Oh the Humanities!: Of Language Czars, the Civil Service and Policy-Making

A story about my research being presented today at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Waterloo appears in today's National Post.  I wanted to get this post up quickly because it clarifies a few points - and spins my research a little differently from how the Post did.

The article is connected to my ongoing research on the history of bilingualism, and the ways in which English-speaking Canadians responded to efforts to promote second-language learning and individual bilingualism since the 1960s.  My paper at Congress is entitled "Playing Games with the Language Czar: The Peculiar Political Role of the Commissioner of Official Languages".  It details a number of the initiatives undertaken the first Commissioners, starting with Keith Spicer, to foster positive attitudes to language learning and bilingualism in Canada, including the development of board games such as "Oh! Canada" and "Explorations", and sponsorship of Canadian Parents for French.  I discuss how the Commissioners went beyond the somewhat negative legislatively-required dimensions of their roles -  such as investigating complaints about delivery of service in both official languages - to undertake initiatives to promote more positive attitudes towards Canada's official languages, and towards language learning more generally in Canada.  As the Commissioners argued, this was in line with the spirit of the Act, and enhanced the acceptability of the official languages policy with Canadians, and their actions were on the whole supported by the governments of the day.

Although the National Post reporter chose to spin this aspect in a more negative way than I might have liked, I argue that the ability of the Commissioners to engage in these creative activities was part of a more open approach to public policy making that was part of Canada's political culture of the 1960s and 1970s (and earlier), when senior civil servants and officers of Parliament were encouraged and allowed to play a more active role in the process of policy development, and to draw on their skills and creativity to propose and build upon policy directions that the governments of the day wanted to undertake.  I view the loss of this in the present day as a detriment to Canadian society, and a sign that the federal government is acting in increasingly ideological ways, and seems afraid to trust the expertise of the people who work for it.  These Commissioners, and other officers of Parliament, were acting in what they interpreted to be the best interests of Canadians, in line with the spirit (if not necessarily the more specific - but not restrictive -  wording) of the legislation that created their officers.  Contrary to what I interpret to be the position of the National Post, I don't view this as troubling, but as an often important external check on the actions of our governments or an enhancement to the policy-making process.  

I'll have more to write later, but my presentation itself is today, and I have to go a-Congressing!

ETA: Also, although the Oh! Canada game mentioned in the article was released in 1974, I wasn't actually playing it until several years later - what with not being born until 1977! - which is testimony to the staying power of those kits and their broad distribution over many years.

Recommend this Post

Graham Fraser's So-called Secret Shoppers

Graham Fraser, Canada's commissioner of official languages, has kicked off a bit of a kerfuffle in the nation's capital over a recently announced plan to investigate the state of bilingualism in the national capital region, a research study which would entail both examining signage and service delivery at federal government offices and buildings, but also examining commercial services in the region.

In today's Ottawa Citizen, Fraser defends this study as part and parcel of his mandate, which is not only to be the ombudsman for the federal government's institutional bilingualism, but also to promote and encourage bilingualism in Canada's business and voluntary organizations. He outlines a well-worn path of both his own actions, and those of his immediate predecessor, Dyane Adam. By couching this study as necessary research for identifying best practices in the private sector, he makes a good case for why his office should fund such research. Indeed, had Fraser been alloted more space, he might have pointed out that historically some of the best work of the Commissioner's office has been in areas that are not squarely within the realm of adjudicating complaints about federal bilingualism, but promoting linguistic duality more broadly. Efforts to promote French second language learning and French immersion, which have been ongoing since the first commissioner, Keith Spicer, leap to mind as an example.

It's unfortunate that the media were so quick to attach the phrase "secret shoppers" to this initiative, which invokes images of language police that are, alas, not alien to recent Canadian history. But it would be nice if these secret shoppers were in fact able to discover some great language practices in Ottawa. Then perhaps we could call Fraser "Canada's Secret Santa" if and when he produces a report filled with great new ideas for making bilingual service delivery more widely available. A December report release seems in order, no?

Recommend this Post

$1.1B for official languages - Breathing a sigh of relief

Back in December, I participated in the Department of Canadian Heritage's stakeholder consultations, facilitated by Bernard Lord, which were held in preparation for a renewal of the government's official languages strategy. The mood in the room was pessimistic, as we had only been asked to participate a few days prior, which gave the impression that the consultations were window dressing, rather than a serious commitment to consultation. There was also widespread concern among the groups present that it would be impossible for the government to hold consultations, write a report, and then develop a strategy in time for when the previous 5-year plan elapsed in March.

Sure enough, the former plan, and existing funding arrangements elapsed in March, and the government was criticized by Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser for its inaction on the dossier. Last week (three months later!) I was at a conference on official languages and bilingualism, and there were many sighs of relief at the government's (quiet) announcement that it would be launching another five year plan - a "Roadmap for Linguistic Duality" which committed the government to spending $1.1 billion over the next five years. This does represent an increase in absolute dollars over the previous 5 year plan. There was some criticism in a number of quarters about the fact that the government does not seem to have listened to recommendations that more needs to be done to strengthen official languages teaching and exchange programs in the universities. However, many core programs have been renewed, which is somewhat of a relief! We will have to see exactly how these funds end up being apportioned.

Recommend this Post

Fraser reports. No, the official languages one...

Graham Fraser released his first annual report as Commissioner for Official Languages today. I've spent the day writing about the history of official languages policy, and haven't had a chance to read the full report yet. The highlights, however, are damning. Fraser is deeply critical of how the Harper government has undermined Stéphane Dion's 2003 Action Plan for Official Languages, and for cutting the Court Challenges Program, one of the key legal tools that has historically been used to secure minority language rights in Canada.

Someone is also asleep at the wheel in the Conservative optics department. The government has announced that it will not replace Guy Lauzon, chair of the House of Commons official languages committee, after he was voted out in a joint vote by the three opposition parties, who had lost confidence in him. This is not the sort of story that a government wants to have on the same day as the Official Languages Commissioner is criticizing its record.

More to follow later... In the meantime, Paul Wells has some good analysis.

Recommend this Post