Official Languages Committee on March 1st, 2007

[Graham Fraser]

I think that represents a risk in every respect. Before becoming commissioner, I talked to a general who told me that one of the changes that has occurred in the country's culture, is that soldiers were no longer prepared to die in the language of the officers. I think that there is an explanation on the part of soldiers: they want to be understood by their commanding officers.

If a bilingual position is filled by someone who is not bilingual, if the system is transformed so it is the units and not the incumbents of certain positions that provide services in both languages, the soldier would still have this need to be understood and to obtain information in order to do the job.

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

So the language issue could jeopardize our soldiers, because there's a problem in conveying—

[Graham Fraser]

I must confess that this is a type of very specific question requiring knowledge about the way this policy will be applied in practice. I do not have this knowledge. I do not know whether my colleagues would like to intervene on this topic, but as far as I'm concerned, I do not want to venture into an area when I don't know exactly how things work on such and such a base, in such and such a conflict, or in such and such a situation, and then make a mistake because I don't know exactly how it works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Mr. Lemieux and Ms. Boucher will be sharing their time for the next question.

Mr. Lemieux would like to finish his speech.

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

Me again? Great.

To continue with what I was saying before, if you have a unit that has a requirement for 15 majors and some of them must be bilingual, the military doesn't take the time and the effort to make sure that Pierre Lemieux, bilingual officer, is tagged against that specific bilingual position, because it doesn't really matter in that sense. What matters is that the unit has a bilingual officer and offers its services bilingually. That's what matters.

It's very important, because one of the essential parts of this new plan is the metrics. It's how you measure success. Under the old system, success was measured position by position. It was possible to actually have 10 bilingual positions, but to have the officers not perfectly aligned against those 10. You might say that was a failure, but actually it wasn't a failure. The 10 officers are there, they're just not slotted position against position. I wanted to point that out.

You made a comment about the postings as well, about tradesmen.

When I worked in the electronic and mechanical engineering sector, I was responsible for the technicians, tanks, firearms, etc.

You'd mentioned that it's possible for a soldier to be posted immediately into a position, and you said that's the way the forces work, but there's much more stability than that.

By exception, when there's an exceptional circumstance that presents itself, yes, it's necessary to move someone immediately, but there's career planning that goes on every year. There's a cycle; there's a rhythm to where soldiers are posted.

If someone wants to go to Quebec, a request must be made, the requirements of the Canadian Forces must be taken into account. This could happen if it is suitable for the individual and the Canadian Forces.

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

Ask your question.

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

Yes, it's coming. I just want to leave the point as well, that lack of stability is not there.

So I will get to my question. My question is this. In the military we're taught that if plan A is not working, if you're pouring resources, time, effort, and energy into plan A and it's not working, it's failing, don't persist in plan A. Come up with plan B. Develop a plan B. Implement a plan B. Evaluate a plan B.

The opposition says no, throw everything into plan A. Even if it's failing, put in more resources, more money. It's failing, but they won't come up with a plan B.

Here we have a plan B. So I would like to know your opinion on this concept of, if it has been such a failure for so long, why the hesitation to say, you know, I'm glad to see a plan B; I'm glad to see a different approach here that will actually provide better service, or potentially provide better service, to soldiers?

Could you comment on that? That would be my question.

[Graham Fraser]

I've actually taken some pains not to say that I am condemning or approving the approach that is being taken. It's not my job to say this plan is a good plan or that plan is a good plan. We've set a series of recommendations in which we feel that there are certain criteria that have to be met in order for the Canadian Forces to meet their obligations under the Official Languages Act.

The forces have responded with this plan, and my reaction is to say, well, let's wait and see. If it continues to mean that only 47% of the officers who were supposed to be bilingual and provide bilingual services actually are, then it will continue to be a failure. If, on the other hand, we see that there is a better alignment between bilingual officers and the jobs they have to do, then I am not starting from a vantage point where....

For one thing, I'm not presuming bad faith on the part of the military.

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

Can I agree with you? You're right. You actually have not rendered a judgment, an official judgment. You haven't said this is doomed to failure as well. But when I listened to your speech—and I'll just speak for myself—I found there were a lot of things that were said in there that gave a negative connotation to something that is just being launched.

So I agree with you that you haven't given a final opinion on this, but I do feel that your comments were more negative than positive. I didn't see much light in terms of, “Here are my concerns with regard to the new approach”—and that's fair; we can have concerns about the new approach—“but here are some of the positive things that I see with the new approach. Here's where the real differences could be made.” I know you can't say, definitively, “will be made”, but “could be made”.

I guess my concern was that I found that the approach to the new plan put forward by DND was leaning to the negative side, with a lot of question marks, a lot of doubts about whether or not it will work, and really not much in terms of balancing that with the positive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemieux. I'm sure that Mrs. Boucher appreciates your sharing her time with her.

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

We get along really well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I think you owe her two and a half minutes somewhere along the line.

[Graham Fraser]

Let me just respond by saying I will take those concerns into account.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Malo, you have five minutes, please.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, earlier, you clearly indicated that the reason why unilingual francophones find it difficult to have an interesting career in the Canadian Forces is not because the opportunities are not there, but rather because they have no way of getting adequate training in French.

For example, in order to command a ship, you need a certain amount of training and practical experience on the deck. To my knowledge, there is only one place in Canada that provides such training: in western Canada, on the HMCS Regina, a unilingual anglophone ship. Consequently, it is difficult for a unilingual francophone to become a navy commander or deputy commander.

A lot of money is being invested in the Canadian Forces right now. In this regard, you said earlier that it would be important to focus more on French training and to invest more money in this.

In your opinion, should we consider reopening the Saint-Jean Royal Military College and the use of other ships and other facilities in eastern Canada and in francophone units?

[Graham Fraser]

I would like them to explore ways of reinforcing training, so as to take into consideration all the factors that make up a francophone environment and the best way of learning to work in either official language.

After having said that I wouldn't comment on the details of a plan to reach this target within the Canadian Forces, I will also avoid imposing another way to improve training, certainly not at this point in my mandate.

Has the closure of the Saint-Jean Royal Military College resulted in serious problems with regard to the recruitment of francophone officers? I am waiting for answers.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You also asked another very interesting question as to the chances a francophone soldier has of working in his own language, within this new system.

Last Monday, I asked the Minister of National Defence a question and he said that francophones, proportionally, represent a significant share of the Canadian Forces. I told him that these are not the statistics we need to look at, but rather, how many francophones are able to work in French within the Canadian Forces? However, he was unable to tell me how many.

Do you not think it would be important to obtain these statistics, in order to have a more accurate picture of French in the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Graham Fraser]

In fact, of the many things I want to do, this is one: get a grassroots understanding, within the regiments, of the exact situation.

Renald, do you have any comments?

[Renald Dussault]

Every year, we do an evaluation of sorts, a performance assessment of the various institutions. Obviously, language of work is one of the factors we look at.

According to a study by Statistics Canada, 39% of all francophone respondents within bilingual units, wherever they may be in Canada, are very favourable or somewhat favourable to the language of work system within the Canadian Forces. This is one of many indicators.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

So, is 39% disappointing?

[Graham Fraser]

Quite.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

In fact, I had asked the Minister of National Defence and the Minister Responsible for The Francophonie and Official Languages if they had consulted any of the communities before implementing this. Apparently, they relied solely on complaints.

Do you think that various groups should have been consulted, before this new policy was created?

[Graham Fraser]

I consulted with our lawyers on the scope of part VII, that part of the act that requires consultation with minority communities, and I was told that, in fact, sections 41 and 42 of the act do not apply in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I apologize, Mr. Fraser, I have to stop you.