Canada: Why should Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall learn French?

Wed Apr 8 16:10:06 UTC 2009

Darcy Meyers: Why should Brad Wall learn French?

Posted: April 07, 2009, 6:35 PM by NP Editor
Canadian politics

Don Martin speculated in this weekend’s National Post on the new “it”
guy - Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.  Martin argues-correctly in my
opinion- that Wall’s attributes make him well suited to take a run at
the top job in the nation.  The large caveat put on this
interpretation is that Wall is unilingual. Such a “shortcoming” is
portrayed as an obvious impediment to national leadership in Canada.
Whether you agree on Wall’s leadership suitability or not, there is
the larger question of required language capability and federal
service-specifically Prime Minister.  Is it not time to move beyond
this restrictive qualification when rating a leader’s ability?  Not
that communication doesn’t matter-but in today’s age should bilingual
fluency be a requirement?

Why does any future PM of Canada have to speak fluent French-when
seamless translation is possible?  Is it not yet passé to have such a
language requirement for a leader-with today’s communication services
and technology?  We can twitter our every thought, dictate our text
and translate it into any language with relative ease - a unilingual
leader would have far more resources available for their
communications.  Instantaneous translation is available and accepted
globally- in business and international affairs-it should be
acceptable within Canada as well.

The Canadian language of majority is English -- by far -- yet it is
possible for a leader to become PM with weak English skills. Stephen
Dion was criticized for his shaky English, but that was not his
downfall.  It was the widespread negative perception on his leadership
abilities that sunk his boat.  Mr. Dion was given the benefit of the
doubt with his English skills initially, but he lost the public
perception battle.  Jean Chretien governed for over a decade without
speaking either official language very well, which was part of his
charm.  The most popular leader in the world is unilingual, and is
respected from Azerbaijan to Zambia. Barack Obama has experienced no
ill will or suffered a perceived leadership fault for lack of language
skills -- such an assessment would rightly be considered nonsense.
Canadians accept language shortcomings from capable leaders, both
English and French, and we should not narrow our leadership pool.
Such limitations are outdated and do not serve Canada or our rich
French heritage well.

Further, and more important than leader speculation and personal
attributes, is the broader application of bilingualism within the
civil service.  Should the federal civil service maintain stringent
language requirements any longer as a broad policy?  The civil service
requirements are limiting or dissuading otherwise qualified candidates
from engaging in our public service.  The bilingual communications
requirements of the Government of Canada could largely be met by
application of new technologies, over hiring practices or expensive
language training.  This should be the future of bilingualism in
Canada -- embracing and investing in technology -- not a broad-based
policy with no grounding in true effectiveness.

Stephen Harper has said, “Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a
country with two languages. And there is a big difference.”   He’s
right.  One of the primary goals of Official Bilingualism was to
promote and broaden the bilingual community in Canada.  Based on this
measure-the policy has been an outright failure.  We remain a country
of many languages -- not a bilingual country.

Less than 19% of Canadians are bilingual.  This figure highlights the
failure of a misapplied language policy.  After 40 years of bilingual
policy, a unilingual leader is far more reflective of the national
character than a bilingual one.  This has clearly become a false
condition for leadership in the Canada of the 21st Century.  It is
also a false application of policy within the broader context of civil
service.  It is unreasonable that 4 in 5 Canadians would not qualify
for many federal civil service jobs, even if they speak an official
language.  Similarly this 80% would be considered  inadequately
qualified for Prime Minister based solely on language skills.  This is
truly antiquated with the availability of today’s technologies.

Of course, the main resistance to updating our approach to language
will be spearheaded by the permanently aggrieved separatists, stirring
up resentment over a policy well liked in Quebec.  Any such attempt to
update language laws or present an English only leader would be met
with fierce opposition and predictable tantrums.  Although this
aggrieved claim would be used to support the cause of separatism, the
inverse is the unfortunate truth.  Forty years of official language
policy has done nothing to tame separatist sentiment or act as a
bridge for unity.

Unilingual French Canadians will always have their language rights
protected and will continue to receive service in their language as
guaranteed under the Official Languages Act.  That act -- and
constitutional assurances -- protect these language rights, but the
nature of service and delivery can be better interpreted and are open
to evolution in application.

French is a founding language of Canada -- it is and will always be
respected as such.  However, the growth and evolution of
communications globally will not heed any archaic language laws.
Competitiveness must be sought in all areas, including how we
communicate internally.  The need to adapt and compete outside our
borders will eventually overcome the current political myopia present
today.  Canada should move beyond the old arguments of centuries past
and overcome our secular language tendencies.  We should move forward
in our approach to communication and language rights.  We can ensure
respect is maintained and competitiveness is sought within the global
context-by applying and embracing new technology in our approach to
languages.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/07/darcy-meyers-why-should-brad-wall-learn-french.aspx

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************