Francophone Minorities in Canada: Trapped between the New/Old Minority Categories

Abstract

Authors in various disciplines have adopted a dichotomous typology of “old and new minorities”. For many scholars and policy makers, this dual conception, which was notably introduced by Will Kymlicka, has further evolved into a three-pronged typology, where Indigenous peoples constitute a distinct category. This classification has had a significant influence on both theoretical and functional accommodation of minorities. It has provided a set of criteria for determining which fundamental rights, accommodation measures, and self-government mechanisms can legitimately be claimed by each category. In this article, the author argues that the dominant three-pronged classification of minorities—“national minorities”, “aboriginal peoples” and “ethnic minorities”—fails to capture the specificity and complexity of the French-speaking communities who do not enjoy territorial autonomy in Canada. The result is that Francophone minority communities outside of Quebec (which amount to one million French-speakers) effectively find themselves in a normative penumbra, as their fluid identity floats between an “ethnic minority” and a “national minority”. The dichotomous distinction between old and new minorities has rendered these communities largely invisible, and the discussion on their political autonomy, almost inexistent. The author suggests three tentative answers to what could be called “Kymlicka’s blind spot”. The first replaces the rigid categories with a spectrum, the second builds continuum inside the current categories and the third proposes to add another category to the existing typology. Any exploration of alternative conceptual schemes requires notably a clarification of the claims of autonomy made—or which could be made—by these linguistic minorities, including claims of territorial or non-territorial political autonomy. While political autonomy has not been recognized for francophone minority communities in Canada, the author discusses the legitimacy and potential forms of this possibility, often overlooked in favour of non-State efforts. Ultimately, this piece calls to rethink Kymlicka’s typology through a more nuanced and contextualized lens, in light of the Canadian experience.