Official Languages Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Don't change the subject.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Well, one story equals another.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That's what you may think, but I'm telling you that a francophone on board the aircraft that night was not able to watch a movie in his mother tongue. It's just one example, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on that example.

Do you agree that it is not right?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you agree that the example I gave you was positive?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Hold on, I'm asking you a question: Do you agree that it is not right? I don't want an answer to another question. Do you acknowledge that it was not right?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

That's not a question. I answered your question, sir. There is a real willingness to learn French, and I witnessed this when I went to Afghanistan in the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Your time has already run out.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Can't you increase it to 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman? It's too short.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux, please go ahead with your question.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin, I'd like to thank Ministers O'Connor and Verner for agreeing to meet with us on such short notice this morning to discuss these important issues.

I'd like to start by telling you that I served with the Canadian Forces for 20 years. I started as an Officer cadet at 17 years of age, and I retired as a lieutenant-colonel.

It's necessary to explain this so that you know I have lived the military system at all steps, from being a junior officer right through to being a senior officer. Unlike my colleagues, especially those across the table, I have a thorough understanding of the system and how it worked and how it did not work.

I've been sitting here listening to my colleagues, and as well-intentioned as they may be, they clearly do not understand the military. They do not understand what makes the military unique, and they don't understand why the previous official languages policy did not work in the military. I look at Monsieur Nadeau. He spoke of many things, but his experience with the military lasted less than one day.

I'd like to tell you that the old system did not work—and it's not just me saying that.

The former Official Languages Commissioner, Dyane Adam, reviewed the former government's bilingualism policy and was very disappointed with the findings. The new Official Languages Commissioner has also described the recent bilingualism policy as a failure.

There's a considerable amount of money being spent on second-language training, $20 million annually, all for minimal results: the wrong candidates were chosen and were not trained to high enough levels, and were assigned to the wrong places. So yes, it was a total failure.

What does our military teach its soldiers and its officers in situations like this? If something is not working, then make the necessary changes in order to accomplish the mission. If plan A is a failure, then develop and implement a plan B. Having listened to the opposition, the opposition says no, continue with plan A, pour more resources into plan A. It's plan A or nothing, even if it's failing.

There's no sense in this. We have had two Commissioners of Official Languages tell us that the system put in place by previous governments was a failure, so let's make the necessary changes in order to accomplish the goal.

Could you remind us what was ineffective and inappropriate about the universal approach and warranted the implementation of the current transformation model?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'm going to ask Colonel Milot, who's the expert here, to identify these areas.

[Colonel J.L. Milot, Director of Official Languages, Department of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

A few elements are responsible for the DND and the CF going away from the universal approach and going toward a functional approach as proposed in the transformation model. One element is obviously the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, whereby the transformation model had to take into account all those recommendations, and it does. That's the first element.

The second element is a realization that the universal approach did not provide us with what was required, and it was unattainable both in terms of time available to train all personnel in the Canadian Forces to a bilingualism level and in terms of finance. It is unachievable to think the CF can train 100,000 people to become bilingual, especially since our model of movement of people entails people being transferred to unilingual units. If you provide French-language training or English-language training to a military member when he first arrives in service and then you transfer him to a unilingual organization for a period of five to seven years, chances are that your investment will erode with time. It did not make sense. It was, in a way, an inappropriate use of money.

What we have done in the functional approach is earmark the people who will occupy functions that are to be provided bilingually, be they services to the public, as was brought up earlier, or leadership positions or supervisory positions. When necessary, you provide the second-language training to those people prior to them occupying these functions, be it in a bilingual organization or in an organization of French or English designation.

By taking this approach, what you get in return is that once the formation or the second-language training has been provided to that person, that person immediately occupies functions requiring the use of that second language. Hence, he immediately puts to good use the training he has just received, and in many cases will improve upon that particular training.

I'm hopeful that I've provided two very key elements of why the universal approach had to be modified and why it was so important that we make a virage, if I may say, toward a new approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You have two minutes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have two minutes left. Thank you.

I'm wondering if you could tell us some of the key advantages, then, of the new policy.

[Col J.L. Milot]

The aim of the official language transformation model is clear: it's to better meet the exigencies of the law. We have areas where we have done particularly well, primarily under part III, military justice. We've made great strides in this particular area. Even in the area of our senior leadership—among our colonels, navy captains, and general flag officers—most of our senior officers have a level of bilingualism. The numbers are quite high when we're looking at BBB, and they are certainly very high even at the CBC level.

What we're saying is that progressively, with our senior leadership, we will put forth an aggressive plan to rapidly close the gap and ensure that our senior leadership meets the expectancies of a superior level of bilingualism. That will be done progressively, starting this year, by having the lieutenant-general level and above meet CBC. And I can say, today, that the expectancies are to meet that for December 2007. Today, already, we meet those exigencies. I checked last week.

Two years later, in 2009, the same will apply to our major-generals who occupy bilingual functions or who are in bilingual regions or are even outside bilingual regions. The same will apply to brigadier-generals starting in 2009, and there will be a very aggressive second language training program for colonels and navy captains once they're first promoted. It doesn't mean that when those people are promoted to brigadier-general or higher ranks that they're not sent on second language training to even further accelerate the process. What we're saying in the transformation model is that the engagement for ensuring that our senior leadership becomes bilingual very quickly is certainly an engagement that is listed in the transformation model.

Have I answered your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Sorry, Mr. Milot, I have to stop you there.

Thank you very much.

Mr. D'Amours will be asking the next question.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to start by thanking you for appearing today. And I must say, Mr. O'Connor, that I appreciated the fact that you made the effort of speaking French in the first part of your speech. As a French-speaker who did not use to speak English, I simply want to acknowledge that effort.

Colonel Milot, you said that not imposing bilingualism helps ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act. That's illogical. I'm not going to ask you to respond to that, but I can tell you that the opposite is true.

Ms. Verner, you referred to concrete action. Section 2 of Bill S-3 states:

43.(1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and may take measures to [...]

"Shall take measures" means doing your outmost to reach the equality of status and use of French and English. No reference is made to limiting bilingualism measures. You said earlier your government had taken concrete steps. I'm not about to congratulate you. Axing the Court Challenges Program was perhaps a concrete step in your opinion, and it may very well be as far as your government is concerned, but it certainly is not a positive measure.

Mr. O'Connor, you referred to the work you're doing on bilingualism and you mentioned there were francophone, anglophone and bilingual units. But it won't always be possible to have francophones with other francophones, anglophones with other anglophones, and bilingual persons with other bilingual persons.

Minister, can you tell me, in the sort of situations Canada is currently facing, how you're going to make sure our soldiers are safe and healthy?

I'd like you to answer me in French.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

That would be very, very difficult.

Since the beginning of the Official Languages Act, we have had English-language units, French-language units, and bilingual units. They work quite well, no matter what the circumstances are. We have also employed English-language units beside French-language units, but what we do is ensure that the headquarters is bilingual so that they can operate with both units. We've had no difficulty with this approach. It allows anglophones to operate within an English milieu, it allows francophones to operate within a French milieu, and it allows them to achieve their full promotion possibilities within those structures. But those people who wish to—not so much the men, but the officers—attain the highest levels of the armed forces must become bilingual, and they must be able to operate in the bilingual units.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Minister, I asked you to answer me in French. I'm going to make my final argument. I know that time is running out.

If I were a lower-ranking French-speaking soldier and my superior gave me instructions just like you did, in other words, only in English, I wouldn't understand a single thing. As it turns out, thank God, I am bilingual.

You've just given us a perfect illustration of the problem, Minister. The fact that people only speak French or English is not the problem. However, when the safety and security of our soldiers is at stake and superiors are unable to give assistance, information or orders to soldiers in their mother tongue, that's serious business. How do you think it's possible to respect or protect such people under those circumstances? It's impossible. If I hadn't learned English, minister, I wouldn't have understood your answer.

If I were a soldier and I wasn't bilingual, how do you think I'd manage in the army given the new measure you intend to implement this April? It's distressing and shameful that things are as they are, Minister. You're saying that bilingualism is commonplace. So why don't you continue to make it the policy? Why doesn't the department do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Your time has run out.

The floor is yours, Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'd like to thank the two ministers for having agreed to appear on such short notice and for explaining their new approach.

As you are all aware, I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages. It's very important for me to understand exactly what is happening. My question is directed to Minister Verner.

Ms. Verner, our Prime Minister made you responsible for official languages, which gives you an opportunity to set the tone when it comes to policies affecting federal institutions. I know that you're very demanding when it comes to official languages. As far as horizontal coordination is concerned, your approach is based on cooperation across the board. In fact, you mentioned in your speech that you're going to continue to work with each and every one of your colleagues. So that brings me to my question.

What is your specific role in assisting Minister O'Connor in the implementation of the Canadian Armed Forces Official Languages Program Transformation Model?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Lavallée.

The Prime Minister gave me the dual responsibility of horizontal coordination and specific duties in relation to the Department of Canadian Heritage. This dual role ensures that government action is more consistent. Not only does it give me a more broad-based understanding, but it means I have the tools to play a coordination role and to set the tone for government policy in relation to the official languages support program.

I'm working very closely with my colleagues. I made a number of announcements a few months ago alongside my colleague the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The purpose of these announcements was to promote francophone immigration. I have also worked with my counterpart from the Department of Health to make sure minority groups get access to health care services. In short, I've worked with all my colleagues around the cabinet table. More recently, I have had an opportunity to work with Minister O'Connor on the transformation model.

I particularly welcome my colleague's initiative as he sought to respond to what amounted to a record of failure. I listened to Mr. D'Amours, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche attack the work my colleague has done in response to the former Official Languages Commissioner's recommendations. Even though I wasn't present, I presumed that he was just as virulent when asking questions of the former government whose record was far from brilliant and was criticized on several occasions.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of respect for the Hon. Josée Verner, the minister responsible for official language, but she is not here to moralize about what other governments may or may not have done. We are asking her to be accountable for what is occurring under her watch as the minister appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you for your comments.

You may continue, Minister.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'll continue. Thank you very much.

In response to Ms. Folco, I would simply say that I am trying to put things into perspective. If it is okay for one party to be critical, then it should also be okay for the other party to do likewise. Rest assured that my colleague, Minister O'Connor, is determined to ensure compliance with the act. He has implemented a results-oriented transformation model. This initiative should be welcomed.

It's all very well to criticize us, to role play and pretend you're a soldier in the line of fire and ask the minister to play the role of general, but we need to deal with the real issues. We'll be following the transformation model my colleague has brought forward with much interest.