EditorThis is a near-verbatim transcript of a phone interview I did with Christine Mowat on September 6, 2019. She joined the call from her home in Edmonton, AB, and I was in Metro Vancouver. This interview is part of my project to compile an oral history of the plain language movement in Canada between 1980 and 1995.
***
IC: All right, so thank you once again, Christine, for agreeing to talk to me. I wanted to find out more about the plain language movement in Canada, because I just figured there isn’t all that much information out there.
As I mentioned, Karen Schriver’s done quite a bit of work on the American side, and I know that circumstances in Canada were a bit different, and I’m just curious to know from people who were in the thick of it, how they experienced it.
CM: And did you, by any chance… have you read my books?
IC: I have read one of them, yes. The Plain Language Handbook…
CM: …for Legal Writers?
IC: Yes, yes, that one.
CM: Was it the first edition, or the second?
IC: I don’t remember, I don’t have it with me.
CM: The second edition has two volumes.
IC: OK.
CM: And it came out in 2015.
IC: No, it must have been the earlier edition.
CM: OK.
IC: Yeah. So, I guess I’ll get started with the first question. When did you become involved with the plain language movement, and what inspired you to join?
CM: Well, I think I really started learning about it when I opened my business, Wordsmith Associates Communications Consultants. And I just learned about it, you know, from online, and from learning that people in the United States had been paying attention to it. And when I started Wordsmith, I started conducting writing workshops—just writing. And my range of clients are incredibly diverse [laughs] over the years. Because in the end, I had clients for… I ran the business for 30 years. It is continuing now because one of my instructors bought the business from me. And so next year it will be 40 years old, the business.
But why did I… why was I attracted to the plain language field? Um, it had all to do with enjoying so many things related to it. For example, incorporating plain language’s ethical principles.
IC: Right.
CM: And the ethical principles, such as including the public and all readers of legal documents. And ensuring that required readers would understand the text before signing contracts. I mean, that’s a very important ethical concept. So many people are too embarrassed to say, “I can’t understand this,” and they simply sign.
It also had to do with enjoying overcoming a lack of knowledge for readers who couldn’t understand official or legal text. Or linking text to consumers’ needs.
There was a lot of enjoyment in opening doors to knowledge for lower-reading-level clients or new English speakers.
And this is all part of the ethical principles. Enjoying overcoming… The piece of research that I read on 95% of contracts analyzed that were either chosen as difficult or very difficult to read. And this was a study in readability of collective bargaining agreements.
It had to do with enjoying more calls for transparency in government. And also, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives support to plain language law. And I didn’t realize this until I started to think about it, but sometimes legal language that is unintelligible to its readers—but of course it would be intelligible to all the related lawyers… Sometimes the legal language that’s unintelligible to its readers may be a species of fraud. And in the beginning, it seems to me that when lawyers started to hear about plain language, some of them, when they were accused of having ambiguous language that could be interpreted in two different ways in the courts, would say, “Oh, that’s just not true.”
But in fact, it may be a species of fraud. There are so many things that I enjoyed about it. That’s why I stayed in the field for 30 years. I enjoyed the diversity of professional clients and their knowledge bases. Now, in our company, we always, when we had a workshop, we received up to five or six pages of writing from every participant. And then each one of the two team instructors—we always had two instructors for every workshop, and probably that’s because I’m a twin. [Laughs] But anyway, the diversity of professional clients and their knowledge bases were fascinating for me. And I started to learn more and more about so many professions because I had to read the samples of writing that they contributed before the workshop and that we analyzed for both strengths—and strengths are important to focus on first—strengths and weaknesses.
Do you do that too?
IC: Yes. For my own PhD project, I did some user testing at first with the existing document that was being used to tell people about their rights and just really asked the users what they considered were their information needs and what they liked and didn’t like about existing documents.
CM: Yes. OK. Well, another thing that attracted me that I enjoyed were the international conferences. And of course, after, I think there were just two conferences, Cheryl [Stephens] said she didn’t want to run it anymore. And so that’s when I started being the chair [of Plain Language Association International]. And the conferences in Toronto and then for the first time ever, we decided to do conferences in other countries. And so I loved the international conferences in Australia and went to New Zealand, to Holland, and the United States, of course.
We had a big one in Toronto and also in Sweden. So that was lovely because I got to know so many colleagues that I had only interchanged emails with online. And I got to know them and they’ve become lifelong friends. For example, the chair of the Australian conference came over and spent 10 days with my husband and me, you know, going on holidays, going to Banff and showing him parts of Alberta, and so on. And yeah, so there are a number of colleagues in other countries who have become friends—lifelong friends.
Another thing—you see, there’s so many things that I enjoyed…!
IC: That’s wonderful to hear.
CM: …was writing books. And that helped the business as well, to have the Plain Language Handbook for Legal Writers for all of the legal writing workshops that we did. And I wrote a number of papers that were published and book chapters, and the very last one that I did was in Bullen and Leake and Jacob’s Canadian Precedents of Pleadings. And that’s a third edition, but the British Precedents of Pleadings is what it used to be. And it’s still going on. I don’t know how many editions in Britain, but this is a follow-up in Canada. It’s a nice connection there.
But anyway, the second edition of the Plain Language Handbook for Legal Writers is now, as I mentioned, two volumes, and had about eight new chapters. And as experts on different areas of law, I had colleagues from all around the world who were consultants on the chapters. And that was lovely to share in the book, the international knowledge of plain language, and the examples from other countries.
IC: Yeah. And that segues very nicely into our second question. How would you compare the movement in Canada to the movement in other places around the world?
CM: I think that’s very hard to do unless you’ve gone and done some kind of specific research and, you know, started asking the same kinds of questions of what organizations and so on have been successful. I mean, certainly the Australian and New Zealand governments have been very successful. And United States’ plain language law. What’s it called?
IC: The Plain Writing Act, I believe.
CM: Plain Writing Act, thank you.
Those were wonderful highlights. But I’m just looking at my list of clients, and my goodness. For example, when I started with the British Columbia Securities Commission, we had the top person in the BC Securities Commission come. And then the next workshop that we did, he invited people from the Manitoba Securities Commission, as well as Alberta Securities Commission. And, I forget, Nova Scotia, I think. But in any case, ultimately, Wordsmith did workshops for every securities commission across Canada. And it’s because, you know, we had to learn that it’s more effective and persuasive within an organization. When we did it for the British Columbia Securities Commission, we trained every single person in there. So that was great.
Oh, and refreshers that we had to, of course, for years after. And I wrote them a handbook with all of their examples. Now, every single workshop that we did, we tailored to the organization. So we used, always, their examples for everything. And then rewrote. So we had befores and afters to illustrate all of the plain language principles with their writing.
IC: Yeah, it makes it so much more relevant to them to see the difference.
CM: Absolutely. Yeah, yeah.
IC: Yeah.
CM: There were actually three other things that I wanted to tell you about what attracted me to the plain language field, if I might.
IC: Oh, yes, please.
CM: OK. It had to do with enjoying the constant, diverse, intellectual challenges of tailoring all the workshop materials to the clients’ materials sent to us before workshops. And I learned so much about so many other professions in new ways by reading their participants’ documents.
Then another area of enjoyment was the workshop registrants’ acknowledging of how much they learned from the two Wordsmith instructors’ detailed oral and written feedback on their workshop writing samples. Because we had 15-minute individual discussions with each workshop participant.
IC: Wow.
CM: And they loved it. Yeah. And the last one I’ve got in here is enjoyment from the requirement for inclusive or gender-neutral language as part of plain language. And the fact that male-dominated language marginalizes and trivializes women or makes us invisible.
And the values of equality that are recognized in our Charter of Rights—it reinforces it as well. So, let’s see, I mean there were things like, you don’t say “chairman,” but you say “chair.” But you might say “chairman” if it is a man, or “chairwoman” if it’s a woman, or “chairperson” as appropriate. So there are lots of choices. And we don’t say juryman, we say juror. And I have all kinds of examples in the book about that.
IC: Yeah. And I think the plain language community really has been at the forefront of fighting for the acceptance of singular “they” and other gender-neutral language.
CM: Absolutely. Yeah. And you probably read then in my book about the singular “they” that was incorporated by the Ontario government. Yeah. That was interesting.
Okay, those are my last three on that.
IC: Oh, great.
CM: Do you want me to give you the names of a few of the clients?
IC: It’s entirely up to you. This will be made public. So it’s up to you whether you’d like to disclose or if you’d rather keep it generic.
CM: Well, I’m going to send them to you.
IC: OK.
CM: Because the variety is quite exceptional. I mean everything from Atuqtuarvik Corporation, an Inuit-owned investment company, to, you know, Alberta Environment, Alberta Health, Alberta Libraries Association, Alberta Justice, the Banff National Park, the BC government, the BC Ministry of Provincial Revenue, and a number of names of law firms that I did workshops for as well. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Now, the City of Toronto, the City of Toronto Bylaw Project, the City of Nanaimo, City of Edmonton, City of Calgary, Vancouver, Whitehorse, all kinds of them. [Laughs] The College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Edmonton Public School Board, the Edmonton Police. Let’s see, EPCOR. And then there were a number of petroleum companies because when I started the company, I was living in Calgary. And so we did workshops for Husky, Shell, Nexen, Petro-Canada, Talisman, Enbridge, etc., etc. But we were teaching geologists, geophysicists, engineers, and so on, all plain language, too, because they all have their own specialist language as well that makes it difficult for anyone else.
Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada—that’s very important to me because I just finished a book that has to do with Indigenous history and women. And we did one for Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada and we just had judges.
Let me just look quickly. National Energy Board, NWT Literacy Council, Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Telus, Town of Banff, Toronto Stock Exchange, the Yukon Government. So those are just examples of many, many just to show you the variety of organizations and corporations and governments at all levels. That when they learned about plain language, really believed in it, changing all kinds of things within their organizations.
IC: Well that’s encouraging to hear.
CM: Yes.
IC: Because sometimes you hear a lot about the resistance. The resistance of plain language. And it seems as though you have been quite successful at promoting plain language to all sorts of different sectors.
CM: Yes. I was very, very lucky because although I had taught at Mount Royal College in Calgary and I had taught in a college in England and I taught the first African girls to come into the former colonial school in Nairobi for three years. I had done all that kind of teaching; I’d never done it at this level. So I was just thrilled that people loved us and that the company worked so well. Yeah. That’s why I kept working until I was 70.
I don’t mean I stopped working, but you know what I mean. Wordsmith, yeah. But yes, you really have to also know about rebuttals to arguments against plain language. You’re right. Because there are still people around who know nothing about it. And unfortunately our name, plain language, although when we know what it means, we just have to keep using it. But it does have negative connotations for a lot of people. “It’s just dumbing down.” So people don’t know that plain language is interdisciplinary and has really grown in its focus that it not only has to do with things like correct grammar and shorter sentences. It has to do with so many other characteristics.
IC: Absolutely. Did you have anything to add about the question about the movement in Canada versus everything else? I mean all of the clients that you just mentioned, they’re really across the country. And so you have a good picture of what it was like across Canada.
CM: Yes. I guess… I mean I’m sitting in my study here in Edmonton, and I probably have six shelves full of books about plain language. And a lot of them come from people like Joe Kimble and Martin Cutts and those are other countries. So I think we have shared a lot with the United States and other countries who have supported plain language.
I mean, there are certain things… there was a piece of tax legislation that took 13 years in Britain and became famous because it was put forward about writing it in plain language. But there are still many people, and lawyers, too, who say that the law requires specific unalterable wording in legal and official documents.
IC: [Laughs]
CM: And Joe Kimble, who’s been a friend of mine forever, says that lawyers greatly exaggerate the extent to which this is true.
I would find it very hard to say which country was first and second and third. I think there are so many differences in levels and interests and clients in different countries. What do you think?
IC: Well, what I’ve heard from other interviewees is that they sort of have the picture of the American movement as being more consumer driven. So wanting truth in advertising and fighting for consumer rights. Whereas, for instance, the British movement was more about a political grassroots movement to get understandable legislation and language in government. And what I’ve heard from some people I’ve talked to is that Canada’s movement has sort of taken from both traditions, I guess. But what really propelled it forward was specific legislation and government commitment. Like, commitment at the highest government levels to perpetuate plain language writing within civil service.
CM: Yes.
IC: So I think that comes from a particular perspective obviously. Some of the people that I interviewed were more involved in government. So from your perspective I’d like to know what you think about that.
CM: You know, when we give our perspectives on this, it’s really based on who we know and what we’ve read. And so I just think there’s so much going on in the States—that’s true. But to suggest that plain language has been used to make sure that advertising is telling the truth in the United States and not in other places seems… well, let’s not even bring up its name… [Laughs] But sorry, I would find it very difficult to say that one country is doing something the best. In my book I do have a reference to something else in Australia, and I think it is a piece of legislation, too, that is quite outstanding, but I’m sorry I don’t remember it.
IC: No, that’s fine. You’ve had such a diversity of clientele in so many different sectors that I imagine that you can see a bigger, broader picture compared with maybe some of my interviewees who have spent most of their time in government and seen the evolution there or spent their time mostly in social enterprise and seen the evolution there.
CM: Yes.
IC: And you mentioned a lot of the international conferences and how much enjoyment you’ve had out of those. The next question really is about some of the important events that influence the early days of the plain language movement in Canada. Would you say that those conferences were part of that?
CM: Yes, I would. I think that the conferences and the publicity about them and a number of the presentations certainly had an influence in our own countries and two other countries afterwards. I’m right now excited about the international committee through PLAIN—Plain Language Association International. Do you belong to that?
IC: I do, yes.
CM: Yeah. I developed that name, by the way. The acronym, I mean. [Laughs]
The international committee on standards for English and for other languages is really great. It’s probably going slowly, but at least it’s going. And they’re trying very hard. Have you talked to Peter Butt or anybody in Australia at all?
IC: No.
CM: No. You’re just talking to people in Canada.
IC: Yes. Yeah.
CM: Yeah. Sally [McBeth]?
CM: Yes.
CM: Yes. [Laughs] Good. She’s great.
I have noticed that there is more knowledge in the university’s law faculties now about plain language than there used to be. And there are actually some courses and a number of courses in universities about it, too. So there didn’t used to be any.
IC: Right.
CM: You know, when I started Wordsmith in 1980. Yeah.
IC: Yeah, I think, I mean, there’s more of an emphasis today, too, on access to justice and how plain language plays a big role in that. And I think earlier on, the law profession really wanted to keep law to themselves, I would say.
CM: Yeah. It was very elitist. Yeah. Much more so than now. Yeah.
IC: Yes. OK. So what would you say were some of the other important events, either politically, socially, or culturally, that really influenced the early days of the Canadian plain language movement?
CM: Well, I think when our Charter of Rights came out, that influenced it.
IC: Mm-hm.
CM: Yeah. I don’t know. Other political events in our country that has influenced plain language. That’s hard for me to figure out, quite frankly, despite the fact that my gift to myself when I retired was to get a Globe and Mail every single morning. [Laughs]
What do you think? I’m curious!
IC: Well, I didn’t join the movement until, I mean, relatively recently. I’ve been involved in plain language for about a decade. But I wasn’t involved in the very, very early days. And so this is why I’m doing these interviews.
CM: Yeah.
IC: I want to learn about some of what precipitated how this community came together in this country. And I do recognize that it is very much an international community compared with a lot of other professions.
CM: Yeah.
IC: And as you mentioned very interdisciplinary. So that’s what makes it engaging for me. But, yeah, I guess some of my other interviewees were talking more about, you know, they did mention the conferences and how they brought people together and raised awareness of plain language as a thing. And also, you know, within Canada, certain governments taking the issue of communicating with the public more seriously. And those were some of the things that other people mentioned. But, yeah, I wanted to get your perspective.
CM: For some reason, I’ve just remembered something that happened to me when we had a lightning strike on our house.
IC: Oh my goodness.
CM: And we had to get some renovation done.
IC: That must have been terrifying.
CM: And the insurance people sent me a contract. [Laughs] Too bad for them that they were sending it to a plain language expert.
IC: [Laughs] So there was a clause in there that I just found outrageous and ambiguous. And I wrote them a letter. I didn’t sign the contract. I wrote them a letter and I said if clause XX means A, I won’t sign it. If it means B, I won’t sign it. If it means C and you change it to C, I will sign it. And they changed it to C and I signed it. But they didn’t change it for other people. They just changed it for me. You know, so, even though you can… most people won’t stand up and do something like that. They just sign it. They just think, “Oh I’m sure it’s fine.” As you know.
So that is another thing about plain language that I think it gets people to start speaking up and asking questions. Yeah.
IC: Yeah, I mean from what you told me early on, like your interest in the movement was very equity driven.
CM: Yes, and ethically driven. Because I think there are so many ethical principles. I’m certainly more on the left. But so is plain language. [Laughs]
IC: So this next question I feel awfully silly asking you. Because you have an award named after you. But I will ask it anyway and then you can talk about your award and your time heading PLAIN and whatnot. But what were your main roles and activities in the plain language movement? And are there any accomplishments related to the movement that you’re especially proud of?
CM: Well, I think encouraging PLAIN to go out of Canada and starting our international conferences. I think that was maybe the thing that I would be proud of. [To Lorne, her husband] Sorry?
Lorne: Financial regulations. Financial regulations.
CM: Financial regulations. Yeah, no, those are things that have to do with just Wordsmith. She’s asking me about things that I’m proud of in PLAIN. Is that what you’re asking me?
IC: In the plain language movement in general.
CM: In the plain language movement in general. OK. Yeah. My husband is reminding me about financial regulatory rewrites of a lot of things. And so I was pleased to be asked to take on some big jobs like that. What does IIROC stand for? IIROC [Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada].
Lorne: The rule books for the stock exchange.
CM: Yeah. The rule books for the stock exchange and so on. So there were some very significant… I mean, we didn’t just do workshops. We also had things sent to us, and they asked us to rewrite them for them. You probably do that too, eh?
IC: Mm-hm.
CM: Yeah. And also I think I was quite proud that the BC Securities Commission asked me to write their rule book. And I used Wordsmith’s main principles, and it looks like part of a workshop in a way, but that’s what they wanted—with their examples, of course. Yeah. So I felt quite good about that.
I don’t know. I think I felt proud about the kinds of instructors I had. I had up to 12.
IC: Wow. Mm-hm.
CM: And we all changed who we were working with all the time when we… because we did workshops from sea to sea to sea. And I was proud of that. That we didn’t just stay put in Calgary and Edmonton—that we went to other places. So I guess those are a few things.
IC: Do you want to talk about the award that was named after you, or is that something you’re bashful about? [Laughs]
CM: Oh, oh, oh. Well, when I went to Australia, the conference in Australia, the group gave me a Lifetime Achievement Award, which was terribly kind of them, because I was towards the end, I guess, of my seven years of chairing.
And then continued giving awards, but for whatever reason, the board in other countries—I can’t remember whether it was still Australia or where—they voted to name the award after me, so I don’t know why.
IC: [Laughs]
CM: [Laughs] But it’s a lovely honour.
IC: Well, it’s a well-deserved recognition for all of the work that you’ve done with the movement.
CM: Thank you.
IC: And then certainly you must be especially proud of your books?
CM: Yes. I loved doing the books, and the last one was exhausting because I was asked the same year that I retired [laughs] and it took four and a half years to do. But I had all those wonderful colleagues to support me, so I was constantly in touch with friends, and I loved being able to use what they said, and of course I credited them throughout the book and so on.
Yeah, I enjoyed that a lot, I must say. And then one of my instructors, David Lloyd, quit Wordsmith the moment I sold the business, and he went to law school.
IC: Oh, wow, okay.
CM: And he’s now a criminal lawyer. He’s been a criminal lawyer for about five years, but it got him down and so he’s now working with Legal Aid. He’s a good socialist.
IC: [Laughs]
CM: But when I was asked by Thompson Reuters if I would do a chapter in Canadian Precedents of Pleadings on plain language and do it on a pleading, I contacted David and said, “Would you like to do it with me?”
IC: Oh, OK.
CM: And so we are in volume three.
IC: Uh-huh.
CM: No, sorry, I’m looking at the wrong one, I’m just grabbing it. Let’s see here. Here we are in volume three and we did a chapter. Let’s see. I don’t know, it’s about 65 pages. And they had never had one thing on plain language before.
IC: Oh, wow.
CM: So David and I did it and I just loved writing it with him. And, yeah, what do we have here? You know, starting from what is plain language and why for legal writing and a complete precedent example of reconnaissance. And then I looked in detail at rebuttals—two arguments against plain language. Examples of significant international plain language initiatives. OK, here we go. That’s what you were asking me about.
In Canada I’ve got the Public Works and Government Services Plain Language Writing Guide. Did you know about that?
IC: Yes.
CM: Yes, and the Employment Insurance Act, Research on Plain Language for Legislation. Canadian Cost of Borrowing Regulations—that’s for banks. Simon Fraser University’s Plain Language Certificate course, of course you would know about. And Canadian labelling regulations. And then the United Kingdom, UK’s Tax Law Rewrite Project, that’s the one I mentioned. UK’s Good Law Initiative 2013 and the Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Council booklet Plain Language and Legislation—that was 2006. Australia’s Victoria Law Foundation, Plain Language Legal Requirements in Australia and so on. South Africa. Now, South Africa—do you know Phil Knight?
IC: I have been trying to get in touch with Phil Knight, but I have not successfully gotten in touch with him yet.
CM: Yes, well, he of course was one of the main writers on the post-Apartheid constitution. So… and people write about the fact that a Canadian lawyer did this. He also went to Kenya to help them rewrite their constitution in plain language.
So we have a lot in common because of my time in Kenya, too. Hong Kong, Drafting Legislation in Hong Kong, a Guide to Styles and Practices. Oh, the ethical principles related to plain language are coming out with all the activists in Hong Kong right now, aren’t they? Gosh.
USA, OK, you know this stuff. Federal Rules of Court rewritten in plain language, the Plain Writing Act, improving communication from the government to the public. They’ve got www.plainlanguage.gov and of course stuff about Joe Kimble, instructor of legal writing and drafting for 30 years again. In fact, Lorne and I just had a reunion with him down in Arizona.
IC: Oh, that’s fun.
CM: Yeah. [Laughs] Sweden, 30 years of Plain Language. International organizations and texts. We’ve got PLAIN, Clarity, latest editions of key plain language texts, and so on. Yeah.
IC: So we touched on this briefly, but my next question is about what you thought were the biggest challenges that you faced in the plain language movement in the time period that I’m looking at between 1980 and 1995-ish. So what were the biggest challenges?
CM: Well, I would say a lack of knowledge about what plain language meant was the biggest challenge. And sometimes the lack of agreement by people in senior positions to go to a workshop because they thought they were such excellent writers that they didn’t need it. [Laughs]
IC: [Laughs] Of course.
CM: Yeah. What other… were some of the difficulties? Some of the sort of political in-house arguments between people at the heads of departments. And again, those kinds of arguments were based on a lack of knowledge of plain language, too.
What else? What else? I think the fact that studying law is such a challenging process. And because it is so highly academic and lawyers are proud of the work that they’ve put into gaining a law degree. And so many precedents… and because it’s cheap, they just copy and paste. So some firms are just too lazy and slow to make the changes. But it’s coming. I mean, I think more and more law firms are changing. Yeah.
IC: And so that leads us very nicely into the last question of this interview, is how do you feel about where the plain language movement is today?
CM: I feel that although it’s growing everywhere, it’s not growing fast enough. I think there are still many, many people who have never heard of it. And I’m not sure what we should be doing about that.
IC: Yeah.
CM: Except to get plain language more in every level at school and universities, of course, and get professors who know about plain language and use it and encourage it. And I think people need to understand that plain language writing can have as high quality in academic writing as writing that is just written for colleagues but not for people in other departments.
IC: In fact, I guess it was Christopher Trudeau’s study published, I think, last year or the year before, that showed that the more educated people are, the more they prefer seeing plain language.
CM: Absolutely. There’s been research that Joe Kimble did, and he found that it was something like 80 to 85% of judges who preferred plain language.
IC: That’s right. And they judged plainer briefs as coming more prestigious law firms.
CM: Yeah, that was lovely.
IC: So it’s great to have that data to show people.
CM: It is, yes. I’m curious that we haven’t really focused on marketing. And maybe because so many of the people in the plain language movement are writers and not advertisers—my husband ran an advertising business. [Laughs] But that’s something that probably PLAIN should be starting to move towards, is just figuring out enormous advertising projects internationally and focusing on different countries each year. But how we get that to the front of the page and persuade enough people to take the time.
IC: So you think that the key is to really persuade the public?
CM: I think it’s to persuade all levels within our society of the public, yes, and continuing with professionals. I mean, I was invited over the years to go and speak in front of, you know, the Canadian Law Association, Alberta Law Association, and so on and so on. But not enough of that kind of stuff goes on.
IC: Right.
CM: Yeah.
IC: Right.
CM: And I mean, I have a chapter in my new book on wills, and we’ve given permission to people to use the precedent that we have rewritten. And Anne de Villars is the lawyer who lives half a block from me and she’s the wills expert. She and I did a presentation to the Alberta Law Association on wills one time. Why people are buying, spending so much money, on wills that they don’t even understand, I don’t understand.
IC: Yeah.
CM: Because it’s such an important document in our lives. Anyway, am I blabbing?
IC: Oh no, this is exactly what I’m looking for. [Laughs]
CM: [Laughs]
IC: Yeah. I mean, just to give you an idea of what other interviewees have said, some people are optimistic about where the plain language movement is today because there’s finally, you know, courses and certificates and dedicated training toward really developing the next generation of professionals who are devoted to plain language practice. And on the flip side, there have been people who said, you know, back in the 1980s, there was an actual dedicated movement, and there was a push for actual political change at the high levels and we don’t see that very much anymore.
And then others are saying, you know, I think that plain language is really an inevitability just because people are so busy and they’ve been bombarded with so much information now that to get any kind of message through, you really need to adopt plain language principles. And so I think, you know, what you’re saying about how things are moving in the right direction but just not quickly enough is important insight. It’s showing that we’re not doing enough as a community to promote plain language and to raise awareness of it. And I think you mentioned this earlier on, too, is, you know, one possible problem is that the name of our community might be stifling its more widespread acceptance.
CM: Yes. I think everything that you’ve reported is true. [Laughs] Yeah, it’s hard to just go down on one. Yeah. But my goodness, you’re a wonderful interviewer and you have a wonderful memory.
IC: Oh, well, thank you. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me tonight.
CM: Oh, you’re a great pleasure to talk to, and I admire what you’re doing. And keep it up.
IC: Well, thank you. I’ve learned a lot from you and, yeah, I’m really grateful that you’re part of this because honestly this oral history of the plain language movement in Canada certainly would not be complete without you.
CM: Oh, thank you.