Wednesday, August 10, 2011

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?

Labels: , , , ,

Recommend this Post

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Mon pays, ce n'est pas Vancouver!

I had to shake my head in amused bewilderment in reading Vancouver Olympics CEO John Furlong's whining in his memoirs about how the issue of French in the Olympics' opening and closing ceremonies was criticized by people like Graham Fraser and James Moore, excerpted in this morning's Globe and Mail. He seems to be very put upon, stung by criticisms of people he thought were his political allies. I posted my own thoughts on this issue last year.

But the thing that I found really amusing, in a shake-your-head kind of way, is Furlong's defence of the relative absence of French in the ceremony, which was that the original plan for the opening ceremonies, designed by David Atkins, was to have a major component oriented around Gilles Vigneault's song "Mon Pays", only to have Vigneault refuse them the rights.

The fact that Atkins and Furlong were surprised by this just goes to show how completely out of touch they are with the province of Quebec and Canadian history. I freely acknowledge that the lyrics for the song, on their face, are great for a Canadian Olympics, since they roughly translate as "My country, it is not a country, it is winter." But the song is a long-standing nationalist hymn for the sovereignty movement, and Vigneault himself is a high-profile separatist. After the 1980 referendum went down to defeat, it was "Mon Pays" that the disappointed crowd of "Oui" supporters sang. And so it shouldn't have been any surprise that he wouldn't allow it to be sung in a ceremony celebrating a united Canada including Quebec. Indeed, it's amazing that the organizers designed as much of a program around it as they did without asking his permission first. Whatever else one might think about how Furlong felt about how he was treated for his under-use of French, the fact that this is his line of defence indicates, at least to me, just how out of touch he was with the highly political issue of language.

ETA: Correction: As one of the commenters pointed out, it was "Gens du Pays", not "Mon Pays", that was sung on the night of the referendum - a quick check of Daniel Poliquin's biography of Levesque confirmed this. But it was still Vigneault, and "Mon Pays" also holds an anthemic status in the province.

The melody for "Mon Pays," for those who like Canadian trivia, was reworked into the 1970s disco hit "From New York to L.A." by Acadian chanteuse Patsy Gallant, who appeared many times as part of Ottawa's Canada Day events.

Labels: , , , ,

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Are bilingual Olympics the federal government's responsibility?

Representatives of the Vancouver Olympics organizing committee were hauled before Parliament's official languages committee this week, following Official Languages commissioner Graham Fraser's report last week that the Vancouver Olympics are falling far short of their obligations to provide bilingual services.

Before anyone starts railing against Canadian bilingualism, and arguing that Vancouver doesn't need bilingual signage, etc., let's look at this squarely in the context of the Olympics. The modern Olympics are the brainchild of Frenchman Baron Pierre de Coubertin. English and French are the two official languages of the Olympics - no matter what country they are held in - and when you watch the seemingly endless parade of nations, you will hear the names of countries said in both of those languages. This is not a "made in Canada" bilingualism issue - it is international and Olympic in nature. But even from a domestic vantagepoint, it would be extremely short-sighted not to think that there would be thousands of Canadian francophones descending on Vancouver for the Olympics, many of whom will only speak French (particularly if they are from Quebec, where it is quite possible and common to be a unilingual francophone). Moreover, a sizeable component of Canada's own Olympic contingent will be French-speaking.

The question for me that prompted this post relates to the first article that I linked to. VANOC is apparently going to ask the federal government for help with the estimated $1.7 million cost of providing bilingual services at the Games. I'm not completely convinced that the federal government should cover these costs, and I hold that opinion despite being an advocate of bilingualism. If the federal government has already refused to cover other funding shortfalls of the Games, I don't think that language services are necessarily in a different category. $1.7 million dollars could cover a heck of a lot of university students on second language exchanges, could train a lot of teachers, or could help support minority language schools, to name but a few alternative uses of this funding. The federal government should hold VANOC to its obligations to provide bilingual services, but I'm not convinced that it should have to bear the financial implications of this - particularly as this is not a "made in Canada" requirement of the games.

Labels: , ,

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

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.

Labels: , ,

Recommend this Post

Monday, March 27, 2006

Graham Fraser, "Sorry, I Don't Speak French"


Canadian politics often seems inspired by the ostrich - if there is a problem, our leaders seem to think that bury their heads in the sand will make it go away. This is clearly the case when we look at the history of Canadian language policy, a subject that Toronto Star columnist Graham Fraser tackles head on with his new book, Sorry, I Don't Speak French: Confronting the Canadian crisis that won't go away published this month by McClelland and Stewart. The book should be on the reading list of any aspiring Canadian politician, and more than a few top bureaucrats and university administrators.

The subject matter of this book is one in which I am intensely interested, as a fellow anglophone working on language policy issues. Fraser approaches his subject matter from a sympathetic perspective, as someone who learned French in university, and who wants to see official bilingualism succeed. As opposed to many who have written about the language policies that began in the Pearson and Trudeau years, Fraser does not advocate a complete rejection of these policies, despite the flaws in their implementation. Rather, he takes a hard look at what the original objectives of these policies were and how they have been implemented to date, then makes recommendations to try to make these policies work.

Canada's language policy has never been about "forcing the French tongue down people's throats", despite the claims of many who would critique it on this basis. Nor is it about forcing all Canadians to be bilingual. Rather, it is about trying to create the conditions for a viable political community in which both official language communities - English and French - are able to co-exist and have access to a full range of government services and opportunities. To make this function, a significant percentage of the population, particularly those working in federal institutions, will need to be bilingual. The challenge is to make these institutions truly bilingual, and to foster a political culture in which those who aspire to such leadership positions consider bilingualism a prerequisite. In this, Fraser argues, the policies have fallen short.

One of the strongest sections of this book is Fraser's history of Canadian language policy. Drawing on several key works from the secondary literature, he also turns to the two intellectual fathers of Canada's language policy - B&B Commissioners Frank Scott and Andre Laurendeau - to examine how they conceived of these policies, and how their visions continue to shape how we think about language in this country.

Profiles of Canada's two main "bilingual" cities are revealing about the successes of the last 40 years of Canadian language policy. The Montreal of Fraser's book is now the French-first city dreamed of by Bill 101's founders. Anglophone Montrealers have the highest levels of bilingualism in the country, and in most of the city, the default language of interaction is French. Ottawa, meanwhile, has proven more resistant to official bilingualism - with levels of bilingualism in the service industries far lower than one might expect of the nation's capital. While Fraser's evidence for this state of affairs draws heavilly on personal experience, it does reflect the sociolinguistic literature, and adds a personal take on the evolution of these cities. Indeed, the personal anecdotes peppered throughout the text make for an emininently readable book.

In critiquing the failures of Canadian language policy, Fraser turns his attention to the persistent problem of the "catch-up" approach to bilingualism that still prevails in Ottawa. Functional bilingualism is still far from a reality in much of the civil service, with many civil servants lacking the language skills needed to advance to middle- or senior-management. As a result, millions of dollars are spent annually on expensive language training programs to train middle-aged civil servants to speak their second language.

Why is this still the case, thirty-five years after the federal government began funding second-language instruction in the elementary and secondary schools of the country through the Official Languages in Education Program? As Fraser points out, while opportunities do exist for second language acquisition, these skills are still undervalued in the Canadian psyche and education system. Universities teach French as a foreign language, and do not require knowledge of Canada's other official language for admission or graduation - even in such disciplines where one might think such a skill would be needed for post-graduate employment, such as journalism, political science and public administration. Unlike European countries, where knowledge of multiple languages is valued, English Canada is mired in a North American mindset which sees English as the global language, and doesn't see the need for bi- or multilingualism. Fraser also questions one of the sacred cows of the current Canadian language policy regime - French immersion. Critiquing the pedagogy of French immersion has, unfortunately, become tantamount to critiquing bilingualism. Fraser argues that it may be time for a frank re-evaluation of French immersion pedagogy, so that the desired outcome - a fluently bilingual class of citizen - is actually produced, rather than a cohort of individuals who lack certain critical skills in writing and grammar.

The issues Fraser raises are certainly pertinent ones, and have too long passed in silence. It is as if with the passage of Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone assumed that Canadian language policy was now formed, and could be left alone to function. Fraser has diagnosed some key maladies with the system that crucially need to be addressed. The Liberal Party, for one, is an institution which needs to take these issues to heart. An effective leader needs to be able to communicate in both English and French, and many of their contenders cannot. Any aspiring politician in this country should have bilingualism as a basic credential - and multilingualism would be an additional asset. Our leaders need to be able to speak, and listen, directly to both official language communities, without resorting to a third party. Hopefully, we will come to a means of instilling this message into the Canadian political discourse. But, as Graham Fraser points out, we are still a way from reaching this point, and action will be needed to correct the drifting course of Canadian language policy.

Labels: , ,

Recommend this Post