Official Languages Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if I have any time left, I would like to give it to the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Unfortunately, you had only five seconds left, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Côté, I believe you have other instruments at your disposal, which you have not yet mentioned. I believe there is an advisory committee that provides the ombudsman with opinions and advice. At least, that is what the act provides for. In principle, the committee is chaired by a lieutenant-general.

I would like you to give me the name of the lieutenant-general in question, and to tell me whether you intend to put the issues regarding Borden you have raised today before the advisory committee.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, it is as if the member had a window into our internal operations.

Even as we speak, the advisory committee is chaired by Michael Caines, retired lieutenant-general and former chief of defence staff. At the last meeting with the advisory committee, some seven or eight weeks ago, I presented the Borden issue, and put forward the observations and recommendations made. Members of the advisory committee were entirely supportive of our approach, and said they were as surprised as we were by what we saw at Borden.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You have yet another instrument. You need not restrict yourselves to dealing with individual complaints, you can go further and launch a systemic investigation. I can tell you—since I have toured all bases myself—that what we are seeing in Borden will also happen in other bases.

I believe that the Official Languages Commissioner has already stated that National Defence had the worst record on official languages and bilingualism. It seems to me quite appropriate for the ombudsman, who has seen the scope of the problem, to initiate a systemic investigation, particularly since you are not short of staff. I know you are very busy, but nonetheless you do have 50 officials under you.

Do you plan to initiate a systemic investigation, so that the issue is not restricted to Borden? I believe that many people could testify about how things are across the system, except in Quebec, I would think, because the bases in Quebec are more respectful and more bilingual than those in other provinces.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite true that our office comprises some 50 or 52 valiant and courageous officials who do exemplary work.

As I said earlier in answer to a question by another member, there is no doubt that I have a keen interest in Gagetown at present, and it's quite possible that at some point we might decide to go and see how things are there.

However, I would like to clarify one point. A systemic investigation might have a certain scope, or look much like what we are doing with Borden. Meeting some 185 to 200 people is well beyond dealing with individual complaints, and comes rather close to conducting a systemic investigation. However, I do not exclude the possibility of going into greater depth. Whatever happens, I will take note of the intentions stated by Mr. Fraser, so that there is no duplication between us and so that we join forces using our resources in the most effective way.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The Chief of Defence Staff has submitted an official action plan to the ombudsman, and I have it here. It comprises many aspects I would like you to tell us more about. For example, an official languages champion was to be appointed within the officer corps. Has that been done? Who is the champion? There are other aspects as well. An initial survey was to be conducted. Has that been done? Can we have the results? A strategic plan on official languages at CFB Borden was to be developed. Has that been done? Can we see the plan? What progress has been made in general with implementing the action plan submitted by the Chief of Defence Staff?

[Yves Côté]

First of all, an official languages champion has indeed been appointed. If I remember correctly, the champion is Major Bouchard.

The action plan to which the member refers was appended, I believe, to the letter dated May 24. When we visited the base in June, most of the measures had not yet been implemented.

We are eager to receive the report slated for December 1, to determine the extent to which measures have been applied. At that point, we will decide on how we are to follow up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

We will now go to the last series of questions in this fourth round, with Mr. Yvon Godin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Bachand thinks that everything at Saint-Jean is just fine, but I think it would be a good thing to conduct a study for comparison. If everything is indeed fine, it could serve as a model. I don't think it is up to Mr. Bachand to tell us that everything there is fine. It would be your job, Mr. Côté, to report to Canadians and to use Saint-Jean as an example.

I find it is unfortunate that the government thinks the problem began only 13 years ago, in the fall of 1993. I think the problem has been there for a long time.

I will conclude by congratulating you on the work you have done, and on having the courage to continue with it. Your responsibility is to show the authorities and the public what is wrong. It is unfortunate that some people cannot feel fully included within a community, but feel they are second-class members of that community. I am not saying that our work in other countries is not important, I am just saying that it is more important to respect our Canadians here, regardless of their language. It is unfortunate and regrettable, and excuses of the kind we have heard should not be accepted. They might make excuses, but that does not mean Canadians are obliged to accept them. It really shows the kind of respect they have for the other language. I have never heard the government make recommendations to ensure that things improve, but I have heard them saying that there is not enough money. Yet there was a $14-billion surplus this year. If the will were there, the problem might already have been dealt with.

That is all I have to say. Thank you.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the member for the support he has given our office and our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

That completes the fourth round. Some members have said they would like to ask additional questions. We could do a two-minute round, without any particular order.

On my list I have Mr. Bélanger, then Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Côté, you surveyed Canadian Forces personnel at Borden. You referred to that survey. Are you ready to share it with us?

[Yves Côté]

The survey is in a form that cannot necessarily be shared, but we can certainly share the results with you, Mr. Chairman. Of course.

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

Now this is something I have not discussed with my colleagues, but personally I believe a systemic study would be a very good thing. I encourage you to go ahead with it.

I don't know whether my last question was to Mr. Côté as much as to our researcher, Mr. Chairman.

I would like someone to explain to me what the legal status of a member of the Canadian Forces is. I'm under the impression that, when a person joins the Canadian Forces, he or she acquires a specific status. Do members of the military waive the rights to which they are entitled under the Official Languages Act? If they would like to file complaints, do they have to file them through the military legal system? Earlier, we talked about a complaint system. I would like to know whether a member of the Canadian Forces has to file a complaint from within the military system. If so, I would imagine that very few members of the forces would like to come up against the staff at the beginning of their careers. I would like to know what the legal status of a member of the Canadian Forces is.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I have two or three comments to make in response to that.

On the whole, I believe that a member of the Canadian armed forces does not waive the rights to which he or she is entitled under the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, or any other federal statutes that would apply. I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but I know of no provision that suggests members of the Canadian Forces waive their rights under the Official Languages Act by putting on a Canadian Forces' uniform.

If you wish, we could help your researcher study the issue, in order to clarify things. However, I believe that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages would be a better place to provide information of that kind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In concluding this last round, I would like to thank our witnesses for having come here today. I would also like to reiterate our government's firm and unswerving commitment to official languages in all federal institutions, including National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Those two institutions recognize the importance of official languages. They have already obtained tangible results, as demonstrated by the National Defence Official Languages Program Transformation Model. We have already talked about that.

The Collègue militaire royal de Saint-Jean has also been reopened. The situation there is not the same as it is in Borden. We remedied a historic error flowing from a decision by the Liberal government in 1995 to shut the college down. That was a bad decision—it was bad for our French-speaking non-commissioned officers from Quebec, and for Canada as a whole. The college is now open again, and taking in its first students. We took action.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux. You have one minute left.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Earlier, Mr. Bélanger talked about the status of military personnel. I would like us to talk about the status of the army. We know that the army is a federal institution, but I would like to know whether it is subject to certain regulations, statutes, and so on. Mr. Bélanger raised a very interesting point—Liberals do so as well from time to time—a point that we should explore in full.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right, Mr. Petit.

We will ask Mr. Paré to make a brief comment. After which we will be thanking our witness.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

I will just make a few comments. I do not want to go into too much depth here, because I do not have the details at hand. I know that the commissioner's office had prepared analyses on this piece of legislation. One of the problems that occurred was the following: the military are not assigned to positions. The system works by unit, whereas the act was developed so as to apply to the public service in a general manner. That creates confusion. With regard to the army's legal status, a distinction has to be made here: Treasury Board directives do not apply specifically to the army, but the army is supposed to use them as a model.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Are you going to be providing us with a report?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

I will analyze these issues and give you a briefing note that will elucidate these questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin.