Official Languages Committee on March 1st, 2007

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

Okay. I will get back to this issue later on, Mr. Fraser.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Absolutely.

Mr. Lemieux, it is your turn to ask the next question, the fourth question in this initial round.

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

I would like to thank Mr. Fraser and the other witnesses for appearing here today.

We heard from the Minister of National Defence here last Tuesday. I would like to explain what I said to him. First of all, I would like to say that I served with the Canadian armed forces for 20 years. I enrolled at the age of 17 as an officer cadet and I retired 20 years later, when I was a lieutenant-colonel. I went to the Saint-Jean Royal Military College and I obtained my diploma in Kingston: two colleges that you mentioned in your presentation.

So it's necessary to explain this, because I've actually lived in the system at all levels, from being a subaltern, an officer cadet, right up to having senior officer rank of lieutenant-colonel. At all those steps, I lived through the bilingual policy, and from first-hand experience, I can tell you it doesn't work. I think you know that, and your predecessor knew that as well. It was very clear that it didn't work.

So again, I'm listening to my colleagues, and I'm listening to some of the questions they're posing. They're well intentioned, but there's a lack of understanding of how the military works and why it is that bilingual policy failed and why it wasn't working.

The first question I'd like to ask is this.

I think that it is enriching to learn a second language. However, I would like to know if it is stipulated anywhere in the Official Languages Act that it was mandatory for everyone in the Canadian Forces to become bilingual.

[Graham Fraser]

No. That isn't the case for the public service either.

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

Indeed.

[Graham Fraser]

There are established criteria for the employees of federal institutions, including the Canadian Forces. Indeed, the protection of unilingual individuals is part of the very basis of the official languages policy. We do not force everyone to learn both languages, but we do aim to protect unilingual populations, and we aim for the protection and development of minority communities. Those are the two fundamental objectives of the language policy.

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

You've just cleared up one major misperception. There is the perception that everybody must be bilingual because everybody must be bilingual, but you've stated that that's not the case. So this actually leans towards the new functional approach that DND is promoting, which is to determine which people need to be bilingual for which jobs.

As I was listening to your speech, I found a few sentences in there to be fairly negative. One of the ones that concerned me was your very strong statement that it is practically impossible to establish a challenging career in the Canadian Forces if you are a unilingual francophone. That's not what I've seen.

For example, if you are a private, and you are with the Royal 22e Régiment, you have every opportunity to become a master corporal, to become a sergeant, a warrant, and the highest non-commissioned officer rank possible, chief warrant officer. You have every capability, every possibility of achieving that rank, just as an anglophone does in an anglophone unit and just as a bilingual soldier does in a bilingual unit. You're not disadvantaged at all.

It's the same for a junior officer. If you're an officer cadet, or a second lieutenant--that's a better rank, because that's a commissioned rank--in a French artillery unit, you have every capability and every possibility of becoming the commanding officer of that regiment, just like in an anglophone regiment and in a bilingual regiment.

So I wonder if you could explain where that sentence is coming from, where that idea is coming from, and why you think it's practically impossible? That's very strong language, so I'm wondering if you could explain that to us.

[Graham Fraser]

My concern is in the skilled trades. I have both seen testimony and have talked to individuals who have been in the situation where the training was not available for them to advance their skill, where the training that was available was only available in English. This put them at a substantial disadvantage in learning the skills to acquire the trade or to advance--to acquire the skill levels necessary to practise that trade. This could be anyone from a specialized fireman to medical personnel, where repair manuals or instruction manuals, the operation manuals for the equipment, are in English only.

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

Just to follow up, perhaps one of the failings of the previous system was that if you had a unilingual francophone in a very anglophone environment--you mentioned the Princess Patricia's out in Calgary--he would have access to bilingual manuals. What I saw when I was a senior deputy project manager on a fairly significant project and on some other projects as well was that we were obligated to translate all manuals, to provide all manuals in both official languages. There was no question of not doing that. Those basic tools were always available to soldiers, no matter where they were.

But I think this goes back to the functional approach. It is better to have a unilingual francophone in a francophone environment where his training will be in French, and if you have a unilingual anglophone, it's better that he's in an anglophone environment where his training--and I don't mean here trades training, but I mean his general unit training--will be in his mother tongue. To me that says there are, again, advantages to the new approach being proposed by DND, which is to recognize that a unilingual francophone should be in a unilingual-type unit, and he can progress within that unit and receive his training in that unit.

There is another point I want to bring up as well. It's about this unit versus functional approach, because this is very important for metrics, when you're measuring the success of how this is working. Again, at National Defence Headquarters where the study was done, you might have a unit there that has 100 military positions. Let's just say that 45% or 50% of them are bilingual, and that I'm a bilingual officer and I get posted into that unit, but I don't necessarily get posted against the specific position. It's not as important as it is in the public service. In the public service, I, Pierre Lemieux, am tagged to this specific position and I'm paid in accordance with that position, but in the military I'm paid as a captain or as a major, and it's not really tied to a position. When I arrive at a unit, they just want to know, since they're supposed to have 15 captains there, whether they have 15 captains.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Lemieux, I'm afraid you're going to have to wait until the next round. I realize you were just getting really revved up, but you'll have to wait until the next round to finish.

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

Okay, merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chairman, if things continue along that line, Mr. Milot is going to be afraid to lose his job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

We will now begin the second round. Everyone will have five minutes.

Mr. Rodriguez, would you please ask the first question.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Fraser.

Earlier on, when Ms. Mourani talked about potential assimilation, you hesitated to respond, as if that could lead to the assimilation of francophones in the armed forces. Did I interpret your hesitation correctly?

[Graham Fraser]

In my opinion, there was a problem of assimilation in the past because of the tremendous mobility required in the armed forces. Members of the Canadian Forces and their families were transferred from one base to the next, and there was very little social support for families and individuals. As a result, often francophones and their families wound up feeling more at ease in English than French.

Nevertheless, I do not know whether or not this new approach will change this trend. I hesitate to give my opinion. I am not claiming that the assimilation of francophones in the armed forces has never existed, that is obvious. Will the new approach strengthen or counter this trend? I'm not able to tell you at this time.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do we not run the risk of creating ghettos?

[Graham Fraser]

I would not dare say that a member of the 22^nd Regiment is part of a ghetto, nor would I say that someone in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry is.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No, but elsewhere?

Ms. Boucher—

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

Pardon me.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm just trying to understand. Let's look at the units: francophones, anglophones, each on its own side, each dealing with its business. Is that it?

[Graham Fraser]

Let's not be deceived. In part, this is simply recognition of what exists at present. In his book on the Canadian army, Jack Granatstein, the historian, said that there are three armies in Canada: an army in the west, an army in Ontario and an army in Quebec. I am not confirming them, I am stating what he said and quoting from him. He did not talk about an operational approach, a universal approach. He was making an observation as a historian regarding the way that the Canadian army has evolved.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You talked about bilingual positions which should be reserved for bilingual individuals and which are increasingly staffed with non-bilingual personnel, unilingual individuals. If a position is designated bilingual, there must be a specific reason for that.

[Graham Fraser]

Indeed, this is very clear in section 91 of the act.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

And if it's not staffed with a bilingual person, does that not result in a certain security risk, or something like that? There are no consequences?