Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Daigle.
After hearing your comments, I must admit it is extremely disturbing to see the current situation. It's as though there are headquarters staff people who aren't taking language issues seriously.
Earlier you talked about problems related to health, food allergies and evacuation exercises. All the situations you referred to are common in the lives of military members. One would say that it's taken for granted that people are supposed to know exactly what to do when there is a fire alarm, for example. It's no longer a matter of language. At some point, you have to be there, to show people what to do and to protect their health.
Imagine the problems that can arise when you're not able to obtain care in your mother tongue. That's previously been said in this committee. We've often cited the example of a somewhat older person who does not know the other language, who arrives at the hospital and cannot explain the nature of his illness. He may obviously wind up with medication that can do him more harm than good.
Today we're talking about appreciably the same things, but with regard to our military members. We're hiring people to serve the country and assigning them various duties, whether it be here in Canada or abroad. However, we aren't in a position to offer them basic services in their first language. We can't even ensure we care for these people in the language of their choice.
The situation regarding the transmission of orders on firing ranges is even worse—I previously raised that point with the former Minister of National Defence. Imagine, Mr. Daigle, that a problem may arise on a firing range and people can't clearly hear orders, as you said. What kind of disaster could we witness? That's one thing.
I also cited another example to the minister at the time. I told him to imagine that we sent men and women on a combat mission overseas, as is currently the case. If those people don't understand the orders they are given because we don't have the tools to speak to them in their mother tongue or in the language of their choice, whether it be English or French, what could happen? The lives of these people are at stake, the lives of ordinary citizens.
We're jeopardizing the lives of our military members and we don't even seem to be taking that seriously. You spoke eloquently. It was clear that you do not seem absolutely satisfied with what is going on. That's normal, since we don't have to accept this kind of situation.
The people at the head of the department, on staff, should be more serious in their work. I don't think they understand the importance that must be attached to respect for both official languages across the country, and more specifically to the duty to offer basic health services in the language of the soldier, anglophone or francophone, regardless of where he or she is.
Imagine giving military members orders on a firing range, in the field or in a war situation. In that context, what kind of dramatic situation could we be facing?
Do you think these kinds of things are acceptable?