Interview with Keith Spicer Cathy Vainio

In 1969, the federal government enacted the Official Languages Act, the intent of which was to secure for the French minority their language rights within federal government administrations throughout Canada. Keith Spicer was appointed Official Languages Commissioner in 1970. As Commissioner, his task was to interpret and implement the Act within federal departments and agencies. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Spicer had taught political science at l'Universit6 d'Ottawa, the University of Toronto, and York University. He has also been active in radio, television, and newspaper journalism, as a commentator and interview host on CBC's French network and editorial writer for the Toronto Globe and Mail. In the following interview, which took place in 1uly 1977, shortly before he resigned as Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Spicer reflects upon strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the Official Languages Act and expresses his views on the current status of French language rights in the spheres of government administration and education. Since leaving his Ottawa post, Mr. Spicer has returned to university teaching and journalism in British Columbia.

Vainio: The origin of the OLA [Official Languages Act] was, I believe, the 1963 Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism- the "B and B " - w h i c h was committed to the principle that any citizen should be entitled to participate in the administration of the nation. Could you give a brief description of the Act?

Spicer: The OLA was passed in 1969 to place English and French on equal footing as official languages of Canada in all federal administrations. The purpose of this was to enable French-speaking taxpayers to get served in the language of their taxes within the federal departments and agencies. The Act was also intended to allow as many federal employees as possible to choose the language in which they worked. Vainio: Does the OLA guarantee rights regarding language of work in areas outside the public service?

Spicer: No. It doesn't even guarantee them very well inside the public service. But it should. We have interpreted the Act to mean that employees should have the right to work in the language of their choice. It does not cover private agencies at all or provincial departments: only federal office agencies. V~inio: In 1970, one-third of the French-speaking population was bilingual. Did this, in effect, exclude two-thirds from holding jobs in the federal public service? Interchange/Vol. 8, No. 3/1977-78

61

Spicer: If you're saying you needed English to get a federal job, that was substantially true in 1 9 7 0 - with the exception of Quebec. Large parts of Quebec are tmilingually French and there's no reason why they should be anything else. After all, Alberta and great parts of Ontario are unilingually English. In 1970, it is true, it was very hard to get a supervisory or front-counter job in a bilingual area unless you were bilingual. French-speaking Canadians certainly could not rise to the top of the civil service unless they had excellent English. That is still, alas, true to a disappointing extent. You can go anywhere with E n g l i s h - right to the top - in spite of all the complaining you hear. The arrangements that have been made to protect the careers of English-speaking civil servants have made their lives pretty soft compared to those who speak French. French speakers still have to make concessions. Vainio: I understand that in 1971 the ratio of anglophones to francophones in the public service was ten to one. In 1975, the ratio was six to one. Is this gap likely to decrease within the next four years? And if and when a balance of four to one is achieved, will the French-speaking minority in Canada be presumed to have their "fair share" of employment in the public service? Spieer: I probably managed to confuse the issue with all those figures in my last Annual Report. The ratio in effect has never been ten to one. When I mentioned ten to one, I was speaking of the jobs that required only English as compared with those that required only French. The ratio has changed from ten to one to six to one, so that francophones are only getting shafted in that proportion. The system is six times less fair to them than it is to anglophones, if you want to be a little polemical about it. The proportion of francophones in the civil service is about one in four, and has been for many years. They already have their "fair share" of 2 7 % . However, these jobs tend to be grouped at the bottom of the ladder. That is what is unfair. If you look at the interesting jobs - the front-counter jobs, the prestige or supervisory jobs, most of which now require at least on paper some bilingual f l u e n c y - these have traditionally been reserved for unilingual anglophones. Francophones are the ones who are having the hard time, and you would have to be in their shoes to understand how hard this is. English-speaking civil servants often allege that they can't get a promotion unless they speak French. Well, French speakers can honestly affirm that they can't even get a job unless they are fluent in English. And I don't mean the Mickey Mouse bilingualism that most English-speaking civil servants come up with. For a francophone to make it, we expect five times greater confidence in speaking a second language. If we cut it down to essentials, the federal civil service is still not a paradise for French speakers. It's still very hard for them to hack their way through the system, even though it is now becoming less unfair. What the Commission is t ~ i n g to do is create equality of opportunity for both language groups and to make sure that there is room for unilingual francophones. We must make sure that there are all kinds of opportunities for unilingual francophones in Quebec, in the same way that there are for unilingual anglophones in English-speaking parts of Canada. That is the key area for reform. I don't want to suggest that everything that has been done in the last ten years is a wipe-out. Far from it. There has been incredible, fundamental progress; excellent, hard, footslogging, untelegenic progress. However, it has not been as well reported as most of the other reforms or the high-profile scandals. 62

Vainio: The Commission set up certain agencies to implement the Act. What are these agencies and how do they function? Spieer: There are 80 to 85 people here, and the offices are divided into three functions. There is the Complaints Service, which is staffed by about a quarter of our personnel; the Special Studies Services, which comprises half; and the Information, Liaison, and Policy section, where the rest of the officers work. The Complaints Service follows the OLA very closely. We act as ombudsman in language matters in the federal sphere. Indeed, we act as a sort of unofficial ombudsman in the provincial and private sector as well. Vainio: The Special Studies Service sounds rather ominous. How does this agency function?

Spicer: Yes, it sounds a bit like the Gestapo, but it is not that at all. The staff of the Special Studies Service are your friendly local neighbourhood medical missionaries. They do preventative medicine in the various government departments. They announce themselves as allies and say: "Look, folks, we know you are having trouble implementing this terrible Act of Parliament. Would you like some help? We're not management experts, we're not linguists either, but we have dealt with over a hundred other departments and we have a little fund of ideas that we'd like to pass along. We will come in and spend six months studying your operations, not as a mini B and B Commission or as an academic boondoggle. We will do a nuts-and-bolts, tediously boring, practical report on how to make the telephone services work; how to make the counter-services work; everything from the employment services to language training, right down to the visiting cards. We will give you a complete detailed proof print on how to meet the OLA." And they love it. For example, recently we did an intensive four-month study of Air Canada's facilities for repairing aeroplanes. We talked in great detail with nearly five hundred employees, including members of unions. We were dealing with a very critical sphere: bilingualizing aircraft manuals. We gave them 146 recommendations. One of the joys of this job is the education you get in nearly every function of government. One day it's atomic energy; the next day it's agriculture; and this time it was repairing 747s. We try to bring a little common sense and practicality to bear on all questions relating to B and B. We find that the preventative medicine approach is very well received. The public knows nothing of this. It's strictly an internal thing but probably the least harmful aspect of our operations. Vainio: Did any government department react negatively to the Commission's findings and recommendations? Spicer: No. Throughout we have adopted low-key d i p l o m a c y - tact and smiles but not dupery. We tend to take the gentle way first, but if the department is not cooperating and things get rough, we escalate the hints of doom through threats and stinging denunciations in Parliament. However, we almost never have to do that. We showed our teeth a little at the beginning. But now, we can mostly get what we want through cajolery and just straight businesslike courteous negotiations. Vainio: Has this low-key approach slowed down the Commission's work in implementing the Act? 63

Spicer: Yes, it has. It's always harder and slower to do things the reasonable way. At least, it's slower in the short run, though in the long run I'm sure we have gained time. If we had come in as a police agency and terrorized people, we would have alienated those whose cooperation we needed. We preferred wherever possible to seduce rather than subvert; and we always tried to find the angle by which we could plausibly prove to a deputy minister or a president of a Crown Corporation that our way of doing bilingualism was going to make his planes land on time (if he was in Air Canada), make his plants grow faster (if he was in agriculture), make the meals on his trains more t a s t y . . , and so on. And I do believe (joking aside) if an organization serves the public well and if it respects the rights of its own employees as to free choice of language, it is going to be a happier, more efficient organization. So we take that approach and sell them on their own vested interests in making bilingualism work. Vainio: You have indicated that government and bureaucratic inertia was manifested by what you referred to as "simulated action" and "legislative archivism." Was there anything like a backlash to the Act from within the public service? Spicer: We used these terms deliberately in our Annual Reports. These were definitely vices we observed, and it seems to me that the best way to achieve reform within the federal civil service is to fall back on frankness and humour as practical weapons. To a great extent these qualities are in my own temperament, but there are others here who share the view that we can make a lot more mileage by making very tough criticism in a humane way that protects the dignity of the victim. We have found that humour allows us to say things that are three times as tough and nasty. People now know that when a deputy minister or minister is criticized by us, it may be absolutely shocking and offensive, but it is said with a smile and a little twist of humour that allows the victim to grimace amiably as the knife is turned. With this approach, we can get away with what would objectively be outrageous, and I don't think it has harmed our image as a serious body. Vainio: I found the Commission's Annual Reports refreshing- a welcome change from the ponderous style typical of government documents. Spieer: It was difficult at the beginning. People were surprised. They thought, "What on earth is this?" But gradually we established the style and made it clear in public declarations also.

Vainio: In one of the Reports, you mentioned that the Public Information Service and the "bilingual districts" were weak links in your program for language reform. In what respect were they weak? Spicer: The bilingual districts were really an unnecessary setback for the bilingual cause. They could have been very useful had the government decided early to go ahead with them and explain them to the public in a positive, optimistic way. I n s t e a d - and I refer to "legislative a r c h i v i s m " - t h e government failed in its responsibilities. It simply put its head in the sand and ran and hid every time some lunatic came out of the woodwork. Instead of cooling off the fanatics, the government tended to cave in before every bit of backlash. I have no doubt that 64

there is some legitimate backlash, but I think you have to decide that about 10% of the people who climb the walls when they hear the words "French" or "bilingualism" are beyond argument. One doesn't gratuitously insult them, but there is no point wasting time with them. However, I believe most people will respond well if given a sound argument and if treated with respect. I think that the government has spent far too much time on its knees and not enough standing up explaining confidently and serenely that languages are opportunities. That's very simple psychology. You would be amazed how often simple, obvious, and practical things get forgotten in favour of the costly, complicated, mandarintype solutions. Too much money is spent on complicated solutions rather than low-budget, simple, practical ones. I don't meant to dump on my colleagues as I leave. I just believe it is so. We can all sort of chuckle as our country goes to the poorhouse.

Vainio: This is a somewhat facetious question, but to what degree did haruspicy play a part in the Commission's planning and approaches to the language issue? In one Report you mention decisions being made on the basis of examining chicken entrails. Spicer: That was in the French text. I am not sure who we were mocking or knocking at that stage. Just that if you want a more scientific approach than the way things are done in Ottawa, you should use chicken entrails. Vainio: Early in the Official Languages Commission's history, you stated that the seeds of B and B must be sown in the schools. You have spoken of the necessity for a long-term investment in youth. However, youth exchanges have been few. Immersion, core, and extended programs have all been subject to barrages of public and professional criticism as to effectiveness and to deficiencies in funding. Have you any concrete suggestions for improving these programs? [In "core" programs the French language is a subject of study; in "extended" or "immersion" programs French is the language of study for some or all subjects.]

Spicer: Thousands! And all the ideas are known to the public- they are the wisdom of taxi-drivers and housewives (if I can say that without being in any way sexist), They are ideas to show children that learning a second language is a useful and joyful experience. That means exposing them to people who speak the language: by allowing teachers to travel to different parts of the country; by allowing children to spend part of their education in a virtually unilingual part of the country of the other language; and by promoting summer travel and all kinds of exchanges. Audio-visual materials have their place, but the basic ideas are all rooted in common sense. You cannot learn another language unless you are exposed, at some stage, to an intensive experience- preferably with native speakers, or with superb teachers who have mastered that second language and can convey the joy of knowing it. The problem we have in Canada is that far too many teachers (I hate to say a majority of them) on both the English and French side are still turning off another whole generation of children. There are some brilliant exceptions. We are going to have the first generation of immersion pupils in another five years. There will be about 70,000 coming through. But they will not be in the work force for another 10 years, and they will not have any political 65

impact for another 20 years. Meanwhile, we have a few other fish to fry. That is why it is so urgent to do some fundamental things now and make these well known. We must base our hopes on the younger parents of English Canada. They are the moderate lobby that the government should be appealing to. A couple of months ago, an association called Canadian Parents for French was formed. They came from 16 different cities and formed a National Association in Ottawa. I hope they will become the focus for constructive thinking on the language issue in this country.

Vainio: It would seem that intensive language learning requires "open-mindedness" or a humanistically oriented education. In a climate of increasing specialization and technocratic approaches, are not the motivations lacking at the individual and institutional levels for such liberal cultural pursuits? Language immersion, for instance, requires a solid commitment. I think it would be the minority of students today that would be prepared to concentrate on in-depth language learning. Spieer: Right. But if we make immersion a serious possibility for one child in five, we can meet the need for very lucid dialogue at the interface - that is, in federal institutions and in professional societies of all backgrounds, Then give the other 80% of children graduating from high school a useful knowledge of the other language- the ability to read a newspaper, to carry on a simple conversation, to get around as a tourist. That's quite enough. Vainio: So there are two levels? Spicer: There have to be. Vainio: There is a consensus at the provincial level that something has to be done to provide adequate second-language instruction, but provincial jurisdictions do not have the wherewithal to do it. The provinces are saying that they will have to make cuts elsewhere in their budgets in order to implement comprehensive second,language teaching and learning. The Secretary of State's donation of $300 million over four years works out to not much per child per annum. Added to provincial funds, as in Ontario schools, this funding provides a token 20 minutes of second-language instruction per day. Is this adequate in the circumstances?

Spicer: The present set-up is very inadequate both in funding and in supervision of the funds. The money not only should be increased - I would say multiplied by two or three times - but should be spent on high-priority, high-payoff schemes such as youth exchanges, exposure to native teachers, and good audio-visual materials. Too many funds are being poured down provincial ratholes without adequate surveillance. To a great extent the provinces have been abandoning their responsibilities. I was glad that the federal government finally decided to stress accountability. I had hoped that the provinces would make secondlanguage instruction of the minority language a high priority. For its part, the federal government has not given strong enough leadership in this regard.

Vainio: But the federal government has only limited responsibility in education. And the provinces have tended to leave the provision of second-language instruction in the hands of the local school boards. 66

Spicer: The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in education. However, there are ways, such as grants, in which the federal government can get involvedsubverting the process constructively. Unfortunately, though, it has not appealed to public opinion by presenting really exciting programs. It would have been easy for the federal government to have come out a few years ago with a clear, confident youth option saying: "Look, folks, the dimension of language reform that's going to help you is not immediate. It's going to be through your children; but it's going to be sensational. We're going to offer your children a chance none of us had. Your children are going to learn another world language before they are out of high school. We're going to do everything to help the provinces make sure that every child will be able to carry on a conversation and read a newspaper in the other language and to have a superb grounding in their first language." There are so many ways this could have been done. Basically, the federal problem has been poor psychology. They have paid too much attention to the recalcitrants - that is, the lukewarm - when they should have appealed to the small but ever-growing core of moderates and enlightened young parents. They are the ones we should have put our money on.

Vainio: Are you proposing that French should be part of a core curriculum in the schools, or should such instruction be made readily available in elective programs in the form of French immersion?

Spicer: It should be a mixture of both. I think there should be compulsory training for an hour a day for all children in realistic, usable conversational and reading F r e n c h - that is, a program highly oriented towards oral presentation. This should start at a very early age. About 20% of the children would likely volunteer for the immersion classes. Vainio: One criticism of an audio-lingual approach is that the child doesn't really learn about French culture but simply parrots the language. Spicer: Super! That's good! Once they learn to convey and understand things in French, then they can absorb the culture. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. I'm sure. Once you have the language, that opens up the books, the films, the television. Then you can plug into the culture. Vainio: In view of recent developments in Quebec, do you foresee further progress in language reform or a regression from advances you suggest have already been made? Spicer: I think something like Bill 101 [Quebec legislation extending compulsory use of French in business and public sector] was inevitable because Canada has failed so far to convey vividly to francophones in Quebec that their language is secure. That is the key problem on language. There are many other economic, social, and political aspects to it; but with language, I think Canada's challenge is to prove to a Quebecker that at every turn his language is going to be safe in Canada; that the Canadian framework is the most protective of the French language of any conceivable formula. Since this was not conveyed clearly enough, in spite of all the agitations of my office and other agencies, it was normal that the Quebec government should take its own measures. There are, of course, other, perhaps less praiseworthy reasons why they are doing i t 67

short-term political ones - but there is an underlying perception that the French language is in danger. Personally, I think that it is safer and less threatened now than it ever was, in spite of all the mythologies you hear. But unfortunately the perceptions in politics are usually more important than the realities. For example, if the people in the bilingual districts are convinced that their language rights are threatened, you have to start by showing them that they are really safe or that a certain goal is going to be achieved; then you can show them the reality. This is exactly what the Patti Qurbecois government is doing at present. The same people who, seven months ago, were attacking the teaching of English in the schools are now in power and are saying: "We're going to teach English beautifully - you'll see."

Vainio: I understand that all high school children in Quebec are learning English. Spicer: They are obliged to. But they are learning it badly. Many teachers are turning them off deliberately. It is shocking. In September 1976, 70% of Frenchspeaking parents in Montreal wanted their children to start some core English at the age of five. The Quebec teachers' union [Centrale des Enseignants de Qurbec] is against that: they are trying to wipe out English instruction in the French elementary schools. The CEQ have a/so, I just learned, joined the PQ government in banning the Commission's little school kit called Oh Canada, of which 1 Ve million copies are circulating, As a result of that ban, we have been forced to print another half million copies because the demand has risen ten times higher than before. Vainio: Would you agree that the federal government's intent in enacting the Official Languages Act was to "legislate culture"?

Spieer: I think that is a slogan that deserves to be torn apart. I think the role of legislators is to permit cultures to flourish, not to stifle them. In a sense, yes, we are legislating culture in that we are legislating conditions in which cultures can be free to express themselves. But we should do nothing that would restrain them, and in that sense the Official Languages Act is a liberating Act of Parliament. Vainio: You have received volumes of comment on the Commission's contribution to B and B from all over Canada. In the words of one of your correspondents: "Aren't you flogging a dead horse?"

Spieer: Well, everybody is in some way. We are going to do an amazing little job of re-animation of what many people think is a dead horse, because what we are dealing with here is the fabric of C a n a d a - if there is ever going to be one. There have to be mechanisms in the centre; shared institutions where the two languages are respected, If the PQ happens to take Quebec out of the federation and if Canada decides to link up or have any dealings with Quebec, bilingualism and the OLA would have to be reinvented. There would have to be another Commissioner of Official L a n g u a g e s - I hate to say. It is that fundamental. Vainio: There appear to be three main trends in the language issue. First, the presence of a dominant culture, which is practising a form of benevolent 68

paternalism. Second, bilingualism, which plays down the role of cultures other than English and French. Third, multiculturalism, in which many cultures contribute to a Canadian culture. Which, in your view, is an apt description of Canada's culture - past, present, and future? Spieer: One could talk at length about condescension, paternalism, and multiculturalism in the past, present, and future, but the numbers are never going to change unless francophones start making love more often or the anglophone majority go sterile. Discounting the possibility of a big change in the immigration pattern, we are always going to have to organize mechanisms and create attitudes that will ensure that the minority feels safe and free.

69