Official Languages Committee on March 1st, 2007

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

Already? I think my five minutes were shorter than...

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Here, five minutes is long.

Mr. Godin.

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

I agree with Mr. Malo: I think that his five minutes were shorter than Mr. Lemieux's.

I listened closely to Mr. Lemieux, and if I am not mistaken, his father was also a military man.

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

Yes, that's true. He was a member of the air force.

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

That explains why Mr. Lemieux is more comfortable in English than in French. With all due respect to him, I attribute that to the fact that his father was transferred to various bases across Canada; that is why his son speaks better English than French. I respect that, but that is the result.

Mr. Lemieux was talking about units and he says that 7 out of 15 people should be bilingual, and that we don't understand this.

So, 7 out of 15 people are supposed to be bilingual, including the janitor or the mechanic. They would be considered part of the unit and 2 of the 7 people needed to comply with the act. Is this really the principle that underlines the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Fraser, it's clear that we don't want all anglophones to have to speak French, nor do we want all francophones to have to learn English. We want services to be provided in both languages and for people to be able to work and take training in their mother tongue.

I met with soldiers who contradicted what Mr. Lemieux said. I met with soldiers in Montreal who told me that if they wanted to get promoted they had to learn English because the manuals were in English. Eighty per cent of all National Defence training manuals are in English. Can a francophone really make it all the way up the ladder?

So, you said a little earlier that the commissioner did not have the mandate to say whether the closing of the Saint-Jean Royal Military College was a good thing. On the contrary, I think that the commissioner has the mandate to tell us whether this has hurt the francophone community.

Was it easier to learn in Saint-Jean than in Kingston? We know that Kingston is not a francophone city.

[Graham Fraser]

Let's be clear. I talked about the contribution of the Saint-Jean Royal Military College to the Canadian Forces and the role that the institution played in reinforcing the presence of the corps of francophone officers. In my statement, I talked about it as one of the best immersion experiences in North America.

The college was created in 1952, in response, to some extent, to problems experienced by the Canadian Forces during the Second World War. At that time, there had been major discipline problems because there were no officers who could understand the francophone soldiers. On some ships, there were near-mutinies because of the language tensions within the naval forces and the systemic problem of the lack of officers able to give orders or understand the soldiers.

The Saint-Jean Royal Military College was created in response to this need. It operated for 42 years and made a significant contribution to the Canadian Forces. Then, that chapter in the forces' history came to an end.

At present, I am asking questions about the effects of this closure. Can we assess the effects 13 years later? This represents almost an entire generation, in terms of the training of the new officers. What is the impact on recruiting? What is the impact on the linguistic ability of officers who studied at Kingston?

I have been commissioner for four months. I am not ready to announce a plan on the future of officer training within the Canadian Forces. That is not how I see my role at present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. D'amours, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for being here this morning.

I don't know whether you had the opportunity to listen to or read my comments or my questions, particularly the ones I put to the Minister of National Defence on Tuesday last.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes. I read the transcript.

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

If you had seen the video, you would have seen how difficult it was for the minister to answer me in French. In reality, that would have been the case if he had to give me an order if I were a unilingual francophone. Nonetheless, I respect the fact that some people speak only English and others speak only French.

However, when you are a senior officer and you have to give orders, instructions, you cannot run the risk, as a Canadian, of not understanding what is happening. So, there cannot be francophone units, anglophone units and bilingual units.

You described the situation well earlier. In fact, you said that someone can be sent to another region because that's where the need is. Furthermore, this doesn't necessarily mean that that suits the particular needs of that individual.

In my opinion, it's not about saying that all student soldiers or soldiers should be bilingual. I am talking specifically about those giving instructions and orders to subordinates. The comments I made to the minister on Tuesday referred to health and safety.

Mr. Commissioner, in answer to a question by my colleague Pablo Rodriguez, you said earlier that there was a risk.

Do you recognize as I do that if we get the feeling... I understand that you said we will see what happens, but I think that there really is a risk. However, if there is one, this means that there's a problem from the start. In fact, if we determine that a risk exists, then there is a problem.

If we recognize this fact, why not take action? Why are we letting things go and saying that this is not necessary? Why are we running this risk at this time, when people may not be properly understood?

I come back to what I told the minister on Tuesday. I understand English, which is lucky. Although there is simultaneous interpretation, I don't need it. However, I know that soldiers don't have simultaneous interpreters following them around and whispering translations in their ear when someone says something.

Think of the close relationships that these people must maintain on a daily basis, and yet they are not being fully respected, as regards their mother tongue.

[Graham Fraser]

There are two things. I think that, faced with the current failure to respect linguistic requirements, the Canadian Forces decided to take a different approach.

I'm not prepared to say whether the risk has increased because of this change. They have recognized that there is a problem. I am trusting in the good faith of the Canadian Forces in this regard: they believe that this plan will better fill the gaps that currently exist.

However, it is entirely possible that these existing gaps, these current gaps, represent a risk. I don't know. I have not gone in the field to assess the possible ties between the health and safety of soldiers and their language of work.

There is a second point. Since becoming commissioner, I have had the opportunity to look more closely at linguistic requirements for level C.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Fraser, unfortunately, your five minutes are now up. Perhaps you could come back to this in answering another question.

[Graham Fraser]

Like Mr. Lemieux, I will come back to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Yes, please.

Mr. Malo, it is your turn to ask a question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, I understand that at 10:15 this morning, you don't want to say whether re-opening the Saint-Jean Royal Military College would be a good thing for the Canadian Forces. However, I'd simply like to remind you that, in your presentation, you said that when it was operational, this college allowed anglophone officers to take part in an immersion program that was unequalled in North America.

Military personnel are not federal public servants with a particular job in a specific location. Being a soldier means moving around. It's clear that francophone military personnel with expertise, skills and specific knowledge are called on to be mobile and to move around to different units. It is somewhat utopic to believe that... we can segregate francophone, bilingual and anglophone corps, when mobility is pretty much the norm.

In this context, I truly believe that a unilingual francophone soldier may find it difficult to feel included and to work in his own language, if his superior officer cannot speak French, no matter what label that unit wears.

Don't you think that wanting to label bilingual francophones and anglophones is a bit strange, as is imposing this on the Canadian Forces?

[Graham Fraser]

Not necessarily. In actual fact, this is how things are done in the public service. There are unilingual francophone regions; in other regions, anglophones and francophones have the right to work in their own language. Then, there are regions where anglophones are not required to speak and understand French.

To some extent, this is a parallel approach to the one adopted by the public service. However, I share your concerns as to what this might mean for a mechanic or another francophone tradesman, who has to transfer to another unit.

If I understand correctly, the intent is to avoid the situation you've described, of a francophone soldier with a senior officer who doesn't understand French.

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

So, you believe that from now on, francophone military personnel will not be sent to armed forces units that have been labelled anglophone or bilingual.

[Graham Fraser]

I don't know about that, because we would have to know the details of the assignment. This is something that we will look at during our follow-up, meaning exactly how the plan translates into day-to-day reality. I am not in a position to tell you whether this is the case or not.

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

Mr. Dussault, could you give us the figures on mobility. Mr. Commissioner, you mentioned earlier that soldiers are not typical public servants, and it's difficult to apply the same language classification to positions.

[Renald Dussault]

Currently, we don't have such figures. As the commissioner said, it is quite clearly... Especially since this new approach is moving in that direction. Obviously, this is something we will look very closely at when we do our two follow-ups this fall. However, I do not have these figures at present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you Mr. Malo, thank you Mr. Dussault. I'm sorry to have to interrupt you again.

The floor is yours, Ms. Boucher.

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

Mr. Chair, I just need 30 seconds. This isn't addressed to Mr. Fraser, it's about Mr. Godin.

I would like to point out that we're not here to make personal attacks, whether it be against me or against my father; we're here to discuss a policy. So be professional, please.

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

You're making a point of order. It wasn't a personal attack. I'm sorry if you interpreted it as such.

We were talking about assimilation, and you were saying how well things were going in the forces and that everyone had opportunities. I used that as an example. If that offended you, please accept my most sincere apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

We'll continue with Ms. Boucher.

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

Good morning, Mr. Fraser. I'm pleased to see you and your team here this morning. I've been listening closely to what you have had to say. I have several questions that have come to mind.

As you know, on Tuesday we met with Minister O'Connor and the Minister responsible for La Francophonie and Official languages. Minister O'Connor basically explained that he had done his best to foster bilingualism by implementing 10 of your 13 recommendations, which were very important in his opinion, and which came as a result of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner criticized the fact that under the previous government the universal program had not worked.

In an article which appeared in the newspaper Le Droit on February 13, you said: “Clearly, the universal approach wasn't as successful as we would have hoped”. In the latest edition of L'actualité, you even said: “It's an admission that the previous approach has failed”.

Based on your assessment, the universal approach can clearly be categorized as a failure. All the same, I'd like you to explain what brought you to the conclusion that the universal approach was a failure.