«« Le français au Canada

Mr. Dion's bilingual flapdoodle

Our federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just doesn't get it.

Stéphane Dion, who holds special responsibility for official languages, provoked a summer storm last week when he said in Fredericton: "Imagine something like official bilingualism in all the provinces." He suggested that French-speaking Quebeckers would then feel more secure and would press the Quebec government to be more open toward English Quebec.

"Part of the worry of Quebec francophones stems from the fact that they feel that French is not sufficiently supported outside Quebec. So, if everyone was more forthcoming, you would see Quebec become more forthcoming as well."

Oh? Mr. Dion made a similar argument when, in 1996, he urged Canadians to support recognition of Quebec as a distinct society for the sake of national unity. "This feeling of rejection is a powerful reason for many of them to support the separatist cause. The recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness . . . will give Quebeckers the confidence to make a full and enthusiastic contribution to our federation."

But Bernard Landry, then deputy premier, quickly shot down that fallacy. "National unity as such is a myth: There are two nations." And he rejected any negotiations that weren't based on the equality of the two nations.

Mr. Dion's current musings provoked a cloudburst of rejection, notably sarcastic comments aimed at an English Canada supposedly close-minded toward bilingualism. A LaPresse editorial decried "the beautiful utopia of Pierre Trudeau" and concluded: "This is perhaps what bilingualism really means in Canada: deputy ministers who's French is limited to singing Alouette, gentille alouette."

Ironically, it was Robert Bourassa who scuttled the opportunity to achieve what Mr. Dion proposed last week. The Victoria charter was to have been signed by the first ministers in 1971, the culmination of three years of intensive federal-provincial negotiations. All premiers had indicated they were ready to sign, but, at the last minute, Quebec's premier backed out.

Had he signed, the Constitution would have been patriated with an amending formula. Each of the four regions (including Quebec) would have had a veto -- which Quebec does not have. The three justices from Quebec on the Supreme Court would have been entrenched.

Seven provinces (and any future provinces) would have entrenched English and French as the official languages of their legislatures. The three westernmost provinces did not sign on, but the charter provided that each of them could do so at any time, and thereafter be bound forever.

The Victoria charter would not have entrenched minority-language schools across the country, but only because the Quebec premier, preparing restrictions on English schooling, was opposed.

In explaining his refusal to sign, Mr. Bourassa said the charter did not transfer more powers over culture and social affairs from Ottawa to Quebec. But, in 1977, he gave another reason: By signing on to a patriated Constitution and an amending formula that gave a veto to three other regions of Canada, Quebec would have difficulty in seceding. "If one of the provinces, according to the amending formula, opposed accepting the referendum, it could mean that the federal government would be constitutionally obliged to take every means to have the integrity of the territory respected."

Quebec threw away a historic opportunity. And Mr. Dion, who called Quebec's repressive Charter of the French Language "a great Canadian law," has no credibility to pursue generous policies toward French in the rest of Canada. wjohnson@globeandmail.ca