Official Languages Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

On Tuesday, I had asked you to consider the motion to invite Mr. Lord as an amendment to the motion before you then, which you had refused because it failed to meet the 48-hour notice. I hope you will now take the same position.

On Tuesday, you clearly stated that Mr. Nadeau's motion required a 48-hour notice. I have no objection to this, but one must be consistent in the interpretation and application of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Bélanger, I'm extremely pleased that you have raised that point. I will remind you that there was no ongoing business on Tuesday's agenda aside from the appearance of the witness from Statistics Canada. However, unlike Tuesday morning, this morning we are dealing with committee business, which is on the agenda in proper form. We are here to discuss the committee's business. I was going to ask Mr. Petit that very question. I thank you for your point of order, which has allowed me to clarify the situation.

I was going to ask Mr. Petit a question. You are therefore proposing an amendment which is entirely in order this morning. If this is the case, we will hear questions and comments on the motion which is to add to the list of witnesses for future meetings representatives from the CBC to discuss the issue raised.

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

It would have to be a one-hour meeting, since two hours just for that...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will hear from each person in order.

Mr. Chong, go ahead, please.

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

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Petit.

I too was disturbed to read these reports regarding the CBC.

I note that the 1991 Broadcasting Act under which the CBC operates states in subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iii) that the programming provided by the corporation should “actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression”. In subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iv) it reads that it should “be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities”, and in subparagraph 3(1)(m)(vi) that it should “contribute to shared national consciousness and identity”.

I think these three sections make it clear that the CBC has an obligation not only to carry services in both official languages but also to bridge the linguistic divide, the linguistic duality that our country has, and I think that cutting French language programming out of a broadcast when it was an integral component of that broadcast is something that we, as a committee, should study for just one meeting.

I would support completely the idea that we put the motion to study this for one meeting in front of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

What I would suggest to the members at this very moment is that if there are any members who are willing to express themselves, and if there's unanimous consent, we will move on with the subamendment and with the motion. Then we could proceed with our witness and catch up on our schedule.

If it is the members' will, this is the way we can proceed.

Is there agreement?

All those in favour of Mr. Petit's subamendment?

(Amendment agreed to unanimously)

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to unanimously)

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will now suspend the meeting for a few minutes and then welcome our witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will now resume the meeting. I would invite committee members to take their places at the table.

We are pleased to have with us this morning, from the Department of National Defence, the Interim Ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Ms. McFadyen. You are going to be addressing the issue of particular interest to us. I would invite you to begin by introducing yourself and your colleagues.

Once again, I want to wish you a warm welcome.

[Mary McFadyen, Interim Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to give an update concerning the treatment of new soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Borden. I am accompanied today by Margaret Brandon, Director General, Operations, and Denis Egglefield, Director of Investigations for this file.

Given that we have only recently been notified of this meeting and our desire to ensure that we provide the committee with as much information as possible today, I will call on my colleagues who have been involved in the investigation at every step to make sure we can respond to any detailed questions you have.

I would like to start by saying that I am honoured to have been appointed Interim Ombudsman of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, as well as to have been invested with the authority necessary to fulfil the mandate of the office fully and completely.

As general counsel at the Office of the Ombudsman for more than five years, I had the opportunity to work with the past two ombudsmen and to actively participate in all investigations and important matters. I am proud to have taken part in the real, positive and lasting changes that the office has helped establish within the Canadian defence community in the past.

I am fully committed to ensuring that our military members, our employees at the department and our military families who make so many sacrifices for Canada are treated fairly and equitably.

Over the next few minutes, I will describe the work done by our office since the final appearances by the Ombudsman at the end of last year.

During his testimony before the committee last November, Mr. Côté indicated that our office would be returning to Borden to assess what, if any, progress had been made to address the serious concerns related to the treatment of unilingual francophone recruits and students. I am pleased to inform you that our investigators did return to Borden at the end of January, and we are currently analyzing the information they collected.

I would also point out that, as a result of the committee's recommendations, we sent two teams of investigators to Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, where the majority language is English, and Saint-Jean Garrison, which is mainly French. Our investigators completed over 500 confidential questionnaires with students at the Saint-Jean Canadian Forces Language School and five schools at the Gagetown Base. They also met with students, families and service providers on each base.

What we found, unfortunately, was that the problems at Gagetown and Saint-Jean are essentially the same as those encountered at Borden over the past year. Unilingual soldiers in the Canadian Forces have real difficulty obtaining services and instruction in the official language of their choice.

Generally speaking, students at Gagetown and Saint-Jean were not aware of their language rights. Most of them did not know who to go to, how to raise their issues or how to get effective help.

These services, including medical care, were singled out by many Canadian Forces members as areas where significant improvement was needed. As an example, some students reported difficulty communicating symptoms and understanding diagnoses and treatment options when dealing with medical professionals on the base. One student said all his medical files are written in French; therefore, he couldn't read or understand his own file. Another student said it was hard going somewhere when people do not speak English; he went in for a broken foot and came out with a cold pack. Others raised privacy concerns resulting from situations where a breakdown in communications required the intervention of a third party to serve as interpreter.

We also found that translation was a problem at Gagetown and at Saint-Jean. Students on both bases said that translated documents were not always available and that much of the translation was very poorly done.

One student at Gagetown said that he was tired of always having to decode the message in badly translated material. I would add that the instructors and administrators also raised similar problems with our investigators.

As these examples show, there were very serious issues related to fundamental fairness, respect, and the welfare of members stationed on both of these bases.

One student at the Gagetown Base summarized his experience working and living in the other official language by saying that bilingualism was a skill and he felt incompetent because he was not bilingual.

These concerns, along with others raised throughout the course of our work, create unacceptable linguistic barriers that not only hinder the professional development of these students but also create an environment where they feel alienated and isolated.

Following our work at Saint-Jean and Gagetown, I wrote to the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, to inform him of the problems identified by our investigators and to request his commitment to address these concerns on a priority basis.

General Hillier recently replied to our letter and we are studying his response. As for next steps, as I mentioned earlier, our investigators returned to Borden at the beginning of this year to see what progress had been made to deal with the problems that had been raised.

However, our findings were not outlined in the letter to General Hillier, the reason being that while a great deal of work has been done to date, our investigators have not yet had the opportunity to complete the analysis of the data from their second trip to Borden. I would expect that this work will be completed in the coming weeks.

We are continuing to keep the Commissioner of Official Languages informed of our work on this file, and we have offered him our assistance if required, given that his office is beginning work on the issue of official languages at military schools and instructional facilities.

In closing, I want to say that I believe, like my predecessor did, that this is an issue of fundamental justice for members of the Canadian Forces. As an independent and impartial organization, our office is committed to ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all members of the Defence community, whether they are francophones or anglophones.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to provide any assistance that we can to the committee.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. McFadyen.

Without further ado, we will begin with a first round of seven minutes. If we have time after that, we will add a shortened additional round.

So I would invite committee members to concentrate on the first round as much as possible.

We will start with the Liberal Party and Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If I understand correctly, you went to see the Chief of Defence Staff, General Hillier, for a second time to urge him to deal with the situation.

[Mary McFadyen]

Are you talking about the situation at Borden? We have received a response concerning those problems. In order to check to see that everything was going well at Borden, we sent another team of investigators in late January. We did that just to make sure that all the problems had really been resolved.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The second request sent to the Chief of Defence Staff was about Gagetown and Saint-Jean.

[Mary McFadyen]

Yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Have you had a response from the Chief of Defence Staff?

[Mary McFadyen]

Yes, we have received a response.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Can you share it with us?

[Mary McFadyen]

Yes, we can provide you with a copy of that letter now.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

When did you receive it?

[Mary McFadyen]

On Friday.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Did you know that you were going to come here?

[Mary McFadyen]

No, I received a phone call.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That is quite a coincidence. Is the response by the Chief of Defence Staff concerning the Gagetown and Saint-Jean bases similar to the one the ombudsman received about CFB Borden?

[Mary McFadyen]

It is somewhat similar. We indicated what the problems were, and the Chief of Defence Staff responded. He has tried to resolve them. We will be checking to see whether that has really happened.