Evidence of meeting #43 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bilingual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I want to welcome you to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Let me point out that our meeting this morning will be broadcast by Radio-Canada.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Do the committee members wish to allow this?
Mr. Malo, you have the floor.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Chairman, what prevented us from being able to televise this meeting with the Official Languages Commissioner?
9:05 a.m.
The Clerk
There are only two rooms where this is possible and, unfortunately, those rooms were taken. We were able to get an already-booked room on Tuesday because we had priority since we had two ministers appearing. However, a commissioner does not give us priority.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, I would like you to verify this information, because I think that the commissioner is as important as ministers are. He is a representative of Parliament. I'm convinced that, under the rules we adopted, when an officer of Parliament appears before a committee, he should have priority and we should get a room. If the meeting is not televised, we should at least get a bigger room than this one. I think this proves how official languages are treated, not only out there, but also at the House of Commons itself.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
The clerk has taken note of your comments and, the next time, we will try to get a bigger room.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, given the importance of this meeting, the appearance by the commissioner and the fact that this follows upon a meeting with the ministers, I feel this situation should have been presented to the committee. We could have then decided to hold this meeting another week, in order to be certain of getting a room in which our meeting could have been televised.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
I want to welcome the Commissioner, Mr. Graham Fraser. Mr. Fraser will speak for 15 or 10 minutes and, then, we will ask questions.
Welcome, Mr. Fraser. Would you like to introduce your colleagues?
9:05 a.m.
Graham Fraser Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for inviting me to discuss the official languages program in the Department of National Defence.
I would like to introduce the gentlemen accompanying me, Gérard Finn, Renald Dussault and Marcel Charlebois. They are here to answer detailed questions, because they have been working in this area for longer than I. In all likelihood, I will need their assistance to answer your questions.
The mission of National Defence and the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada and the interests and values of all Canadians, and to contribute to international peace and security.
My appearance is part of a lengthy dialogue with the Canadian Forces on the subject of linguistic duality. For almost a century now, the Canadian Forces have tried to come to terms with their responsibilities towards francophone members and their families, and since the Laurendeau-Dunton report almost four decades ago, this dialogue has intensified. All my predecessors have expressed their concern about the slow progress of the Canadian Forces and have reported on the significant problems that have emerged in terms of respecting the Official Languages Act. Now, in response to a report on a complaint by the late MP Benoît Sauvageau, we see the latest version of the Canadian Forces response and the latest admission of failure.
Given their specific mandate, the Canadian Forces have long been seen as different from other government institutions in terms of the application of the Official Languages Act. I agree that there are significant operational differences between the Canadian Forces and the federal public service. For example, while public servants choose where they work, military personnel may be sent on assignments anywhere in the country or in the world, based on their skills. After a few years, they are reassigned based on the Canadian Forces operational requirements. I am told that there are 10,000 transfers per year. A person's language is not a determining factor in the decision.
I should point out that the Official Languages Act does not confer special or preferred status on the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. The act applies equally to all federal institutions.
Therefore, I feel that the Canadian Forces must reflect Canadian values, including linguistic duality. The forces must promote this duality and fully comply with the Official Languages Act. Beyond the legislative requirements, it's extremely important that the men and women who accept the inherent risks and choose to serve their country in the Canadian Forces are able to do so in an environment that respects their preferred official language.
Over the years, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have always demonstrated a willingness to comply with the Official Languages Act. However, I note that many of the procedures and policies they've developed have never produced the anticipated results. A new policy, known as the functional approach, is now being proposed, and we should evaluate it in terms of its application and its anticipated results. This new policy does not necessarily run contrary to the act, but the five-year timeline for assessing results is unacceptable.
l'd like to give you some brief background information to explain how I reached this conclusion.
In 1969, nearly 40 years ago, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission issued a series of recommendations to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces concerning the equality of the two linguistic groups. In 1972, an initial 15-year plan was developed to increase bilingualism and biculturalism in the Canadian Forces. At the end of that period, the Canadian Forces recognized that the objectives had not been met.
In 1988, the department adopted a new policy, called the bilingual officer corps, to develop a pool of bilingual officers. The goal of this policy was to ensure that all senior officers, starting with the rank of colonel and navy captain, would be bilingual regardless of their duties or where they were posted. This policy was modified several times over the years and its scope became limited. It was recently renamed the universal approach. Now, 18 years later, there is an acknowledgement that this policy has failed, and the Canadian Forces is proposing yet another new approach.
All commissioners of official languages have expressed concerns regarding the application of the Official Languages Act by the Department of National Defence. My predecessors have issued a number of observations and recommendations in their studies and investigations, as well as in a report to the governor in council. Many of the previous commissioners have criticized the assignment process, which allows unilingual persons to hold bilingual positions, and have often condemned the fact that language policies fail to produce clear results.
In her 2001 investigation report, the commissioner issued recommendations concerning the Bilingual Officer Corps policy. She recommended a review of the language requirements for all officer positions to ensure that they are objectively necessary in each instance. She also recommended that the department identify the positions that required the immediate use of both official languages, and had to be staffed by officers who met these requirements at the time of their assignment or promotion.
More recently, an investigation was conducted in 2005 concerning the way in which the Canadian Forces as a whole dealt with bilingualism when recruiting, transferring military personnel, and determining appointments and promotions. In 2006, the commissioner conducted an audit of National Defence headquarters to determine whether the department and the Canadian Forces had succeeded in creating a work environment that is conducive to the use of French and English, and that enables employees to use the official language of their choice in their workplace.
The resulting recommendations call on the Canadian Forces to: set higher goals with regard to the proportion of military personnel who meet the language requirements of their bilingual positions or function; ensure that the performance management agreements of senior officers include objectives concerning language skills, and the creation and maintenance of an environment that is conducive to the use of both official languages; provide every opportunity and the necessary tools to military personnel who aspire to supervisory or other leadership positions to learn a second official language in order to maintain or improve their linguistic skills. Raise to the level of CBC the language skills and linguistic profile of bilingual supervisory positions in bilingual units so that the positions are filled only by personnel who meet these requirements at the time of transfer or assignment.
How have the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces acted on these recommendations? How will the new approach affect their implementation? That remains to be seen.
I would now like to talk about this new functional approach.
In accordance with the National Defence Act, this approach recognizes that, unlike the public service, the Canadian Forces manages its personnel by unit rather than by position. The information received indicates that the Canadian Forces feels this new model brings its training and employment policies more in line with the requirements of the Official Languages Act. This new approach marks a departure from the bilingual corps of officers policy adopted in 1988. Following the failure of the previous policy, we now have a new formula that once again offers no guarantees.
I can't help but wonder about the thinking behind this change in direction and the reasons the approach adopted in 1988 failed. Could one factor be the closure of the Saint-Jean military college? Do we recruit enough francophone officers? Under the system, what are the chances for francophone soldiers to work in their language? Does this mean that language training does not begin until a person is promoted to colonel? What will be the impact on francophone recruitment?
The Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean was established because National Defence wanted to increase its recruitment of francophone officers. It opened its doors in 1952, and over the years it grew from a college to a full university. As it was located in a French-speaking province, it offered the added benefits of enabling anglophone officers to participate in the best immersion program in North America.
In the 1990s, as part of the government's many initiatives to improve public finances, it closed two of the military colleges--Royal Roads and the Saint-Jean royal military college.
The Royal Military College in Kingston, already bilingual in theory, then became a centre for training fully bilingual student officers. Despite the efforts of officials in Kingston, there was a slight decrease in the number of francophone student officers by 1995. It would be interesting to know the current number in attendance.
Throughout the 1990s, National Defence made some progress in providing soldiers with professional training in French. This was much less true for officer training and development. In fact, as they move up through the ranks, officers have fewer opportunities to take their training in French.
The Canadian Forces agree that bilingualism is an integral part of leadership. However, under the new functional approach, only supervisors in a bilingual or unilingual French unit must be proficient in French, aside from certain lieutenant-generals and vice-admirals. The reality is that there are still too few bilingual military supervisors to create a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages in bilingual units.
Our investigations, studies and audits have shown that, over the course of some 20 years, the percentage of bilingual military positions filled by bilingual personnel has not increased by much and currently stands at only 47%. This is quite simply unacceptable.
In all of this, we must consider the perspective of francophones enlisting in the Canadian Forces. Even if the basic career training they receive is in French, new francophone recruits must learn English sooner or later. It is practically impossible to establish a challenging career in the Canadian Forces if you are a unilingual francophone. Francophones fall behind their unilingual anglophone colleagues, who get an immediate start on their career. One of the rare career opportunities for a unilingual francophone soldier, for example, is as an infantryman at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.
In conclusion, the 1990s were particularly difficult for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Budget reductions forced them to reduce their operational resources, and as in most other departments, their official languages program was inevitably affected. The 2003 action plan on official languages recognized that Canada's linguistic duality was affected during those difficult years. Corrective action measures have been identified.
Recently, however, the government substantially increased funding to National Defence and the Canadian Forces. We're starting a new chapter, following years of cutbacks. I'm hopeful that the overall official languages program, including language training for military personnel, will reap the benefits of this new funding.
Budgets are an important component, but we must remember that the situation will not change without leadership at the highest level. Over the years we've often seen procedures and policies revised, but no substantive change. After more than 25 years of various reforms, the Canadian Forces have examined the issue from every angle. It's more than time to establish clear official languages initiatives based on measurable objectives.
We cannot see another failure like the Canadian Forces' universal approach. It's unacceptable for the Department of National Defence to give itself five years to introduce the main elements of its new policy.
I'd like to point out that although this new policy takes into account some of the recommendations made by my predecessor, neither she nor I have endorsed this new functional approach. It will be analyzed when we begin the follow-up to the investigation on language at work in the department this year. It will also be reviewed during the follow-up to our audit at the National Defence Headquarters scheduled for next year.
As I look ahead in my mandate, I anticipate seeing concrete results from National Defence and the Canadian Forces.
Thank you very much. I shall be happy to answer any questions.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for that very interesting presentation.
We will now begin our first round of questions. Each member of the committee will have seven minutes. In keeping with what I told previous witnesses, I will be strictly enforcing the time allotted each member.
Ms. Folco, you may ask the first question.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Fraser.
I am very pleased to see you here today, in your role as Official Languages Commissioner. I am not saying that your predecessors did not take this task seriously, on the contrary, but I am personally very pleased to see you here, all the more so because, listening to your speech, I noted that you were drawing a very arresting picture of what I and many of my colleagues think of the new situation within the Canadian Forces.
I have always believed that the Canadian Forces were there to protect Canadians, be it here or elsewhere, in the short or long term. The Canadian Forces also project an image of Canada within Canada but also to others outside of Canada.
What I heard from the Minister responsible for Official Languages and the Minister of National Defence is that this image was increasingly becoming—it already is—one in which Canada is almost solely a unilingual anglophone country.
You said something extremely important. Sometimes, it is important to face reality, and you did so by recognizing that a unilingual francophone, an infantryman, has nowhere to go in the Canadian armed forces, because of the regulations, because of the way in which courses are organized. Mr. Commissioner, I am a former linguist. So you can understand that I have an opinion on this.
I want to make a comment and then ask a question. I make this comment to the Minister of National Defence. When language courses are organized, various criteria are taken into consideration. First, the objectives are considered and, ultimately, those objectives are assessed. However, I consider the objective of this new program of the Canadian Forces to be mediocre, if not worse.
Then, you need to ensure that those taking the course are motivated. Given the situation you've just described to us, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that there is little or no motivation. I am talking about anglophones who have to learn French.
Then, we must consider the tools provided to both students and teachers. Once again, the situation you described with regard to the St. John Royal Military College, which was an excellent environment and provided immersion courses not only to the college itself but also to the town, demonstrates that the tools that the Canadian Forces has made available and continues to make available are steadily deteriorating. Of course, we know little about the evaluation.
As a former linguist, I fail to understand why they decided to do an evaluation five years later. Why not 15 years later while they're at it?
Finally, you used one word repeatedly in your speech, the word "unacceptable".
Those are the comments I wanted to make to you to tell you just how happy I am to hear your comments. Could you comment on what I've just said, but I'd also like you to comment on the following. If I've understood correctly, we have been told that from now on, Canadian Forces units would more or less be divided into linguistic units: anglophones on the one side; francophones on the other. This reminds me somewhat of what happened during the Second World War, when many countries, including the United States, had Black units and White units. And never the two shall meet. If we want the Canadian Forces to reflect our society, it is essential that people work together. Therefore, I am opposed to the idea of having separate linguistic units right from the start. I would like to hear your comments on this, please.
9:25 a.m.
Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
First, we must recognize that the Canadian Forces have shown good will by going beyond the requirements of the act. This universal approach, the goal of which was to ensure that everyone would speak both official languages, was admirable, but to some extent it was done without specific targets. This meant that, often, officers took the mandatory training and then spent their careers in a unit where there were very few francophones, in an anglophone region.
Let's take the example of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based in Alberta. This is not really an area where officers can maintain what they've previously learned. Also, under section 91 of the act, a language requirement cannot be applied unless required. To some extent, the fact that the Canadian Forces have developed a more targeted plan, which is trying to suit capacities to needs, is not contrary to the legislation. My fear is that this is almost a parallel system to the one that already exists in the public service, where there are unilingual francophone regions, bilingual regions and unilingual anglophone regions.
Imagine there is a tank repairman working at Valcartier and suddenly we need one in Edmonton. It's not like in the public service, where a competition is held and the applicant agrees to live in an anglophone environment. In reality, the repairman must go to the Edmonton base within a week at most. That is how the Canadian Forces operate. In principle, on paper, it could work, but I fear in the long run for individuals and their families.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Mr. Fraser, I have to stop you. Thank you for your answer.
We will ask Ms. Mourani to ask the next question.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank you for your testimony. Could you clarify one small point. On February 27, the Minister for The Francophonie and the Official Languages, the Hon. Josée Verner, said, and I quote:
I am following these efforts closely, and I am pleased to be able to work with the commissioner to promote this invaluable treasure... I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with Commissioner Fraser a few weeks ago, and I know that he is giving his full attention to this issue.
Yesterday, in the House, my colleague Richard Nadeau questioned whether the minister had consulted you about the implementation of this policy. Were you consulted?
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
As commissioner, I was not consulted. Recommendations were made, and we were assured that they were followed during the development of this approach. If, by consultation, they mean that we approved it step-by-step, I must say that this is not how the process went. Given the follow-up on our investigations and audits, there is an information process, but we did not approve each step. To that extent, we were not consulted.
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
The first time I had a detailed presentation on this was this week, when Colonel Milot came prior to his appearance and presented the approach.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
When you say that you were assured that your recommendations were followed, is this true? When you looked at this new policy, did you see that your recommendations had been followed or not?
