing challenges for our democracy, particularly with regard to equitable access to political representation and civic participation for all Canadians, regardless of their first language. How these issues are addressed in the House of Commons will determine both the future of parliamentary bilingualism and the path taken by Canadian society as a whole.

Notes

1. Peter Zimonjic, “Conservative MP Accused of Insulting Francophones by Asking Minister to Speak English,” CBC, November 30, 2023, https://www. cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-accused-insulting- francophones-1.7044958.
2. Marie-Ève Hudon, “Official Languages and Parliament,” Library of Parliament (Ottawa, Canada, Library of Parliament, March 15, 2022), 1, https:// lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ ResearchPublications/2015131E.
3. Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.), s.

133, reproduced in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No. 5.

1. Scott Piroth, “A Bilingual Legislature? Question Period in Canada’s House of Commons,” The Journal of Legislative Studies 18, No. 2 (June 2012): 161, https:// doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.673063.
2. Jean Delisle, “Fifty Years of Parliamentary Interpretation,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 32, No. 2 (2009): 28.
3. Piroth, 2012, 161.
4. Ibid, 179
5. Hudon, 2021, 9.
6. Ibid, 10.
7. Treasury Board of Secretariat, “Demographic trends for official languages,” Open Government Portal (Government of Canada, March 29, 2023), https:// search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/pch,PCH-2023- QP-00010
8. Hudon, 2021, 9.
9. This empirical observation has been backed up by researchers including Scott Piroth, who, in his analysis of Question Period data from the 24th to 39th Parliaments, noted that “a dramatic increase in the use of French occurred in the 35th Parliament (1993–97) with the arrival of the BQ, when 41% of the question and responses in the sample were in French.” Piroth, 2009, 167. Journalist Chantal Hébert wrote in her book that, before the BQ entered the scene, “French was a token presence in the question period, its place in the exchanges largely left to the changing whims of the official opposition of the day and its rotation of speakers.” She goes so far as to assert that Parliament Hill’s bilingual image, even the National Capital’s as a whole, is largely due to the BQ. Chantal Hébert, “Lucien Bouchard’s Gift to Canada,” in French Kiss: Stephen Harper’s Blind Date with Quebec (Vintage Canada, 2011), 175.
10. Pascal Vachon, “Le français en chute libre dans la fonction publique fédérale,” ONFR+, December 7, 2022, https://onfr.tfo.org/francais-chute-dans-la-fonction- publique-federale/.
11. Marie-Ève Hudon, “Official Languages in the Federal Public Service,” Library of Parliament (Ottawa, Canada: Library of Parliament, June 21, 2011), 12, https://lop. parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchP ublications/201169E#txt60. A 2011 report by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages shows as much, adding that English is commonly used between regions, even between predominantly French-speaking offices in Quebec and those in the National Capital Region. (See: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, “Beyond Bilingual Meetings: Leadership Behaviours for Managers,” Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (Gatineau, Canada: Government of Canada, March 2011), 2, https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/ en/publications/studies-other-reports/2011/beyond- bilingual-meetings-leadership-behaviours-managers). This linguistic imbalance in bilingual spaces is corroborated by a 2002 Treasury Board Secretariat report, which points out that francophones are often required to speak English more often than anglophones need to speak French. This asymmetry is also backed up by data showing that anglophones in bilingual environments only speak French 14% of the time, while francophones in the same environments speak English 43% of the time. (See: NFO CFgroup, Patterson Langlois Consultants, and Bélisle Marketing LTD, “Attitudes Towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada” (Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board Secretariat, August 2002), 15, https://publications. gc.ca/collections/Collection/BT22-85-2002E.pdf).
12. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, “Linguistic (in) security at work — Exploratory survey on official languages among federal government employees in Canada,” Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (Gatineau, Canada: Government of Canada, January 2021), 1, https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/ en/publications/studies-other-reports/2021/linguistic- insecurity-work-exploratory-survey-official.
13. Alexandre Baril, “Intersectionality, Lost in Translation? (Re) Thinking Inter-Sections between Anglophone and Francophone Intersectionality,” Atlantis 38, No. 1 (June 1, 2017): 127, https://atlantisjournal.ca/index.php/ atlantis/article/view/4088.
14. Anne Lévesque, “Pour lutter contre l’assimilation des francophones au Canada, il faut s’attaquer à l’anglonormativité,” Le Franco, March 5, 2022, https://lefranco. ab. ca/opinions-pr/2022 /03 /05 / lutte-assimilation-francophones-canada-attaquer- anglonormativite-anne-levesque/. According to Lévesque, although anglonormativity is a wider issue, it is often language insecurity at the individual level that is unfortunately confused with this systemic issue.
15. J. A. Laponce, Loi de Babel et autres régularités des rapports entre langue et politique (Quebec, Canada: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006).
16. Richard Simeon and David Cameron, “Accommodation at the Pinnacle: The Special Role of Civil Society’s Leaders,” in Language Matters: How Canadian Voluntary Associations Manage French and English (Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 2009), 176.
17. Ibid.
18. Piroth, 2009, 167.
19. Léger, “Bilingualism in Canada: Survey of Canadians,” Léger 360 (Montréal, Canada: Léger, June 19, 2024), https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ Leger-x-CP-_Bilingualism-in-Canada.pdf.
20. Breton, R. “The Functions of Language in Canada: Discussion of Paper by J. D. Jackson,” in The Individual, Language and Society in Canada (1977): 91, cited in Scott Piroth, “A Bilingual Legislature? Question Period in Canada’s House of Commons,” (The Journal of Legislative Studies 18, No. 2, 2012): 175, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13572334.2012.673063.
21. Bloc MP #2, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, April 30, 2024.
22. Bloc MP #1, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, April 29, 2024.
23. Conservative MP #4, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 16, 2024.
24. Conservative MP #1, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, April 26, 2024.
25. Liberal MP #3, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 7, 2024.
26. Bloc MP #3, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 2, 2024.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
30. Ibid.
31. Conservative MP #3, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 9, 2024.
32. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
33. Lévesque, 2022.
34. Conservative MP #4, 2024.
35. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
36. Deslise, 2009, 28.
37. Piroth, 2009, 162
38. Hudon, 2022, 2.
39. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
40. New Democrat MP #3, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 8, 2024.
41. Bloc MP #3, 2024.
42. Conservative MP #4, 2024.
43. Alan Patten, “Political Theory and Language Policy: Publicity and Deliberation: Democratic Ideals in Dispute,” Political Theory 29, No. 5 (2001): 692.
44. Conservative MP #3, 2024.
45. Conservative MP #4, 2024.
46. New Democrat MP #1, 2024.
47. Liberal MP #3, 2024.
48. Conservative MP #3, 2024.
49. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
50. Élizabeth Bergeron, “Rebâtir un Canada législatif bilingue: une feuille de route solidifiée par et pour les législateurs,” Parliamentary Internship Programme, 2022, 12.
51. Liberal MP #3, 2024.
52. Conservative MP #3, 2024.
53. Liberal MP #3, 2024.
54. New Democrat MP #1, 2024.
55. Conservative MP #4, 2024.
56. Bloc MP #2, 2024.
57. Bergeron, 2022, 10.
58. New Democrat MP #1, 2024.
59. Bloc MP #3, 2024
60. Hudon, 2021, 4.
61. Liberal MP #2, Interview on anglonormativity, interview by Ahdithya Visweswaran, May 3, 2024.