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.