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

Official Bilingualism, Officers of Parliament and Supreme Court Justices

Much ink has been spilled of late about the decision of Stephen Harper to appoint a unilingual Supreme Court Justice (Michael Moldaver) and a unilingual Auditor-General (Michael Ferguson) in recent weeks. We've seen the usual range of commentary, which has ranged from demands that all top-level appointments in Canada, including the Supreme Court justices, be bilingual, to calls to have the Official Languages Act substantially watered down and abolished. Over the weekend, I had occasion to participate on a phone-in talk radio show where a caller suggested that Canada's bilingualism policy was responsible for the poor performance of the Montreal Canadiens.

Before turning to my own observations, I'd like to single out two pieces of journalism which have most impressed me. In his piece for Postmedia News, Stephen Maher pointed out that in the case of the Auditor-General, bilingualism was an explicitly listed job qualification, and that it seems particularly egregious to have selected Ferguson when the other three candidates on the short list for the position were all bilingual. In her column this morning, Lysiane Gagnon introduces some important nuance into this discussion, stressing the different job requirements - and talent pools - for the positions of Auditor-General and Supreme Court justice. I largely agree with her column, although her final snipe at the NDP for running candidates who do not speak French rings hollow for me - their constituents should have perhaps been "better employers" before voting for candidates with whom they could not communicate, and thus sending a really mixed message about the importance of bilingualism. But I digress...

My main observations about this issue are as follows. First, there are relatively few positions as an overall proportion of the civil service and judiciary which require full bilingual proficiency. These positions tend to be concentrated in areas where there are high amounts of contact with the public, or in middle-to-senior levels of management where these individuals are expected to manage departments filled with speakers of both official languages. As such, while there have been bitter and vitriolic denunciations of the official languages policy over the past four decades, this is not a complaint for which I have much sympathy in 2011. While I am fully aware that, depending on where in the country one was raised, access to French-language instruction was historically unequal, that situation was largely transformed by the 1980s through funding programs to education. The situation was not perfect, but opportunities did exist. This is particularly true within the federal civil service because, despite decades of calls for the federal government to end its costly language training programs and shift the burden of responsibility for learning a second (or third) language to individuals who sought job promotion, opportunities do still exist within the civil service for keen job climbers to go on language training. Moreover, public service unions have long protected incumbents in positions from suddenly finding their current job in jeopardy from a language re-classification. While I'm sure that someone will point me to some outlier to disprove this general rule, the overwhelming tendency within the public service has been to make bilingualism a condition for career advancement in certain areas - not for maintaining current jobs.

This brings me to the question of which positions actually require bilingualism. Under current job descriptions, the Auditor-General, whose job entails much direct contact with parliamentarians and the media, was listed as requiring bilingualism. The Supreme Court justices, whose work is supported by a small army of interpreters and legal translators, and who have relatively little direct contact with the public or the media, are not currently required to be proficiently bilingual. As such, the cases of Moldaver and Ferguson's appointments must be evaluated differently because of the differences in the currently-stated requirements for those positions. While it might be desirable to appoint fluently bilingual senior jurists to the Supreme Court, there was no requirement that Harper do so (as for the pros and cons of proposals that this be made obligatory, that's ample fodder for a post all of its own). On the other hand, applicants who responded to the search firm contracted to find an auditor general were responding to a position designated as bilingual.

It is this last fact that makes Ferguson's appointment most troubling. I can't help but think that Harper decided to appoint Ferguson even though he didn't meet this job requirement as a trial balloon, testing the public mood about the Official Languages Act. It strikes me that the fact that, on its face, the Auditor-General's job is largely perceived to be about number-crunching, played into the decision to try appointing an individual who did not have French-language capacities. Harper and his advisors may well have been counting on the public to assume that this position was all about financial skills, and ignore the substantial investigation and communication components of this position. How quickly the memory of Sheila Fraser, media star during the AdScam investigations, slipped from the public consciousness! This could well be a test to determine in how many other ways the Official Languages Act and its requirements of the federal public service might be chipped away.

The decision to appoint Ferguson despite the opposition of all three opposition parties is also very discouraging. The Auditor-General is one of a select group of senior public servants who are Officers of Parliament, and as such, stand apart from the regular civil service and rely on the confidence of all of Parliament to conduct their investigations and duties in impartial and non-partisan ways. Selecting an individual who lacked this confidence even at the outset of his appointment will cast a shadow over Ferguson's ten-year term. I should also note that I considered the Liberal tactic of walking out of Parliament in the two votes on this issue to be cowardly and sending precisely the wrong signal to Canadians. In an era where voter participation is on a steep decline, do we really want our politicians, in effect, refusing to cast a ballot because the process was flawed? If our politicians believe that it is important that the Auditor-General be competent in both of Canada's official languages, they should have the courage of their convictions to vote against the appointment of an individual who lacks that qualificiation. If not, they send a signal to Stephen Harper that they too will be wishy-washy when it comes to watering down the Official Languages Act.

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

Plus ça change...

As some followers of our top court are doubtless aware, there is a bill currently making its way into the Senate, initiated by NDP member Yvon Godin, that would require bilingualism of our Supreme Court justices.

So, with that prelude, any guesses as to who said this:

“Competency in the law is, of course, a most important criterion for the appointment of persons to the Supreme Court, but surely in this day and age it should be possible for us in Canada to pick nine men who are not only good lawyers but who are also bilingual. If we cannot do this, or at least aim toward it, there must be something wrong with this country. I do not expect we could have nine bilingual judges overnight but certainly we could work toward this goal.”

Any idea?

Ok, it was a trick question. This particular quote is from Warren Allmand, the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, in 1969 in a debate in the House of Commons about bilingualism on the Supreme Court. The fact that he said "men" and not "individuals" should perhaps have tipped you off.

Overnight, over forty years, over another century perhaps...

Unfortunately, the vehemence of the debate about Godin's bill shows just how poorly certain aspects of Canada's official languages policy have been implemented. The emphasis of the policy has been on providing government and legal services in both official languages. However, in order to really do this effectively and efficiently, you need to have a good-sized cadre of bilingual people to staff these positions, at all levels of government and the legal system, and they need to come from all across the country. Until the resistance of Canadians to learning (or making sure that your children are effectively taught) both official languages starts to break down, these conflicts are going to continue to repeat history, and we'll keep hearing the refrain of "we're not ready yet, but perhaps sometime in the future..."

And now, back to my research notes, as I pore through decades of Hansard reading the parliamentary debates about official languages.

Recommend this Post

An international broadcasting of Canada's insecurities: The closing ceremonies of the Vancouver Olympics

I'd better get this post up about the closing ceremonies of the Vancouver Olympics before my prescribed course of medications and therapy allow me to blot it forever from my mind. Because, let's be frank here, that was perhaps the most appalling display of Canadian kitsch and insecurity that I've ever seen. And I've watched 50 years worth of Canada Day ceremonies. I've seen Patsy Gallant croon "Sugar Daddy" to Joe Clark. I've seen the Calgary Safety Patrol Jamboree sing "I've Got a Dog Named Leroy" on Parliament Hill. I've seen the Spirit of a Nation tour. They all pale next to the travesty that occurred on Sunday night. That, my friends, was a national disgrace.

And it's a real shame, because the evening started off reasonably well. I thought it was a nice bit of self-mocking Canadian humour to acknowledge the torch malfunction. But really, it could have stopped right there. Because it wasn't long before things headed downhill. I will give credit where credit is due. There was a token effort to "bilingualize" the closing ceremonies. The opening number did feature singers from Canada's anglophone, francophone and aboriginal communities. The Canadian anthem was performed in its bilingual version. The cultural performance for the Sochi Olympics was dramatic.

But...

In the two weeks between the opening and closing ceremony, could someone not have phonetically written out the French portion of John Furlong's agonizingly turgid speech? Not that the English portions were riveting, but the French portions were so badly mangled that it almost would have been better not to include them at all.

And then, the so-called comedy. Three anglophone "comedians," all of whom have made their careers in the United States, were trotted out to deliver unfunny monologues that were vaguely in the tradition of the Molson "I am Canadian" advertisements. If only any of them had "Joe"'s talent for delivery. And perhaps a humourous script. And the good sense to deliver the monologue when only Canadians are watching. The rest of the world neither cares, nor needs to know about Canada's collective psychological insecurities about how we are perceived. It made us appear whiny and pathetic, which is hardly appropriate for one of the longest-established federations in the world.

Following the "comedy", the travesty... I believe it was Kelly Nestruck who tweeted that the "Maple Leaf Forever" number looked like it had been produced by Max Bialystock (of the Producers). "Springtime for Hitler" had nothing on this monstrosity of bad taste, which featured a Mountie-clad Michael Bublé crooning away while gigantic beavers, floating moose and a procession of antiquated Canadian clichés were paraded around the stadium. It was as if all of Canada's capacity for camp, bad taste and self-mockery was being sucked into a quantum singularity located in Bublé's vocal chords, with each element tripping over the next in its haste to flood onto the stage. You know that a performance is horrendous when the appearance of Nickelback on the stage comes as a relief!

The final segment, the "rock concert" was problematic, but for its own set of reasons. Although there are reasons to question the specific choices of the acts (see: Nickelback), I'm more concerned by how they represented Canadian culture. All but the final two were white, anglophone, mainstream rock-pop acts, widely known in the United States. I got the strong impression that the concert was being performed for the NBC audience, and that the rule was to "play it safe". The single francophone act and the only visible minority were held back until the very end of the concert, which to my mind smacked of tokenism. That being said, I loved Alanis Morissette's performance. But this was an opportunity not only to showcase the diversity of Canada's musical talent, but perhaps to broaden the international audience's awareness of great Canadian music beyond the best-known acts. I'm not suggesting (as Paul Wells quipped), that the entire short list for the Polaris Prize had to be featured. But perhaps something from our alternative music scene?

All in all, it was a schizophrenic and ill-conceived ceremony, which to my mind did little to correct for the flaws of the opening ceremonies. French-language and multicultural content was minimal, and clearly an afterthought. Moreover, the "fun" aspects were largely embarrassing, and perhaps better kept for Canada Day ceremonies, when only Canadians are watching. Indeed, given the bland, mainstream content of the rock concert which was so clearly targeted at the United States, it's surprising that the "comic" sections which preceded it were included. Or perhaps the producers of the ceremony want the United States to continue to think of Canada as an insecure, pathetic nation worthy of scorn. We are capable of so much better.

Recommend this Post

Alexandre Bilodeau, Canadian Nationalism, and a Bilingual Olympics

First off - kudos to Alexandre Bilodeau for breaking Canada's home-turf Olympic curse and winning the gold medal in moguls!

Tomorrow morning, he will be on the cover of every Canadian newspaper. Canadians coast to coast are celebrating his victory.

Now for the serious stuff. Amidst all of the other potentially problematic issues associated with the Olympics and Canadian nationalism, think about this: Bilodeau is a francophone from Quebec. As Heritage Minister James Moore, and Paul Wells have pointed out, the Olympics opening ceremony didn't do a great job of incorporating the French language. Both have been pilloried in comments boards for this statement. There have been quarrels over bilingual signage at the Olympics. And yet I am absolutely confident that virtually all of the Canadian sports fans who hate bilingualism are cheering for Bilodeau. And yet, they don't think a Canadian Olympics on home soil should give reasonable billing to the French language, the mother tongue of so many members of the Canadian team - including our first gold-medalist. They should think again...

Anyways, back to the festivities. And good on all the members of the Canadian moguls team for putting in such a great effort!

ETA: I see that someone on the Globe and Mail's editorial board agrees with me.

Recommend this Post

Language flap - CBC and CTV feed the trolls

Around noon today, CBC News and CTV News had posted stories that two anglophone bands were being dropped from a concert for Quebec's Fete Nationale. Predictably, the trolls flooded the comment boards denouncing Quebec, the French language, bilingualism, etc.

But here's the interesting twist. By 2 PM, Quebec culture minister Christine St-Pierre had denounced the decision, and she was joined by PQ culture critic Pierre Curzi by mid-afternoon. By 5:36, La Presse was reporting that the decision to exclude the anglophone groups had been overturned. But by 9:30 PM, both CTV and CBC were still running "Anglos excluded" headlines on their main news pages.

Irresponsible journalism? Unilingual laziness? Or just sensational troll-feeding? I suspect a combination of all three. And it irritates me profoundly. In the era of Twitter and blogs, our main English news sources should not be hours behind their French counterparts on breaking news.

Recommend this Post

Louise Harel, Montreal and the English language

Most Canadians are probably not keeping a close eye on the upcoming mayoral race in Montreal. Indeed, I would imagine that most Canadians pay little close attention to municipal politics outside of their own city, if even that - barring a federal minister telling the city council of Toronto to f#@$ off!

But these are interesting times in Montreal, as the embattled team surrounding current mayor Gérald Tremblay is facing a strong challenge from former Péquiste minister Louise Harel. Why is this of such interest? Because Harel is, for all intents and purposes, a unilingual francophone, and Montreal has almost always had a bilingual mayor to preside over its diverse linguistic population, which includes a very large anglophone cohort.

Many have, and will continue to argue that there is no reason why Montreal, Quebec's largest city, should not be governable by a unilingual francophone. And perhaps, if Harel were to surround herself with solid advisors, this would not pose an insurmountable problem. But that being said, there is an excellent editorial today in La Presse discussing the schizophrenic relationship that Quebec has with the English language. Editorialist Mario Roy shrewdly points out that although French is a vibrant, dynamic language, with influence that exceeds its political power internationally, it is foolish to refuse to learn English "comme un geste politique noble" (as a noble political gesture), given the widespread cultural, intellectual and political import of the language. It is a defence of the French language as the common political language of the province, but also a recognition that second-language learning, and in this case, to build English-language capacity, is something to be desired to be fully plugged into contemporary global culture.

Whether or not this editorial will resonate far beyond La Presse's largely federalist readership is an open question. But nonetheless, it remains true for me that this newspaper continues to provide some of the most intelligent columns and editorials in the country. And it's a real shame that far too many English-Canadians are too stubborn to recognize that they would benefit from learning how to read French so that they could appreciate the writings found not only in this paper, but through the publishing houses read by 25% of their country's population!

Recommend this Post

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.

Recommend this Post

Unilingual francophone terrorists, please use the express lane at Pearson

Please pardon the hyperbole in this post's title. I'm not particularly hysterical about airline security, and I long for the day when I can once again bring my shaving razor on an airplane. But last Wednesday, I witnessed the following exchange between the security agent at the screening gate at Pearson airport in Toronto and the woman in line behind me:

Agent: Hello, I've selected you as my random for security screening. Have you ever been selected for this before?
Woman: No.
Agent: Do you know how this process works?
Woman: No.
Agent: Do you speak English?
Woman: No.
Agent: Well, I don't speak French, and I don't know where the translator is, so you can go.

There was a particular irony to watching this exchange while I was catching a flight to a conference held in honour of the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act.
At least it made for a good anecdote to start my conference presentation. But still, the mind boggles that this is still allowed to occur.

Recommend this Post

Ontario election

So apparently an election has been called in Ontario. Who should I vote for? The governing Liberals of Dalton McGuinty, who hasn't done a great deal to excite me, other than proposing to ban fresh sushi-grade fish a few years back(and that wasn't the good kind of excitement)? The Conservatives of John Tory, who want to undermine the public school system, and perhaps allow the teaching of creationism - or maybe not? (Oops, perhaps I should be saying PC party, since the party seems to be running scared from the Conservative brand - so much so that the word does not appear on the entry page of their website). The tired NDP of Howard Hampton, who are "fighting for working families," a slogan that gets under my skin like no other, and are still trying to rid themselves of the albatross of the Bob Rae years? Or the Green Party of a leader who has made such an impression on me that I had to go look up his name (it's Frank de Jong) and have no chance of forming government?

As you can probably tell, while I'm pleased to be back in my home province, its political life is not exactly filling me with glee and excitement. I will, however, be diligent in trying to decide which way to vote, and inform you, my friendly readers, with what I find out about issues that are near and dear to my heart. I'll also attempt to put up some content about the referendum on changing the electoral system to a Mixed-Member Proportional system, which I am supporting. I'll also be placing a particular focus on my home riding of Guelph.

In the meantime, my first observation on the campaign is that I find it curious that in a province with a sizeable Franco-Ontarian minority community and a French-language services act, only one of the four aforementioned parties - the Liberals - has bothered to create a bilingual webpage. It's not like this election date wasn't set a long way in advance. If I were a francophone, I'd find this very insulting indeed.

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

A little thing called section 23

I nearly fell off my chair this morning when I read this story that Justin Trudeau had criticized the education system in New Brunswick which has separate systems for anglophones and francophones. Now, I recognize that Justin would only have been about 10 years old when his father fervently fought for the creation of Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which specifically mandates the protection of official language minority education rights. He might not remember the fact that his father specifically ensured that this section of the Charter could not be overruled by the notwithstanding clause. Maybe he didn't watch the CBC miniseries about his father starring Colm Feore which featured this as a plot point...

He clearly hasn't paid a lick of attention to the past twenty years of activism by French Canadian and Acadian communities that have used this section of the Charter to fight for the right to their own school boards. Perhaps he didn't read about how these communities were upset by the cancellaton of the Court Challenges program, which provided them with financial assistance in their legal battles to have the provinces recognize their educational rights. Perhaps he is unaware that the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the 1970s, under the aegis of the Official Languages in Education Program, to help provinces provide official language minority education. Maybe he didn't notice that Stéphane Dion helped relaunch that effort to promote official language acquisition with a major infusion of new federal money in 2003 when he was intergovernmental affairs minister.

I suppose this is one way for Justin to distance himself from criticisms that he's running on his father's name - he clearly doesn't seem to have a great sense of what that legacy implies in francophone minority communities. To be fair, he has apologized for his statements. I rather like the quote from Stéphane Dion in the Globe article: "He is new." It calls to mind a phrase that my friends used to express shock at someone's ignorance or naivete about a subject - "Are you new?!" As one of his first gaffes as a candidate for federal office, this one's a doozy!

Recommend this Post