Official Languages Committee on March 1st, 2007

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

If a francophone soldier in a bilingual position is transferred from some other place, and if his children have no services in French, they have to go to English schools.

[Graham Fraser]

That was the case in the past. I do not know if things have improved since then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Fraser, I am sorry, but your five minutes are already up.

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

Are you sure that I only have five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Yes.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have three points to make that I'll ask for your comments on.

I note that on page 2 of your report you indicate that in 1972 an initial 15-year plan was developed to increase bilingualism and biculturalism in the Canadian Forces. Out of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the two resulting effects were to adopt official bilingualism and to adopt a policy of multiculturalism. I would be interested to understand where the biculturalism aspect came in with respect to that 15-year plan. I wasn't aware of that before.

[Graham Fraser]

I would have to take a closer look as to precisely what the bicultural elements were of that, but my assumption would be that part of the biculturalism that exists in the Canadian Forces is the existence of French-speaking units like the Royal 22e Régiment, like the HMCS/NCSM Ville de Québec, and the navy. There are a number of French-speaking units that have a long and proud history.

The Royal 22e Régiment was created in 1914, and has produced a series of not only generals but chiefs of the defence staff, and governors general for that matter. In terms of the culture of the Royal 22e Régiment, anybody who visits The Citadel in Quebec City would come to a greater appreciation of the deep cultural elements the Royal 22e Régiment has. And every regiment has these, but for the Royal 22e Régiment it is very much a reflection not only of bilingualism but of biculturalism in this country.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I was aware of the historical heritage of the forces through its regiments and the like, but I wasn't aware that we had an official policy or plan, even back then, on a bicultural Canadian Forces. If you would provide us with that information, it would be much appreciated. I have been aware of the official bilingualism aspect, but never the official biculturalism aspect.

The second point I want to get your comments on has to do with respect to the critique of the five-year timeline, and your implication that there aren't any deadlines or targets in this five-year plan. You state that “...we have a new formula that, once again, offers no guarantees”, and “It is more than time to establish clear official language initiatives based on measurable objectives.”

Yet, when I look at the actual plan from the Department of National Defence in annex D, I see lots of targets and lots of measurable objectives. I see things like the deadline for completion of the first phase of awareness training being June 2007. I see another part here: that key stakeholders are to have effectively addressed this issue prior to March 31, 2008; that the target date for completion of this program is June 2007; an implementation plan to be put in place by December 31, 2007; and on and on it goes.

With respect to the five-year timeframe, that's long-standing government planning for various programs that have been put in place and have used the five-year plan. The action plan on official languages that the previous government initiated, and that we are in the process of implementing, is a five-year plan. Throughout government departments there are often five-year time cycles to roll out programs, implement them, and measure them.

So I'm not sure why the criticism of the five years, and I'm not sure why the implication that we don't have specific targets and deadlines set out when they are set out in annex D of this report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I'm going to have to ask you for a 30-second response, Mr. Fraser.

[Graham Fraser]

What I intended to say was that I was not going to wait five years, waiting to see whether this plan was working. I intend to ensure we are watching the process every step of the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Malo, you may put a question.

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning, you said that the fact that there had been no consultation before producing this new policy did not go against part VII. Nevertheless, before asking whether this was legal or not, we must ask whether it was the right thing to do.

Yourself said that respect for official languages in the Canadian armed forces was a dismal failure. We were not warned in any way about this new policy.

Given this dismal failure, would it not have been preferable to carry out a broad study, to meet military personnel, and family members who are directly affected as well communities that are in some way partners with the Canadian armed forces in every region of Canada? Would it not have been better to consult these people?

Since you have made a priority of drafting this new policy, would it not have been preferable to carry out more consultations, before formulating this policy?

[Graham Fraser]

I can't confirm that there was no consultation with troops or their families. The people responsible for official languages in the Canadian armed forces are very much aware of the needs and problems in this area.

Now, as far as consultations are concerned, let me be very clear about my role as commissioner: I am neither a program nor a plan administrator. The commissioner's office has to be somewhat independent in some ways and not get too involved in developing plans. On the other hand, we do make recommendations and assess departments' and military institutions' efforts and their effects in relation to their response to our consultations.

There would be a number of questions I would want to ask if we were supposed to get involved in the implementation of a department's or the Canadian Forces' programs. We want to have a good communications relationship and be able to share information, but at the same time we need to maintain our distance.

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

Well, that's fine on that piece.

But don't you think that the Standing Committee on Official Languages which regularly advises the government on the future steps and the development of new regulations, policies and statutes, should at least have been consulted and called upon to seek testimony and hold a frank and open discussion on the issue?

If things had been done that way instead, the committee could have submitted an opinion to the government which, in turn, may have made a more enlightened and less rushed decision.

[Graham Fraser]

It is not up to me to tell you what the committee should do. This committee is master of its own destiny.

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

But wouldn't that have been a good idea? That's my question.

[Graham Fraser]

I wouldn't presume to say what any committee should have done or should do in the future. I am an officer of Parliament; and it is up to parliamentarians to determine committee agendas. I wouldn't want to make an assumption or criticize what you have done or have not done.

In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has done an excellent work in the past. And as an officer of Parliament, I hope to be able to enjoy a collaborative relationship with all parliamentarians.

The onus is on the committee to decide earlier whether or not to intervene in the decision- making process. It's not my place to tell you what this committee should do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Unfortunately, Mr. Malo, your time has run out.

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

I'd simply like to thank Mr. Fraser.

I'd simply like to thank you, Mr. Fraser for those fine remarks and for being so neutral in your appearance before us this morning.

Thank you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Now, that was all very politically correct, as they say.

Mr. Godin.

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

I've already expressed my gratitude; so I'll move straight on to my question.

Was Part VII really reviewed? But actually, before asking that question, I'd like to know if, in your opinion, National Defence is part of Canadian society.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, I think it is.

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

I see, thank you.

Subsection 43(1) states:

43. (1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage should take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and may take measures to:

Then there's paragraphs a) to h), then subsection (2), which states:

43. (2) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to ensure public consultation in the development of policies and review of programs relating to the advancement and the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

It is the law.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, it is. And as you can see, the scope of the legislation is very broad in relation to Canada's linguistic duality.

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

Yes, but under Part VII consultations could of taken place. It says that in the act.