Official Languages Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

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

Do you ever break out of the framework at certain times? Because you know that, in our respective professions, we always repeat the same words when we have conversations. The words, the terms are always the same.

Do you try to move outside that military framework so that the conversation turns on terminology that is not military terminology? At some point, the cadets or soldiers have to go outside that framework. They aren't always in isolation, I imagine. Do you offer those recruits the resources so they are able to get outside the box?

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

In fact, the courses are typical language courses like you would find anywhere else, here, in the city, or elsewhere. These are small groups. Accredited civilian instructors give the language courses. It's the typical language course format.

There's no greater focus—perhaps a little, not really—on the military aspect in these language courses, since most of these people are starting their language courses. We talk about basic things: grammar, structure, syntax, vocabulary, etc. It's really the entire range so that they can become bilingual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. D'Amours.

We'll continue on with Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen.

One aspect comes to mind: the curriculum issue. We've heard a little about this, we've done some research; we also discussed the matter at one point with the analysis sector here. I'm talking about the way the courses are constructed. Unless I'm mistaken, for a long time—too long—the English course was developed from basic elements to exercises, etc., which formed the body of the curriculum. In so doing, they didn't necessarily have the time to translate it into French.

Is the course curriculum still done like that: in English first and then in French if you have the time, regardless of whether it's for the army, the air force or the navy?

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

I'm going to ask Colonel Hamel to give you an answer. He's closer to the instructors and school commanders.

[Col J.J.R.G. Hamel, Commander, Canadian Forces Base Borden, Department of National Defence]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to point out, with regard to Borden, that there are approximately 26 units, 13 of which provide training. I should mention one point, among other things. When we say “by the leadership”, that means that we set a command policy, but that we also have to conduct follow-up and ensure that we are moving forward, that we are headed toward improvement.

To answer your question, I would say yes. Why? Because it's a matter of culture. I see that second-language learning is a matter that comes under the heading of culture.

The leadership is there to promote this to senior officers and also to non-commissioned officers—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Hamel, I only have five minutes. The question is simple; answer with a yes or no.

[Col J.J.R.G. Hamel]

All right.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Do you design the courses first in English, then translate them into French if you have the time?

[Col J.J.R.G. Hamel]

No. The courses are designed in both languages, even in the case of a trial.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

From the information I have here, at the Borden school, 38% of basic courses are not available in French, and 47% of advanced or specialty courses aren't either. If the courses are designed in both languages. How do you explain those figures? I don't understand.

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

In fact, the courses are designed by the instructor. If the instructor is anglophone, he develops the course in English. If I asked Colonel Whelan to tell us what the situation is at the Collège militaire Saint-Jean, where the vast majority of instructors are francophone, he would tell me that the courses are developed in French.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So it's false to say that you develop the courses simultaneously in French and in English.

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

Not necessarily.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The figures prove it.

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

The individual who develops the course uses the language in which he is comfortable, in accordance with the course development plan. If the course has to be translated, it will be, depending on the instructor's capability, whether it be into English or into French.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So you're telling me that the Canadian Forces, where we have to train people in a manner respectful of the country's official languages, that is English and French, you don't have the ability or the necessary funding from the federal government, which promotes French and English, to develop the courses offered at the bases in Borden, Saint-Jean or elsewhere in both official languages?

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

No, that's not correct. We develop the courses in both languages. They are developed in one language and then translated. The same thing—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

And then what? They're translated?

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

Yes, the same thing—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

They're translated by the instructor?

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

Not necessarily. It varies. A course may be translated by another instructor who gives the course in French or in English. For example, when I sat down to write my presentation today, I wrote it in one language and then I translated it.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Gosselin, I want to help you. I think it would be a good idea to tell the Minister of National Defence, whatever his name, his province of origin, etc., that we're talking about training schools and that it is imperative that the courses be designed by professionals, as is the case at school boards. Your schools are also training sites for young people. These are young officers, men and women. That task must not be assigned to instructors. From what I've understood, they translate the courses if they have the time, and that's done willy-nilly. The figures speak for themselves. I've emphasized the following figures: in the air force, 600 courses are given in English and 16 in French. That's not right. At least tell me the truth, that they aren't translated, that very little effort is made, and that you need assistance in order to make those efforts.

[MGen J.P.Y.D. Gosselin]

I'm going to let Colonel Meloche talk about the situation prevailing in the air force, since that area isn't my responsibility. However, I would like to clarify certain points concerning course development.

I believe you said that the instructors should not develop courses. But they're the specialists. The qualified, competent instructor who knows a piece of equipment or his subject, develops a course just as any university professor would do. If he is responsible for developing his course, he will do so and his course will immediately be translated into French or into English. It may occur that the instructor is perfectly bilingual and decides to develop the course in both languages, as I did in the case of my presentation. The fact remains that, in most cases, if the instructor is not sufficiently proficient in the second language, he has what he has done translated. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person who developed the course is the one who is going to give the course. It may be that the course has been developed three or four years earlier and that, as a result of changes that have occurred, the person uses the program in French or in English, for example, at Saint-Jean, and gives the course. That's how we operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, general. We can come back to this question.

Mr. Gravelle.