We don't speak Ottawa's language
Gordon Gibson
National Post
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT
VANCOUVER - The renewed emphasis of the central government on bilingualism is just one more reason for British Columbia and Alberta not to exactly separate -- but to do all in their power to reduce Ottawa's importance.
This is not because of the policy's educational goals. Bilingual initiatives have been flagging in the West, but if kids or their parents want to invest their time acquiring French, good on them. And I think most people hereabouts don't too much -- somewhat, but not too much -- object to their taxes being used to subsidize that cause. True, most would also argue that if you want to be bilingual, there are better languages to take up for this part of the world. Our business is with the United States, Japan, China and so on. Our minority language populations are overwhelmingly Chinese and Indo-Canadian.
So the bilingual educational objective of Ottawa is not objectionable; it is simply irrelevant.
The important thing rather is the newly rigid bilingual requirement for executives in the federal public service. That excludes most Westerners, plain and simple. It means we are increasingly going to be ruled in central government matters by people who are just not us. The senior executive cadre will be increasingly made up of no doubt fine people from eastern Ontario and Quebec and New Brunswick, but for Westerners those people are not us.
And they won't be. For most people of executive talent in the West -- save a rare few with a particular yen for the French language -- it simply makes no sense to invest the time to learn French. That is no knock on the language of Molière. It is simply a recognition that English is increasingly the language of global business.
One must understand that learning a second language to the degree of true fluency in an area where almost nobody speaks that tongue is not achieved by a few years of nice immersion programs at the various bilingual schools in Vancouver. It is a major commitment. Like all choices, that choice excludes other uses of time judged by most to be more profitable.
So what is the result? First of all, fewer Westerners are attracted to the federal public service. One does not easily want to leave the West in any case, but if a linguistic hill is added to the climb it becomes even less attractive.
The truly talented will stay here, or go south, or move to the big smoke in Toronto and labour away in English. Though there are of course exceptions, those Westerners who do end up in Ottawa are seldom the truly talented.
Incidentally, forget the MPs from the West, who are reasonably representative. They do not count. They have no power. We are ruled by the PMO and the public service and everyone knows that.
So we have a Department of Fisheries in Ottawa, nicely bilingual, capable of destroying the fishery on both coasts in both languages.
We have a marvellously bilingual immigration department whose job it is to import Liberal voters, and they do it very well. (Ironically, they have made Vancouver and Toronto about as non-French as possible; c'est la vie.)
We have a bilingual Indian Affairs department with relatively few Indians in Quebec and very few Indians who speak French anywhere and very few policies that work.
Alas, these Ottawa people and their colleague minions in their hundreds of thousands are not us, not of the West. And not being of us in any significant numbers or talents, they do not, cannot instinctively represent us and rule us. We deserve our share of the power structure and it's not there. And what does the requirement for universal bilingualism in the executive class do? Why, it simply makes a bad situation worse.
That reality is, in many ways, the mirror image of the Quebec situation, leading to a keen understanding of the views of the Parti Québécois. For that group, too, Ottawa is not "us," though for reasons other than language. As the Quebec election begins to unfold, it appears that estranged view will once again carry the provincial government.
Quebec is a French-speaking province. That is a fact, and an agreeable one. It is a bit more difficult to sustain than the Englishness of the West because the language of Shakespeare is in the ascendancy and Quebec is afloat in a continental sea of English. But they have been holding the linguistic fort and indeed strengthening it, and that is their affair to decide. Ottawa is of little help in that quest either.
The reality is that for the east or the west or the centre, Ottawa is not "us," except for Ontarians. Ontario has the good fortune to own both Queen's Park and Parliament Hill, so which government does what is of little consequence there. But for us in the "regions" (a somewhat derisive term as used by centralists), why should we want to be ruled by people who are not us?
Now, since francophones have the same reasonable expectation as anglophone Westerners that the central government be "like us," the best way to square that difficult circle is simple: Cut back Ottawa. Reduce its role, its importance. Then let it follow any personnel policy it chooses, for those left can harm us but little.
That is the way the country is going, and ways will be found over time in Quebec and the West to make it so. Ottawa may tout its latest bilingualism initiative as a plus for national unity. It ain't.
Gordon Gibson is a Vancouver commentator.; ggibson@bc-home.com
© Copyright 2003 National Post |
