Bilingualism in comparative perspective: Canada, Belgium and Finland

The Vancouver Olympic Games put the spotlight on Canadian bilingualism, even if at first it was in more of a negative way. The ensuing debate brought out different aspects of how bilingualism applies: first, in greetings and translations of official decrees, announcements and speeches; second, in administrative services offered to both the public and Olympic staff and athletes; and third, in terms of how to reflect both Anglophone and Francophone sides of Canadian cultural production and expression. Though the opening ceremonies appeared to displease many at certain levels, the closing ceremonies and subsequent after-party seemed to do a better job of bridging our differences.

Around 50 countries in the world have more than one official language. Different sovereign states have different approaches to linguistic diversity. The cases of Belgium and Finland are perhaps among the most pertinent for comparison with Canada.

Belgium is actually trilingual, but mostly Flemish and Walloon - aka, Dutch and Francophone. Historically, it has espoused communal territorialism, somewhat like what modern Québec advocates, to the detriment of French-language minorities elsewhere in Canada. In contrast, Finland appears to follow the same model as Canada as a whole, for the protection of the Swedish language, and has done so since 1919.

According to the document Le Royaume de Belgique, «There are no bilingual documents in Belgium. Even in the Brussels bilingual zone, all documents are unilingual, but available either in Dutch or in French, depending on what the citizen asks for. The federal bureaucracy is designed along parallel linguistic lines. Laws and rules specify that 40 per cent of civil servants are unilingual Dutch, 40 per cent unilingual Francophone and 20 per cent bilingual, these being equally distributed between the Flemish and the Walloons... The ministries of Justice, Internal Affairs and Defense are split in two; one is Francophone, the other, Dutch.» (http://www.salic-slmc.ca/showpage.asp?file=biling_autres_pays/belgique&language=fr&updatemenu=true)

As the following article explains: «The Flemish have obtained, on the one hand, that the Brussels zone, limited to 19 communes, should stay officially bilingual, and on the other hand, that the surrounding communes stay Flemish (in six of these, the French-language population has "facilities")." (source:
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/belgiqueetat_histoire.htm) They do not automatically have the right to services in French in the Flemish zone, or to services in Dutch in the Walloon zone.

In contrast, in Finland, all Swedish-speaking citizens can ask for services in Swedish anywhere in the country. The education question is settled like it is in Canada, according to a formula ressembling that of legacy minority language-rights here: "On the municipal level, communes are classified as bilingual if the minority language is spoken by at least 8% of the population or by 3,000 persons (FINLEX 2006). In 2007 there were 416 communes in Finland, of which 43 are classified as bilingual and 19 Swedish speaking (Kuntaliitto 2007). In these communes children can attend Swedish speaking schools(https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/36065/gradu2007ahtola.pdf?sequence=1)

The protection of the minority language, however, is far from automatic: "Official bilingualism does not mean that all Finns are de facto bilinguals. Actually, for most Finnish speakers in monolingual areas Swedish will remain a foreign language taught in school but never used in everyday life. Bilinguals, balanced or dominant, are a minority covering mainly people who live on bilingual areas of the country and have an opportunity to use both languages in natural surroundings. The status of Swedish evokes constant debate and discussion on both political and common ground, but careful language planning, protection by law and Swedish language institutions have secured the survival of the minority language, which is rare even on an international scale." (IBIDEM -
https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/36065/gradu2007ahtola.pdf?sequence=1)

History has played an important role in the degree of respect which bilingualism enjoys, or the sense of national heritage it conveys, in these two European cases.

In Belgium, what is today the Francophone minority (at around 40 per cent, compared to less than 60 per cent for the Dutch speakers) was long the majority and dominant class. The French language today has a greater international weight than the Dutch spoken by the Flemish population. As a result, there is a lot of resentment against the French-speaking Walloons on the part of the Flemish, who today dominate the industrial class and feel they are subsidizing the French. This comes into play most especiallyin the bilingual territorial zone of Brussels, which the Flemish see geographically as belonging to Flanders.

In Finland, the situation of the Swedish-language minority resembles that of the Anglophone minority in Quebec. The Swedes were always a minority and historically controlled the country. Today, Swedish-speaking Finns represent 5.5 per cent of the population. Finland was part of the kingdom of Sweden for hundreds of years, and only became a Grand Duchy of Russia in 1809, before gaining independence in 1917. The greatest difference between Canada and Finland in terms of bilingual policy today is of course the importance of the English language relative to Swedish: even in Finland, if all citizens learn Finnish, most people wish to learn English as a second language rather than Swedish.

What can we conclude from these brief overviews? Each country has its own way of implemeting bilingual or multilingual policies. Whether it's linguistic territorialism or non-territorial linguistic communitarianism, there are advantages and disadvantages in each. The Canadian model has distinguished itself at the international level, as evinced by the Games and the response of national pride their presentation generated. Our population's sensitivity to the nuances of bilingualism – whether translation, service provision or cultural representation – can rightly make us proud of our evolution.