National Defence Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the committee is meeting to study the situation of francophones and indigenous members in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Before we continue, we ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table. These measures are here to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of our interpreters.

I'd like to remind witnesses and members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For interpretation, you can use your earpiece and select the appropriate channel of floor, English or French. That's also available on Zoom for our witnesses participating virtually.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Stéphanie Chouinard, associate professor. I believe retired captain Hélène Le Scelleur is also available. We also have Lieutenant-General Michel Maisonneuve and Eric Sauvé.

I will now open it up to the witnesses to provide their opening remarks.

[Stéphanie Chouinard, Associate Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me. Since this is my first time testifying before the Standing Committee on National Defence, I will briefly introduce myself.

I have been an associate professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston since 2017, and am co-affiliated with Queen's University and the Canadian Forces College in Toronto. My research focuses on the rights of linguistic minorities and the constitutional, legislative and political aspects of Canada's language regime, as well as, to a lesser extent, the rights of indigenous peoples. I would also like to note that I am here in my personal capacity, as a researcher, and that my remarks do not necessarily represent the official position of the Royal Military College of Canada.

I have listened to the testimony of the witnesses who have already appeared before you as part of your study, and I would like to add my views on the issue of official languages, focusing on the broader challenge of cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces. The change that needs to be made, in my view, is for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces to embrace official languages. As things stand, official languages and bilingualism remain largely the domain of francophones.

One point I feel is important to highlight is the difference between the representation of francophones within the Canadian Armed Forces and the representation of the francophone community and official languages within the forces. As you already know, in the Canadian Armed Forces, francophones are overrepresented relative to their national demographic weight. Yet, the Canadian Armed Forces are unable to fill all positions where French is a language of work—that is, positions designated as bilingual or those for which French is essential—with individuals who are proficient in the language.

It should also be noted that many members of the forces operate primarily in an English-speaking environment and rarely have the opportunity to work in French. This leads to persistent unilingualism among anglophones. In fact, only 9% of them are bilingual. For the 59% of francophone members who are bilingual, this leads to a phenomenon of subtractive bilingualism. What is meant by subtractive bilingualism is that continuous exposure to an English-dominated work environment—and, more generally, to an English-dominated living environment—causes francophones serving in the forces to assimilate into English, to the point where it can become difficult for them to work in French when the opportunity arises. Furthermore, they do not always have access to the services to which they are entitled in the official language of their choice. Depending on their rank in the military hierarchy, requesting these services may be perceived as insubordination.

A study by the office of the director general responsible for research and analysis for military personnel also demonstrated that bilingualism rests very largely on the shoulders of francophones, while less than half of them say they feel comfortable using the official language of their choice during work meetings and less than two-thirds say they feel comfortable speaking in their language with their immediate supervisor.

Measures to support the recruitment of francophones, particularly in the navy, which lacks a natural recruitment pool among this population, will be beneficial in meeting the needs of the forces.

However, a cultural shift regarding what it means to respect and promote official languages within the forces is also necessary. This translates not only into greater use of the French language, but also into increased opportunities for English-speaking members to learn French, to learn it early, and to use it consistently throughout their careers.

The new ministerial directive on modernizing the Official Languages Act appears to be moving in this direction, but we must monitor the progress of its implementation to ensure that the new objectives are officially achieved.

Furthermore, support for learning the other official language should not be limited to studying to pass a test to obtain a BBB or CBC rating; one must truly be able to interact with other colleagues in the other official language. This is a type of learning that takes place throughout an entire career and which, in my view, must begin as soon as a member joins the Canadian Armed Forces.

In short, if we make bilingualism and linguistic duality a matter of respect and leadership, and if all members of the forces feel they have an equal opportunity to learn and use their other official language throughout their careers, we will create a virtuous cycle that will enhance operational capability and cohesion, and prevent resentment toward bilingualism. Moreover, not only will this enhanced proficiency in both official languages be useful at our bases and during domestic operations, but, in the current geopolitical context where Canada is seeking to diversify its alliances, the presence within our forces of a strong contingent of soldiers capable of working in French is also an added value that will allow for closer collaboration with NATO member countries that also have French as an official language.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to continuing the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. Chouinard.

I will now pass it over to Hélène Le Scelleur, please.

You have up to five minutes.

[Hélène Le Scelleur, Retired Captain, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Serving one's country should never mean having to choose between one's career and one's rights, between one's health and one's language, or between one's identity and one's sense of belonging. And yet, that is exactly what I had to do.

I served for more than twenty years in the Canadian Armed Forces. I served with loyalty, discipline and commitment. But as a francophone and as a member of the first nations, my institutional experience was marked by systemic barriers that can no longer be ignored. Today, I would like to highlight three concrete dimensions of that experience.

First: training. When I became an officer, I was required to complete a mandatory university program delivered exclusively in English. There was no support for francophones. No adaptation. No recognition that we were expected to perform, succeed and be evaluated in a second language within a demanding academic context.

When I raised this issue through my chain of command, I was told I could file a complaint, but at the cost of delaying my career. In other words: assert my rights, or move forward. I chose to continue, in English, as many francophones do. But adapting is not the same as being included. It is compensating.

This experience reveals a troubling reality: Access to career training is not equitably guaranteed in both official languages, and francophones bear the burden of that gap.

Second: access to services. Upon returning from Afghanistan, I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Shortly thereafter, I was posted to Ottawa. In a moment of significant vulnerability, I had to receive care in English, not by choice, but because there was no timely access to services in French. Services in French existed in theory, but not within a time frame compatible with my condition.

Expressing trauma in a second language means losing nuance, losing precision, sometimes even losing meaning. In practical terms, it means receiving partial care. The choice I was given was simple: receive inadequate care or wait indefinitely. That is not equitable access. It is a systemic barrier.

Third: institutional experience. Within the health services, I was directly involved in reviewing linguistic profiles. I saw, first-hand, how requirements were applied. Francophones were expected to be fully bilingual in order to advance. That expectation was not applied with the same rigour to anglophones. Promotions were granted despite incomplete linguistic profiles but rarely, if ever, to the benefit of francophones. This creates a quiet but persistent reality: a structural inequity in career progression.

There is also a deeper dimension. I am a member of the Pekuakamiulnuatsh Nation. Throughout my career, I never put that identity forward. Not because I lacked pride but because I understood the environment I was in. I was already a woman. Already francophone. Already serving in the combat arms and elsewhere. Adding my indigenous identity meant exposing myself further in a context where denigration, prejudice and intimidation were part of the daily reality. So I chose silence.

And when an institution leads its members to silence a part of who they are in order to succeed, that is not an individual issue. It is an institutional signal. Today, we speak of inclusion. But inclusion is not measured by what is written in policy. It is measured by what members actually experience. And my experience highlights a clear gap: The principles exist but their application remains uneven.

Allow me to conclude with three essential recommendations.

First, make the full delivery of all career training in both official languages mandatory, without exception, prior to implementation, and suspend any non-compliant training.

Second, guarantee immediate access to health services, particularly in mental health, in the official language of choice, including priority transfer mechanisms when such services are not available locally.

Third, condition promotions on the equitable application of language requirements for all, and publish annual comparative data on the career progression of francophones and anglophones.

Because serving one's country should never mean having to translate oneself, silence oneself or transform oneself in order to be recognized.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Lieutenant-General Maisonneuve, we'll go to you for five minutes.

[Lieutenant-General Michel Maisonneuve, Ret'd, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, the orders are as follows: Today's mission is to storm Hill 1221, bypassing the enemy on the right. Canada's 12th armoured regiment will lead the way until the goal is achieved.

I asked the interpreters not to translate the mission above to make a point: If you didn't understand the orders, you will find it very hard to attack the objective you were given without endangering lives.

Thank you for your invitation to testify before you.

I completely support your efforts to study the situation of francophones in the Canadian Forces in our country, which has two official languages.

I would like to quickly highlight three points in the five minutes I am allotted.

First, I will provide a bit of background on my personal experience with bilingualism.

My family moved from Saint-Jérôme, Quebec to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan in the summer of 1967 when I was 14 years old. I went from grade 8 in a French school to grade 9 in English. It was very difficult.

I was fortunate to retain my French language and my 35 years of service in uniform saw me serving in both English- and French-speaking units. I've commanded troops of both. I've served across Canada and outside the country on different missions and postings. I commanded French conscripts for two years while serving in France.

I believe I have the reputation of being a defender of bilingualism, as recognized by the Vimy Award in 2020.

I've made it my crusade in my whole career to promote and always use both languages in whatever scenario when speaking publicly. I've also tried to make all of my anglophone friends and colleagues understand the importance of saying a few words of French when they address any gathering. I'll have more on that later.

As you can imagine from the importance of understanding the operational orders I gave at the beginning, I believe bilingualism is an essential part of leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces. Our young men and women who agree to serve their country deserve leaders who can communicate with them in either official language.

In 1974, my armoured officer course was given entirely in English. Since then, the Canadian Forces have made a lot of progress, and the vast majority of trade courses are available in both official languages. However, there is still a long way to go.

When I left the military in 2007, senior officers and senior non-commissioned officers were required to achieve a functional level of bilingualism before being promoted, and I believe that is still the case. Nevertheless, some people still question the need for such a requirement and think that it gives an advantage to some people in the decisions of promotional boards.

The way I prefer to look at it is that the requirement is well known. Just like any other requirement for promotion, if the individual did not make an effort to become proficient in their second language, they do not deserve to be promoted. It's part of simple meritocracy, just like the results on our career course.

Learning a language as an adult is tough. In the military, opportunities are made available and we obviously need more to learn a second language throughout our careers. Many complain, but the policy is clear. If those who complain would spend as much time doing their best to learn their second language, they might achieve the standard.

Bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces is a leadership issue. Bilingualism definitely provides our military with an operational advantage.

Finally, let me go beyond the military.

We have two official languages in this country. It's part of who we are as a country. We are not a post-national country without an essential culture. We should celebrate the fact of official bilingualism. This aspect of our country sets us apart from many other countries and gives us a competitive advantage.

Though expensive, it's one of our competencies and a national advantage as a country.

The best defenders of bilingualism are anglophones. If a francophone defends the French language, it's seen as normal behaviour. An anglophone defending the French language will have a much greater impact.

Bilingualism is part of respect. Just as many believe we should perform land acknowledgements, in any forum we should acknowledge the bilingual nature of our country.

As I've said many times, any anglophone can say this:

“I'm sorry that I can't speak French. I will make my remarks in English.”

For example, I was completely stunned by the appointment of a Governor General who was unable to speak French. I find it incredible that Ms. Simon, who had a long career in public service, was able to rise to the level of Canada's ambassador without being able to speak both of our official languages. I found the appointment disrespectful, but I was willing to give her time to learn. We now know that she was unable or unwilling to do so.

The situation with the CEO of Air Canada provides another interesting case study. Indeed, you can live without any trouble in Montreal without speaking French, but why would you want to? My problem with Mr. Rousseau is that after his speech five years ago, he committed to learning French. He either lied or did not put in the work as promised. In my view, this is a failure of ethics and leadership, not only of French-language ability.

In conclusion, I reiterate my belief that bilingualism is a military leadership respect issue and a national competitive advantage for our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you. That's great.

Lieutenant-General, your points to this committee were well made. Well done.

Monsieur Sauvé, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Eric Sauvé, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I served my country as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces between the ages of 16 and 39. When I retired in 2014, I travelled the world for a year with my children. We visited 21 countries in one year. In every country we went to, I'd ask them to learn two words in the local language: “hello” and “thank you”. In Brazil, it was bom dia and obrigado. In Laos, it was sabaidee and khop chai. They knew nothing else in Portuguese or Laotian, but saying a few words in the other person's language is a basic level of respect.

I worked for months, if not years, for anglophone superiors who never said bonjour or merci, Eric. I watched a chief of the army staff present his vision of the future to hundreds of officers and non-commissioned officers without even bothering to say bonjour as his introduction. Orders come from the top, as does the example. The culture of the organization depends on its most senior leaders.

Before testifying here, I put out a call on social media. I didn't want only my voice to be heard, but that of many francophones who serve or have served their country. I asked them not to tell me about their struggles, but to offer me solutions. Their accounts confirmed to me that at National Defence, there is a double standard when it comes to recognizing language rights. It doesn't require an anglophone to learn much French, but the assumption is that a francophone will be able to manage well in English, as if learning a second language was natural for one and too demanding for the other.

We are dealing with a cultural problem, a problem that is notoriously difficult to resolve, I'll admit. It's going to take time, but also political will. You have a real lever: the law. Military personnel are conservative by nature and not inclined to change, but they obey orders, and your laws become orders. If you ask that a certain level of bilingualism be achieved for people to access command positions, they will achieve it. If you ask that all training courses be offered in both official languages, it will be done. If you impose quotas, they will be fulfilled, because your laws are orders and orders are carried out.

However, legislation alone is not enough. We also need to provide the means to implement laws: clear directives, set budgets, deadlines to be met and, above all, large-scale training.

If I can draw a military parallel, you don't hand a gun to soldiers and expect them to instantly become skilled shooters. They are trained regularly so they can feel confident in their effectiveness. That's the only way to make them skilled and confident. I've never known a soldier who enjoyed looking incompetent. If they need to use a weapon, technique or language, soldiers first want to master it. Otherwise, out of fear of failure and ridicule, they won't use it.

It's exactly the same thing for a second language. Asking soldiers to speak a language they rarely practise will have little effect if they don't have the resources to learn it and practise it regularly. You wouldn't expect a soldier who took a first aid course three or four years ago to be effective in an emergency. The same is true for using a second language. It should be taught at the basic training level and everyone should get ongoing training throughout their career. In addition, we need to create real opportunities to use it, for example in briefings, courses, assessments and transfers. Training comes before the test, not the other way around.

Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but if Canada can commit to dedicating 5% of its GDP to its defence, it can certainly invest some of that money so that its soldiers, both francophone and anglophone, as well as their families, can serve their country competently, confidently and with dignity in both official languages.

Thank you for listening to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.

We will now start our first round of questions.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus, you have up to six minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

This year, it will be 39 years since I enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think we need to make a distinction when it comes to the work environment. When Quebeckers work in Quebec, they are obviously in their environment. At 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Valcartier, French is typically spoken. Where it gets complicated is when you have to be transferred outside Quebec, when you receive a promotion or when you're not in Quebec.

In short, what we need to remember today is that, when you're a francophone soldier from Quebec and you work outside Quebec, things get complicated.

Ms. Chouinard, in 2020, you mentioned that the real problem with bilingualism in the army was the lack of language training. In my time, there were courses at the Canadian Forces Language School. We went there for a number of months.

Is that still the case today? Is there still a lack of training? What is the situation?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

These courses still exist, of course. However, the timing of these courses presents certain challenges. These courses aren't offered at the start of a member's career. Instead, they're provided when they become necessary for a promotion. At that point, we send the member to take courses. On the one hand, this delays their career advancement, which obviously creates some resentment. On the other hand, the courses focus on test‑taking, and not necessarily on the actual day‑to‑day use of the language with subordinates or other team members. In my opinion, that's where the issue lies.

Having the classification on file is one thing. However, having the capacity to really integrate bilingualism into day‑to‑day activities will make all the difference.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You made an important point. The type of language training isn't adapted to the reality of the job. Elected officials are trained to speak the language and hold conversations, while military members are trained to learn by rote in order to answer questions. However, they don't necessarily have the ability to converse.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

In other words, it comes down to checking a box.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I think that this is a key point to bear in mind.

I'm moving fast because we don't have much time for questions.

I'll turn to you, General Maisonneuve.

I remember that, when we carry out operations, especially abroad, and when we leave Canada to deploy to other countries, some situations arise where francophone Quebec officers, for example, must work in English. Have you faced situations where a lack of proficiency in English posed a security issue?

[LGen (Ret'd) Michel Maisonneuve]

Yes. When I did my training, the courses were exclusively in English. We lost many excellent leaders because they couldn't speak English. For me, it's essential for operational needs. While on a mission outside Canada, often French or English will help us communicate with the people in the country where we're serving. It's really quite important. I fully support everything that Ms. Chouinard and Ms. Le Scelleur have said.

There's also a lack of capacity. The issue is that, naturally, many more English speakers need to learn French. As a result, we need many more language courses. Francophones often learn on the job, so they don't need as many courses as anglophones. So there's also a capacity issue.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Language training is vital. However, we also need to consider the capacities of the various branches of the military, meaning the army, navy and air force.

In terms of the army, in Quebec, it's much easier for francophone Quebeckers to serve in 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, as I said earlier, unless they're deployed to other locations for different duties.

However, the navy, for example, is a different story. I'll give you the example of my son, who is in the naval reserve. He joined when he was 17 years old. He had to go to Esquimalt or Halifax, where everything was in English only. He didn't have a choice. He told me that, if he didn't understand the slightest bit of English, he couldn't be there.

Is it still normal, in 2026, for young reservists such as my son—I don't know about the regular force—to deploy somewhere without having the opportunity to speak in French?

[Eric Sauvé]

I would like to bring up a point regarding your first question.

We've spoken at length about the army in Quebec, since Quebec operates in French. However, a major change is coming. There will be three divisions. One will handle the regular force, one will take care of the reserves and one will provide support. The divisions will bring together people from across the country.

How will things work at headquarters where unilingual anglophone reservists, unilingual francophone reservists and bilingual reservists sit around the table? I'm concerned that it will be easy to switch to English as the basic working language. I come from the Royal 22e Régiment, which has advocated extensively for the rights of francophones. The same applies to the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada, which Lieutenant‑General Maisonneuve referred to. I'm concerned that, at some point, we'll lose this. The higher up the ranks we go—according to the reality of the army, which I'm more familiar with—in the divisions, the more we absolutely must be bilingual. We'll want to work across Canada. Yet I'm not sure that, in western Canada or in the centre of the country, people will be asked to speak in French during meetings. There will still be an army in Quebec, but its command will inevitably be bilingual or anglophone.

[LGen (Ret'd) Michel Maisonneuve]

Colonel Paul‑Hus, I'll add that the navy and air force also have different approaches. When I visited the HMCS Ville de Québec, and even the HMCS Ottawa, I noticed that many anglophone members were serving and that the working language was often English. If you visit Bagotville, you're bound to find that many anglophones are there too and that English is often the working language.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I'll finish by saying that Captain Sauvé made an important point. The process of restructuring Canada into three divisions will result in the closure of the 2nd Canadian Division in Quebec. This will have a major impact on francophones working in the Canadian Forces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Watchorn, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Maisonneuve, I'm delighted to hear your view that an anglophone is the best advocate for the French language. I'll say it in a mixture of the two languages. I think that I'm the poster child for an anglophone who learned French. I was lucky enough to be sent to a French school by my parents when I was a small child. Every day, I thank them for the gift that they gave me. I consider the opportunity to speak both languages a gift given to the people in the Canadian Armed Forces. I'll start by saying this.

I would like to dig a bit deeper into the personal experiences of the people who served.

Perhaps I'll start with you, Major Sauvé. Have you faced discrimination as a result of your language during your service? If so, how did it affect your career path?

[Eric Sauvé]

As I already said, I started out in the infantry, in the Royal 22e Régiment. I did my training in French and continued my career in French.

I then went to work in intelligence, which is a unilingual English‑speaking field. Since we work within the Five Eyes, meaning with England, the United States, New Zealand and Australia, I understand the need to work in English. I never questioned this. As an intelligence officer, I wanted the allies to be able to read my report.

So I can't say that I personally faced discrimination.

That said, I spoke in my opening remarks about how, before I came here, I asked people to share their stories with me. We would need more than two hours to hear them. Sometimes, especially in the navy and air force—as discussed— but also in other places, people are asked to work only in English as if this were normal. Yet I'm not aware of the opposite situation where an anglophone has been asked to work in French and to get by.

One person wrote me a long email to say that, every evening, on top of her training, she had to understand what she had learned in English during the day.

When I started working in English, like just about everyone else here, I used to get a headache after spending a day working in English. The same thing happened when I learned Spanish.

At some point, it's easy to turn the switch off and say that we've had enough. You can imagine the potential impact on someone who is taking a course, who must learn, who will be tested on their training and who also has trouble understanding the language and who needs to spend more time on it in the evenings and on weekends.

We've spoken a great deal about training, and it's important. However, as I said, the test is after the training and not before.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Indeed.

Captain Le Scelleur, I'll ask you the same question.

[Capt (Ret'd) Hélène Le Scelleur]

I wouldn't say that I necessarily faced discrimination on a personal level, but rather through a group effect. I vividly remember when our French‑speaking platoon was working with an English‑speaking platoon and we were called French frogs and all kinds of things. We could clearly see that we weren't necessarily well accepted in the group. How many times did we hear that we weren't following orders like the others, that our way of thinking was always different and that we weren't following instructions? We always heard this type of comparison between francophones and anglophones. So I would say that I saw this type of discrimination instead.

Aside from that, I've seen it more in the medical field. I've seen the careers of my anglophone colleagues, who didn't necessarily have the proper linguistic profile, advance much faster. We had to wait a bit longer for promotions. We had to accept this and we had no choice if we wanted to advance and move forward. For example, if I had chosen to wait for my career course, I might have waited over two years. No program was available in French.

At a certain point, we have no choice. We must accept it and move forward. We must accept the fact that we have no choice but to live with this, even though things shouldn't be that way.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

General Maisonneuve, my friend from Saint‑Jérôme, what was your experience?