Evidence of meeting #32 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was english.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Thank you very much.
Professor Chouinard, I should ask you, is that what you meant?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Yes, I agree with Mr. Maisonneuve. I don't think BMQ is necessarily the proper timing for soldiers coming in, but if they have any ambition to leave their unit and go elsewhere, they should know that they're going to need that proficiency in their second official language, and that should be provided much earlier than it is at this point.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Okay.
Major Sauvé, do you agree with the assessment as to when both non-commissioned and officer streams should begin training?
As an Individual
Yes, absolutely.
When you go to military college, you have to complete four pillars: academics, military, physical fitness and bilingualism. A person has four or five years to become bilingual. Similarly, if someone fails the physical fitness test, they're given additional training support so they can improve. They get help.
For non-commissioned officers just starting out, yes, going to RMC Saint‑Jean is a shock. It's a lot to learn. They are taught certain things to become familiar with the language. It's not a test or a PO check. They won't need to say “bonjour” or “merci” in their second official language, but they're told that they're going to meet French-speaking and English-speaking troops. They may get a few sessions a week to familiarize them with the language; people will speak a bit of French or English to them, but they don't have to pass a test. That's one of the shocks they'll experience, like their first time in the gas hut.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. We're done.
Ms. Lapointe, you may go ahead for five minutes.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Chouinard, given the armed forces' unique operational context, what are the most important strategic elements to ensure respect for official languages obligations in everyday military activities such as training and operations?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
As the only one of the four witnesses who has not served in the armed forces, I will humbly refrain from commenting on the operational dimension. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that.
As for training, I think what's necessary is what's already being provided to cadets at the two military colleges.
As a professor, I should also highlight that there is very little research on this, so it's extremely difficult for a researcher to find any evidence-based information.
For example, one of the things I'd like to know pertains to those who are working towards their officer's commission while attending a civilian university and doing their military training at a base on weekends. Not all officers go to the Saint‑Jean or Kingston military college. Is it harder or easier for them to learn the other official language, since they didn't receive the same support? Those are the types of questions we don't have answers to. We're really lacking that basic understanding, so I can't really give you a clear answer.
Liberal
Capt (Ret'd) Hélène Le Scelleur
I'll just pick up on that.
When it comes to training, I can say that, personally, I worked a lot with people in support trades. A lot of those trades require specialized training. The people in those trades have to operate at different levels, not just the unit level, but also the brigade or division level in some cases. Oftentimes, they have to be bilingual from the outset.
As for trades that are not combat trades, where francophones go directly into a francophone unit and anglophones go directly into an anglophone unit, people might work in administration or the medical field or as mechanics or radio operators. Everyone in a support trade always works in an environment that is virtually bilingual.
It would be wrong to say that non-commissioned members, non-commissioned officers, shouldn't have access to second-language training from the start. Language training should be based on people's occupations and working environments. That should determine the type of second-language training people get, so that they can support the operational level.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you.
Professor Chouinard, I have a question about how to measure official languages progress in an organization like the Canadian Armed Forces. What indicators should we look at to see whether changes have actually made a difference for members?
Associate Professor, As an Individual
In terms of the individual impact, I'm not qualified to answer your question. I'm not a linguist. I'm a political science professor.
At the system level, we obviously need to look at the percentage of members who meet the requirements, according to their personnel file, checking whether they have their BBB or CBC proficiency. That information is in their personnel file.
In addition, when we survey members of the armed forces, questions include whether they feel comfortable speaking in the official language of their choice in their day-to-day interactions with superiors—that's an extremely important component—or when they need certain services. As Ms. Le Scelleur clearly showed, that is quite the challenge.
It's also important to think about how all those issues affect a person's mental health. Something that tends to get overlooked but also factors into the official languages equation are the families that go with members on postings. They sometimes find themselves in a minority language context. The member's spouse may not speak the other official language, so that affects their family life, but it isn't necessarily something that's talked about.
A myriad of factors can be examined to ascertain whether things are really improving, but the questions have to be put to members themselves.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Mr. Sauvé, in terms of ensuring that supports for francophones are consistently implemented across all units, what factors would make the biggest difference? Where are the biggest gaps at the practical level?
As an Individual
As I said at the outset, training is important.
If you give me a program like Excel and expect me to be able to use its 300 functions but you don't train me, I'll make very basic use of it or avoid using it whenever I can.
The same goes for a weapon and an official language. You have to give people the opportunity to become proficient and the confidence to use those skills. Confidence matters.
If all we do is say that things have to change and impose quotas without giving people training, there's no point.
I want to comment on something Ms. Le Scelleur explained. It's hard to complain in the armed forces. It's hard to question things. Something funny I used to say was that trying to understand was like being disobedient. When that's the mentality, imagine what it's like if you ask for things. When you're in training, whatever it may be, but especially basic training, the last thing you want is to stand out. You have to stay anonymous. You have to keep your head down. You don't want people to know your name. Because of that mentality, people don't tend to complain.
However, to really understand where things are and determine whether something is making a difference, you need what I call a 360° review. In other words, you can't just ask those in leadership where things stand. You also have to ask those at the lowest level.
The organizational climate is a command responsibility. You have to be able to tell the commander that even if they think their unit is bilingual, the results on the ground show otherwise.
Checking boxes and filling in forms is well and good, but if members were actually interviewed and asked whether they felt comfortable speaking in their second language, they would probably say no. Those same members, however, might say yes on a paper form, precisely because they could be perceived as challenging the system. It's not easy in the forces to question the system.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I have a question for those who've served in the military.
I don't remember the term you used earlier Mr. Sauvé, whether it was “hierarchy”, but there's a very hierarchical culture within the armed forces.
Does it discourage members from filing complaints? Does it scare people who feel their rights are being violated? Obviously, we're talking more specifically about language rights here.
As an Individual
Hierarchy is obviously extremely important in the Canadian Armed Forces. There's a commander who makes decisions, so a single person who gives the orders. That said, the flip side is that the hierarchy is very weighty. People at the bottom aren't necessarily listened to, precisely because they're at the bottom of the hierarchy.
You're talking about people feeling wronged. Training is extremely important. People want to complete their course and get back to their unit. There's nothing worse than going to take a course, even if it's not an important one, and coming back to the unit having failed that course. We're going to do everything we can to succeed, which means we spend evenings reviewing the English terms we didn't understand. That's what it means. Generally speaking, the last thing we do is question the system, because that'll make us stand out and it'll cause issues with the staff.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
I don't know if any of your colleagues want to weigh in.
LGen (Ret'd) Michel Maisonneuve
You're right. The Canadian Armed Forces is a hierarchical organization, and for good reason.
It's also a matter of leadership. It's not because there's a hierarchy that no one's listening. I think in any hierarchy, good leaders are the ones who listen, and I'm not just talking about listening to their direct subordinates. Often, they'll go in the field to see their troops, talk to them individually, ask how things are, if anything is going on, if everything is going well. It's a matter of leadership.
I'd also like to add to the comments some of my colleagues made, particularly around indicators. I think there's also the issue of course availability, which both Ms. Le Scelleur and Professor Chouinard talked about, and opportunities to practise the second language.
I often refer to the Canadian Forces as a social experiment, and the government often uses them as such. I think if there were more exchanges, more anglophones would be able to serve in Quebec and more Quebeckers would be able to serve outside Quebec. I think some units do that. I know the armoured corps is trying hard to do that. We had a lot of anglophones who did very well in Valcartier and the regiment. They came for a few years and, when they left, they were bilingual. I think we should do more of that.
However, it's often difficult to convince people, because they have to move to another place with their families. It's hard to do even when you're going somewhere people speak your language. When you ask a family to move to a place where they speak another language, it's very difficult.
Capt (Ret'd) Hélène Le Scelleur
I'd like to add something, if I can.
When I did my career training in my second language, I told myself I couldn't let things go this way. I went to the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman to file a complaint so that things would change, and things were done. At the time, Ryerson University, which had the language training contract, was given a trial period to offer a bilingual program. It was unable to do, so it lost the contract and the government moved on to another option.
So, yes, there are potential solutions. I think people may not use this tool enough in contexts like these.