Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of April 7, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, April 7, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:02 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I will now call the meeting to order.
I would like to introduce our first witness, the long-awaited Mr. Lord. The former Premier of New Brunswick was appointed Special Advisor to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, and published the report entitled Report on the Government of Canada's Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages, which was made public on March 20, 2008.
I would like to remind you that the committee is studying the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
We will have a discussion with Mr. Lord on his recent cross-Canada consultations on official languages and his recommendations.
As chair of the committee and on behalf of our members, I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before us today. The floor is yours.
Bernard Lord, Author of the Report on the Government of Canada's Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages, as an individual: I thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here to share with you my thoughts on my recent report.
Presiding over these Canadian consultations has been for me a very rewarding experience. We literally travelled from coast to coast, with stops in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Moncton and Halifax. At the same time, an online consultation allowed all interested Canadians to share with me and the minister their views on the federal government's action plan for official languages.
Following that, I also agreed to hold additional consultations with various groups — including the Société Santé en français — as well as with the official languages commissioners of New Brunswick, Ontario and Canada. I also met other groups that asked to meet with me directly.
Pursuant to the mandate that was given to me, I prepared a report that reflects what people told me during the consultations. I also made 14 recommendations that you will find on pages 20 to 23 of the report. I would be pleased to discuss those recommendations in greater detail.
All in all, this was a very enlightening experience for me. I was already well aware of the situation of official languages in New Brunswick, but the consultations allowed me to broaden my knowledge and meet people who really care about Canada and its official languages and who want to promote linguistic duality across our country by putting forward various solutions.
I would be pleased to discuss all this with you today and answer your questions.
The Chair: Mr. Lord, I have a first question that is rather general in nature. During the consultations held across Canada, you met with various representatives of communities and organizations. How do you perceive the minority language community in Canada? In your view, is the community becoming more precarious, is it a vibrant community or is it a vibrant community that might need a little help to maintain its vitality?
Mr. Lord: I would say it is a bit of both. After listening to those people, I realized that they were generally confident, energetic and realistic. They realized that some of the challenges they face are greater than others, but they are used to meeting them and, consequently, they are full of hope for the future. People raised their issues, concerns and challenges. They are looking for partners, whether it be the federal government, provincial governments or other organizations and individuals.
All that to say that the figures, statistics and census data give us some idea about their circumstances, but we also have to take the time to see that, in certain respect, the communities are stronger than in the past, but still face considerable challenges for the future.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Lord, thank you. I am the Speaker of the Senate, but if truth be told, people usually prefer that I not speak. Fortunately, in this committee, I can exercise my rights. As a senator from New Brunswick, I am pleased to see two other colleagues from New Brunswick here. As New Brunswickers, we are very aware of linguistic duality. The act passed by the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly recognizes the two language communities. Years ago, the Senate and House of Commons adopted a resolution recognizing the constitutional value and equality of New Brunswick's two language communities.
There are approximately 750,000 people living in our province, which is experiencing a low birth rate, so immigration is one of the key elements in its social, economic and cultural development. In your report, you come to the conclusion that immigration is a key issue. Can you further explain the immigration challenge, as it relates to official languages, for all of Canada?
Mr. Lord: Thank you very much. If I may, I would like to take a few moments to extol the virtues of bilingualism and the linguistic situation in New Brunswick. New Brunswick has taken on a distinctive role within the Canadian federation in order to reflect the two language communities within the province, but also throughout Canada. One of my proudest achievements as Premier of New Brunswick was the adoption of a new Official Languages Act, which built upon the principles of the first Official Languages Act as well as those of Bill 88, which had been introduced by Premier Hatfield to ensure that the rights of both linguistic communities were respected.
New Brunswick is a province with a stable population. In the past 10 years, it has remained steady at around 750,000.
Turning to the linguistic situation in Canada, the latest census shows that fewer Canadians identified French and English as their first language. When you analyze the numbers, you have to consider all the data to understand that the percentage of communities that have either French or English as their first language is decreasing because there are more and more immigrants in Canada.
What came out of our consultations is the issue of immigration into both official language groups. Minority language communities wanted to stress the importance of being able to attract immigrants into both official language groups — francophone communities in the western and eastern provinces, and the anglophone community in Quebec. The issue was raised by both language groups.
On page 21 of my report, I recommended that the new strategy support measures to provide services for welcoming and integrating newcomers within official language minority communities, especially francophone immigrants within francophone minority communities.
One point that was made several times was that we need to ensure that newcomers are aware of the choices available to them. Some immigrants speak French but they do not know when they arrive that they can immigrate to Canada in French in some areas. It is only later, once they have settled, that they realize they could have sent their children to school in French.
Another related issue is that of migration from province to province. Immigration is one issue, but several times during our consultations, especially in western Canada, the issue of migration was often raised because there are francophones from the East who decide to move to western Canada.
They also raised the issue of support for francophone immigrants in the West and for those migrating from other provinces in order to ensure that they are informed about their rights and their options.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: Building on the witness's references to the first Official Languages Act in the province of New Brunswick, I wish to point out that that was the fruit of the tremendous leadership and work of Senator Robichaud, carried on by Senator Hatfield and then carried on, in his part, by Senator Simard. There is a special relationship between the Senate of Canada and this distinguished committee and our province in terms of official languages, because each of those key leaders in New Brunswick played a leadership role in the Senate of Canada.
Currently, I understand there is some debate in your province concerning the future of the immersion programs. Did any elements of that arise during your study across Canada? I understand immersion is quite successful in many parts of Canada. To what extent do you think lack of funding plays a role here, particularly from the federal government to the provinces that have the constitutional responsibility for education and, by extension, the language education?
Mr. Lord: It was a question and an issue that was raised across the country. The decision had not been announced at the time by the Government of New Brunswick, but it was anticipated. Groups of parents in other parts of Canada knew that there was some discussion about the future of the immersion program in New Brunswick and were very concerned by what they heard.
I can just imagine their reaction when they found out that the Government of New Brunswick decided to eliminate the early immersion program. Across the country, there are French immersion programs, but there are also other immersion programs in other languages. Through our discussions, I have not had the chance to verify this, but I have been told that there are up to 26 different types of immersion programs that exist in Canada for children. They work very well, and, the truth is, they work very well in New Brunswick also. The issues that the government is trying to resolve do not deal with the immersion program per se but with other matters.
I do make a recommendation in my report. I state in Recommendation No. 1 that the new strategy for the next phase of the action plan continue to reflect the importance of education for minority community development and for Canada's linguistic duality, and that both education in the official language of the minority and second language education be given a paramount position within it.
We understand that to support linguistic community minorities, education is the cornerstone. It is probably the most important investment that can be made, collectively and individually. Frankly, I believe that not only for official languages but also for the future prosperity of our society. We need to invest in education.
I also raise the issue of second-language education because it is important to provide the opportunity to all Canadians — certainly in New Brunswick to all New Brunswickers — the opportunity to learn both official languages and other languages. While we live in a country with two official languages, when we look at the future of Canada in the 21st century, we will all benefit by having more Canadians who speak more languages, not only English and French but other languages as well. Those languages will be not only passports for those individuals but also portals for Canada, as a country, to be able to interact with other parts of the world.
To go back to what is happening in New Brunswick — and, I have stated this publicly — it is a mistake on the part of the provincial government to eliminate the early immersion program. Obviously, there are many people who share my view. Across the country, many parents raised the concern that if New Brunswick takes this step, as they now have done, it will send a signal that immersion is really not that important and that it is not necessary for young people to learn the other official language at a young age. That is the wrong signal to send within New Brunswick and throughout Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Mr. Lord, I read your report with great interest and I was pleased with several of your recommendations. However, I feel that some key recommendations were not made and I would like to hear your comments on this.
The former 2003-2008 Action Plan deals in part with the public service. The hope was to improve service delivery in both official languages, and to ensure the equitable participation of francophone and anglophone Canadians in the federal administration. The use of both official languages at work was emphasized as well as language training for civil servants in bilingual positions.
Your report has no recommendations dealing with bilingualism in the public service. Can you tell us why?
Mr. Lord: Certainly, and thank you very much for the question. In terms of bilingualism and the ability of the public service to provide services in both official languages, these were issues that were raised throughout the country both in francophone minority communities and in anglophone minority communities.
I mentioned this in my report, but it is true that I did not make any specific recommendations dealing with that. When I accepted the mandate that was given to me by the Government of Canada, my first responsibility was to chair consultations throughout the country in order to give individuals an opportunity to speak and to help the government draft the second phase of the action plan.
When I accepted the mandate that was given to me by the Government of Canada, my first responsibility was to chair consultations throughout the country in order to give individuals an opportunity to speak and to help the government draft the second phase of the Action Plan. The government's goal was very clear. The purpose was not to develop a new strategy but rather to develop the next phase of the existing action plan. The government asked me to chair consultations that would allow Canadians to speak on this topic, and then to present a report. My mandate also consisted in undertaking consultations on-line.
Though I was not asked to do so as part of my mandate, I did take the liberty of making some recommendations. My mandate was not to rework the strategy as a whole, nor to review the Official Languages Act, but to hold consultations and to report. I therefore restricted my recommendations to that. In one recommendation, I stated clearly that, in the next phase of the Action Plan the government must ensure that it protects acquired gains, and makes it possible for those gains to be maintained. That could include gains in services provided in both official languages by the Government of Canada.
Canada's Official Languages Act clearly states that the Canadian government is obliged to provide service to Canadians in both official languages, and defines that obligation. In the light of discussions I have had with government officials, the Government of Canada clearly takes that obligation seriously and intends to fulfil it. My recommendations in no way restrict the government's ability to deal with the issue in the next Action Plan.
Senator Tardif: You said that it was important to protect the gains. Why, in your report, did you not take the opportunity to suggest that the Court Challenges Program be reinstated? That would have been a positive measure, fully in line with Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I am sure many members of minority communities expressed their disappointment regarding the elimination of the Court Challenges Program. In my view, this would have been an excellent opportunity to recommend the program be reinstated.
Mr. Lord: The issue was indeed raised a number of times during the hearings. It was not a dominant issue during discussions and consultations, but was raised at least once in every community. Frequently, it would be raised by someone in the room, would lead to a number of comments, and then we would move on.
There is no question the issue was raised. Many people would like to see the Court Challenges Program reinstated. Some have put forward other, more modern, mechanisms to deal with the issue. Page 18 of the report sets out the situation with respect to language rights. It states that community organizations would like more support from government to enhance their capacity. Some suggest implementing a mediation and dispute resolution program in the area of language rights, a program that would comprise a component to defend and promote language rights before the courts, in some exceptional situations. I wanted the content of the report to reflect the comments made by participants.
If the government wished to implement a program of that kind, a mediation component would be extremely useful. The old program focused solely on court challenges. In my view, the new mediation component could yield results more quickly.
The reason I chose not make specific a recommendation on this is that there was a case before the courts at the same time as I tabled my report. Thus, I felt it would be appropriate to hold back. In that case, the government very clearly defended its position on the old program, while others defended theirs. I did want to mention it in my report, but I chose not to make a recommendation.
In future, if the government were to go that route, I believe that if we set up a plain, unadorned court challenges program we would be missing an opportunity. The program should provide for mediation. I think that would be the best avenue to follow, as indicated on page 18 of the report.
Senator Champagne: Mr. Lord, first, I want to congratulate you on this very interesting report. No doubt, it will help the government, which must now draft this new Action Plan, and it will help us in doing the work of this committee.
If I may, I would like to tell you a little story. Two weeks ago, members of the Association des parlementaires francophones were in Victoria and Vancouver to meet with a number of francophone groups. On the plane, there were about 20 teenage girls, enrolled in a French immersion program, who were returning from a two-week trip to Paris where they went to practise their French. While waiting for my luggage, I spoke briefly with them and I realized that they spoke surprisingly good French. I was told that, in British Columbia, 47,000 young people are enrolled in immersion programs and that, in Alberta, the numbers are almost as high.
As a Quebecer — and I am the only one at this table here today — I am very concerned by those who, in Quebec, who do not like the fact that our young people are learning English at an early age so that when they finish high school or university, they are perfectly bilingual.
In my opinion, Quebecers who only speak French will have difficulty getting the best jobs, while perfectly bilingual individuals will come from western Canada — people who often speak a third language, possibly even their mother tongue.
What suggestions would you have to ensure better understanding of the importance of being bilingual in Quebec?
Mr. Lord: I greatly appreciate your question. You know that, as a former Premier of New Brunswick, I am not in the best position to give advice to Quebecers and tell them what to do or not do. However, since my mother is a Quebecer, I will make a few comments — after all, I was born in Quebec.
Languages are an extremely important asset for young people in the 21st century. Speaking only one language might suffice in some circumstances. However, that does nothing to ensure that our young people reach their full potential. Young people are smart, capable and confident. They are able to learn several languages.
The figures you referred to about the immersion programs remind me of a few stories I was told. I heard that parents were going online for days to ensure that their children could get into immersion programs. Parents understand the importance of immersion. A number of governments in Canada also understand this importance. I think that we need to encourage those parents who, along with their children, are making this choice. We must encourage them and ensure that others also have this choice.
We must be more open and realize that it is good to have two languages in Canada, but when you go to Europe, people can speak two or three languages. Two weeks ago, I was in Amsterdam and young people in their twenties who were working in the hotel lobby spoke four languages without any difficulty, without having to ask themselves any questions or suffer any identity crises, and were easily able to communicate with many people. I am convinced that Canadians are capable of doing the same.
Senator Champagne: In order to be admitted into university in Switzerland, you need to speak four languages fluently: French, English, Italian and German. Our young people are no less intelligent. We need to give them the opportunity to learn those languages.
In your report, you recommend that the new strategy support arts and culture and reflect the actions the federal government is undertaking to develop that sector.
In the 2003 plan, the words "arts and culture'' did not exist. We did not see them. How are you suggesting that we use arts and culture in order to help official languages in Canada?
Mr. Lord: Arts and culture are extremely important things for linguistic minority communities. However, I believe they are important for our society as a whole. When I was Premier of New Brunswick, I oversaw the adoption of that province's first cultural policy. When we look at the changing economy in Canada and the rest of the world, there seems to be a very close connection between economies that develop with new technologies, new ideas, innovation and the geographic areas where these things are valued and promoted and where there are very dynamic, artistic and cultural communities. The two seem to go hand in hand. When we look at the unique situation of linguistic minority communities, we see that arts and culture enhance communities and help them get to know others and have others get to know them. That is why I made that recommendation.
Furthermore, when we talk about economic development in linguistic minority communities, in my opinion, there is a close connection between arts and culture and economic development, particularly in the area of innovative thinking. Creative people and thinkers who will develop all kinds of things not only in arts and culture, but in all areas, want to be in areas where the arts and culture thrive. In my opinion, arts and culture are not only part of economic policy, but also social policy.
When we look at the reality, we often see examples in New Brunswick, but elsewhere in Canada too, where arts and culture are used as means of individual and collective expression. With regard to the second phase of the Action Plan, I felt it was essential to ensure that there would be a place for arts and culture. The people who came to our consultations from across Canada wanted the government of Canada to ensure that there would be a place for arts and culture in the next phase. That is why I made that recommendation.
Senator Champagne: You talk about having clear, measurable objectives. I think that is one of the areas where this could work.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Lord, it was with great interest that I read the summary of your work. I want to congratulate you. Based on the dialogue that you had with various organizations, you recognized that the Dion Action Plan for minorities had been well executed and well received, and that all of the minority communities were looking for continuity.
I must tell you that I am extremely proud of this. Recommendation 10 reads as follows:
I recommend that the new strategy for the next phase of the Action Plan be implemented in close collaboration with the provinces and territories and that these partnerships respect jurisdictions and reflect the constitutional and legal responsibilities of each level of government.
And you stop there. You know that, in order to respect the constitutional and legal responsibilities of each level of government, minority communities must have access to the Court Challenges Program. Earlier, you mentioned that the abolition of the Court Challenges Program had been mentioned during your discussions. I heard your answer, but as a French Canadian, a francophone from New Brunswick, I do not think it is enough. It is not enough to say that the next phase of the Action Plan must respect and ensure the necessary partnerships between the different levels of governments and the communities in question and that the legal and constitutional responsibilities be reflected in that. It is not enough and you know this full well because when you were Premier of New Brunswick you had a situation with the RCMP.
I do not understand why you stopped your tenth recommendation there; after all, this is a very important issue for all minorities. You heard the issue, like many other issues you reported on, and you have made recommendations, so why not that one?
Mr. Lord: If I may, I will take up the points you made one by one. It was clear to me that this exercise must not become partisan and I was not going to start criticizing everything that had been done before simply to bash it. When I talked to the government, it was clear that the objective was to move to the next phase. In my report, I recognize that good work had been done. If you want to quote me on that, you can do so, as long as it is not for an election ad. When I was Premier of New Brunswick, I had discussions with then Minister Stéphane Dion and other members of the government to support initiatives to do with official languages in New Brunswick. Almost every time, the door was open and there was good cooperation.
Among other things, recommendation 10 is there to reflect the fact that, if we want to enable minority linguistic communities to really develop, there must be cooperation. We also need to respect Canada's Constitution and the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and the provinces. As a former provincial premier, I feel it is very important for the government to protect and respect the Canadian Constitution and provincial jurisdiction.
Something that came out in the consultations, and even some provincial ministers asked to meet with me, was that a number of provinces clearly recognize the importance of helping their minority language communities. They want to do this, and I believe that cooperation and partnership are definitely possible.
Regarding the RCMP situation, when I was Premier of New Brunswick, I think that we did not lose any court cases dealing with language issues. Although there has been court action, such as the case against the City of Moncton, that involved a city and not the province. When the legislative assembly adopted a new Official Languages Act, we included the obligation to provide police services in both official languages everywhere in New Brunswick. There are certain other municipal services that are subject to certain standards. For example, major centres in New Brunswick such as Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John, Edmundston, Miramichi, Bathurst, Dieppe, Campbellton —
Senator Losier-Cool: Tracadie —
Mr. Lord: Tracadie is not yet a city, Senator, but that may change one day! The cities I mentioned all have an obligation to provide services in both official languages. There are other municipalities in New Brunswick that are not under that obligation, except in the case of police services. The legislation we passed in 2002 is very clear about that; regardless of whether they are paid for by the province or not, police services must be in both official languages. The simple reason is that they affect people's fundamental rights. When people are stopped by the police, they need to be informed of their rights and the situation they are facing. That is the linguistic and legal reality in New Brunswick.
Concerning the Court Challenges Program — and I accept the fact that you did not like my answer or that my answer did not satisfy you, and I understand why — the province of New Brunswick, whether we are talking about the period of Louis Robichaud, Richard Hatfield, Frank McKenna, Camille Thériault, myself or the current government, has never had a Court Challenges Program to defend language rights in New Brunswick. People still have access to the courts, and this right exists and is not violated.
When I looked into the issue, as I said earlier, I clearly heard the arguments, I reported them, but since there was the case before the courts and it was moreover in New Brunswick, I chose not to make a specific recommendation. As I already mentioned, if the government of Canada decided to create a program to enhance and promote language rights, I would suggest, as indicated on page 18, that it include a mediation and conflict resolution mechanism and not just a program to help people take cases to court.
Senator Losier-Cool: Welcome, Mr. Lord. I would also like to thank you for agreeing to take time out to present your report to our committee. We were eager to hear from you, and I think that the Senate committee can be proud that you are here as a witness.
I would like to continue along the same lines as Senator Champagne on the issue of arts and culture. Our discussion here dovetails very nicely with the study our committee is carrying out, which you maybe aware of, about the whole issue of francophone culture in minority linguistic communities. Your perspective and advice will certainly be valuable to us. You answered Senator Kinsella's question earlier about new immigrants by saying that they choose to settle where there is culture.
I have three short questions and I will refer to your report. On page 12, you indicate that the participants also proposed that the government support organizations that have successfully created links between the cultural and educations sectors, for example, with cultural activities in schools.
Does this mean that the government or funding in the new action plan would support the initiatives in New Brunswick? Some school districts already have cultural animation activities.
Mr. Lord: Yes.
Senator Losier-Cool: Recommendation number 5 might be taken to suggest that you are supporting groups across Canada in doing what is already being done in New Brunswick.
Mr. Lord: I will try to keep my answers as brief as possible. It is obviously up to the government to decide how it will implement the recommendations and whether it will accept them or not. To this point, I am confident that the government will accept them and I would be disappointed if it did not.
The solutions suggested in the consultations would enable the government to implement recommendation 5. The suggested solutions on page 12 and 13 go together and will enable the government to fund these kinds of activities, which are already underway in New Brunswick, through various programs that they will develop.
Senator Losier-Cool: My second question — and I will move away from New Brunswick a bit here — also relates to pages 12 and 13, where you say that "The government should also support the development of physical infrastructure, which will allow the community to gather, facilitate direct interaction with the population and serve as cultural showcases.'' Are you thinking here of community centres?
Mr. Lord: I was going to give community centres as an example.
Senator Losier-Cool: But it could be something else.
Mr. Lord: Yes, there is more than one way to do this. To come back to New Brunswick, if I may, a good example is the Centre communautaire Sainte-Anne, in Fredericton, where my wife Diane works; it is much bigger today with the renovations that were carried out this year. The community centre offers cultural and artistic activities, and it is a gathering place for the community where members can talk and strengthen their sense of belonging. It is also a showcase that strengthens the community's vitality and gives a higher profile to their community and culture. That is an example of infrastructure.
It needs to be recognized sometimes that achieving certain objectives requires one-time investments, so that the infrastructure can be developed for ongoing use. Community centres enable linguistic communities to develop their vitality on both the cultural and community levels.
Senator Losier-Cool: Will the federal government have to fund every new school from the action plan from now on?
Mr. Lord: It will be up to the federal government to decide. I would certainly not want to speak on behalf of the federal government, given that my mandate with the federal government is now over. But the government could provide funding and I believe that some provinces also do that; this was the case in New Brunswick when I was Premier: the government provided part of the funding for community centres.
Other governments are willing to support them. This is in line with recommendation five and recommendation ten, which we were talking about earlier, on the need to establish partnerships. However, I would not be in a position to say it today that the government should fund every project. The government will have to evaluate each project on its merits.
Senator Losier-Cool: The Centre communautaire Sainte-Anne in New Brunswick is a great success. A number of my grandchildren go there. There is also the community centre in St. John's, Newfoundland. You doubtless met with francophones that have a great centre, but that is all they have, the physical infrastructure.
Mr. Lord: Both are needed. In certain cases, people have the physical infrastructure but do not have community support. Buildings cannot come to life without the communities. In some places, the people are there but the infrastructure is lacking. That is why I say in the report that one of the solutions recommended by stakeholders is for the government to support the development of infrastructures and even existing infrastructures by improving or expanding them if necessary.
Senator Losier-Cool: In the testimony you heard, was there any mention of cultural areas that are doing better or worse than others? Perhaps music, theatre or some other areas?
Mr. Lord: Community radio stations came up in a number of places. People would like to have communications media to be able to disseminate culture. There are various aspects, including the creation of culture and the sharing of what has been created. There are also all the issues relating to Internet sites and how to support that aspect. That came out in the dialogue. There will be work to do in the next phase on the communications front.
There are many dynamic cultural activities involving theatre arts and music, but it is important to see what other mechanisms can be put in place to provide access to these productions.
Senator Losier-Cool: You guessed that my last question deals with community radio stations.
Senator Poulin: The last time we saw each other, we were not on the same side of the fence on "Mike Duffy Live.'' You were the Conservative strategist and I was the Liberal. You are a strategist with whom it is fun to play politics. It was really a lot of fun.
My question deals with the Court Challenges Program. You said earlier that you fully intended to reflect the testimony that you heard during the consultation process, which was very short and very limited in geographic terms. I represent Northern Ontario in the Senate. You must have heard about the Montfort Hospital issue. It was thanks to the Court Challenges Program that the Montfort Hospital was able to use the Ontario court system to challenge the Conservative government's decision to close the only francophone hospital in Ontario.
If it had not been for the Court Challenges Program, the 1.5 million people who speak French in Ontario, would not have had a teaching hospital in French for health care professionals today.
First of all, on page 18 of your report, you referred to certain people who had proposed establishing a mediation program. I really do not understand this recommendation, since in Ontario, the judicial system now has a compulsory mediation process. It has in fact reduced the number of cases that go to court to only 4 per cent.
Secondly, there is a basic principle in mediation. Both parties have to be on an equal footing. I think that pitting the Montfort Hospital against the Ontario government is almost a David and Goliath story. Without the Court Challenges Program, the hospital would be closed today. The Ontario government's decision was very firm. Pressure had been exerted by many stakeholders, who had very strong arguments for keeping the hospital open. The decision had been made.
I see a contradiction between a comment in the report and the fact that in the legal process, there is already a compulsory mediation mechanism. Could you explain your thought process?
Mr. Lord: There is a difference between a mediation process brought before the courts and a mediation process between two parties. That is what is referred to on page 18 of the report. You say that the consultations were quite brief. The people who were consulted, who agreed to appear, are very familiar with their files. They were not taken by surprise. They had been informed in advance by the minister that there would be consultations and they were pleased to participate. Most of the comments and press releases that followed the release of my report stated clearly that most organizations approved of the way they were represented in the report. I understand that one of the sections that was highlighted is the one on the Court Challenges Program.
The Court Challenges Program was useful in certain cases. I have said so in the past and I have no hesitation in saying it again. But whether or not there is a court challenges program, this does not prevent Canadians turning to the courts. This is a right we have as Canadians, which I defend as much as you do. Canadians have the right to access our courts to have their constitutional or other rights respected. In some cases, the government may pay for this or not. This is the decision that the government took.
Yes, people did talk to me about what I say on page 18 of the report. People like you, senator, told me that they would prefer that the government maintain the program. Some even said that if the government kept the program in place, there should be a mediation process before the legal process before the courts begins. In some cases, this may go faster.
In geographic terms, the mandate I received was to have Canada-wide consultations, but we invited people and the department in question paid the expenses so that people could travel to meet with me. When I accepted the mandate, I absolutely did not want my work to delay the next phase of the Action Plan, because the situation of official languages is the reason why I accepted the mandate. This is an issue that was very important to me when I was Premier of New Brunswick and that is still important to me as a Canadian. I saw an opportunity here to contribute to the progress and advancement of Canada's linguistic duality. That is why I agreed to do this.
There are things that you say I could have done differently. I fully accept your point of view. I wanted to reflect the situation. I chose not to make that recommendation because there was a case before the courts. That is why I did not make any specific recommendation.
Senator Poulin: Today, would you be prepared to recommend that the government reinstate the Court Challenges Program?
Mr. Lord: Since the judicial process is still underway and the case is still before the courts, I will refrain from making that recommendation just as I refrained from making a written recommendation. If the government were to decide to establish a program, I would advocate the solution described on page 18, which is a more complete program than the existed previous one.
Senator Poulin: So you are saying that the judicial process is incomplete?
Mr. Lord: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the judicial process, once begun, is a process that has to go all the way to the end. It is a way of solving conflicts. There are other ways of resolving conflicts that may be faster, less expensive and less difficult than going to court.
Senator Poulin: It is unfortunate that we do not have more time to discuss this.
Mr. Lord: I would have liked that as well. Perhaps we can talk about it again on "Mike Duffy Live.''
The Chair: Mr. Lord, thank you very much for agreeing to appear before our committee.
Mr. Lord: I thank your warm reception for welcoming me and for your questions. I apologize to Senator Murray, because I did not have time to answer his question.
[English]
I am easy to find, senator. Therefore, you can ask me other questions.
[Translation]
With regard to my name, my father is anglophone. That is why my name is pronounced "Lord,'' and my mother is a francophone from Roberval. I am proud to be Canadian and I am very proud of the legacy I have form my parents.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now welcome our next witnesses.
[English]
Honourable senators, please allow me to introduce the witnesses that were invited to appear before the committee today. We have the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. Minister MacKay is accompanied by Major-General Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel and Colonelonel Louis Meloche, Director of Official Languages. I would like to thank you for your appearance before us today.
The committee studies the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it within those institutions subject to the act. Today, the committee is discussing the topic of your departmental official languages policy.
[Translation]
Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss National Defence's commitment to the Official Languages Act. I am accompanied by Major-General Semianiw and Colonelonel Louis Meloche.
As you are aware, under the new Part VII of the Official Languages Act, every federal institution has the duty to advance the use of English and French across the country. I believe DND and the Canadian Forces are well situated to carry out this mandate.
As Mr. Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, put it, the Canadian Forces have a golden opportunity to promote both official languages in this country. Members of the Defence team serve from coast, to coast, to coast: from remote places like Alert in Nunavut to some of our busiest cities, like Vancouver, Edmonton and Quebec City.
DND and Canadian Forces personnel, wherever they live and work, are committed to increasing their compliance with the Official Languages Act.
[English]
My department has studied your reports and reports that have been done on our department very carefully in anticipation of your questions here. We understand that we need to do more — more to adequately promote official languages and foster environments conducive to that end. However, we must also accomplish this in a manner that allows National Defence and Canadian Forces personnel to carry out their primary duties in an efficient and effective manner.
Taking all this into account, National Defence has developed and implemented a strategic action plan that maps out how our personnel are to be led, trained, administered and supported in their official language of choice.
Entitled the National Defence Official Languages Program Transformation Model, it has three aims: first, to ensure that military and civilian personnel within the Department of National Defence can better carry out their jobs while complying with the Official Languages Act; second, to establish an enhanced awareness and education program that educates our personnel about their linguistic rights and obligations; and third, to create a system to assess the ability to provide consistent leadership, education and bilingual services specified by the Official Languages Act.
The implementation of this five-year plan, which started last April, affirms my department's commitment to the act. We believe it effectively reconciles the duties of the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence with their responsibilities under the act.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, we are already taking steps to implement this roadmap. We have completed the first phase of the language designation of units to determine linguistic requirements.
My officials have completed the initial work on the performance measurement framework. We have launched an aggressive awareness campaign that includes the publication of articles, pamphlets and posters. This campaign also enhances our internal awareness of the act through a training package to be available to our official languages coordinator this summer.
And we have begun the process of strengthening our internal official language policies, a good portion of which will be reissued this year.
[English]
The defence team's official languages policy can also be seen in our efforts across Canada. Each of our bases addresses Part VII of the Official Languages Act requirements directly.
While our immediate aim is to provide for our own personnel, many of the services provided at the Canadian Forces installations also benefit the public, as you would expect. The most obvious example is that some of the recreational facilities on the base are very often made available to the public for membership.
While most Canadian Forces members, at some point in their careers, move to regions where they, along with their families, automatically become part of the base's linguistic minority, this is a normal social interaction that will occur within communities. The bases are very often seen to be, and in fact are, very much a part of the communities where they are located.
Military families living in a region enrich the social and economic life of surrounding towns and villages, and their presence increases opportunities for minority official language groups to live and work in the language of their choice. Key to this process is our military family resource centres, which are supported by the Canadian Forces.
These military resource family programs are stellar in the support that is provided to families, particularly those who have family members who have been deployed. While supported by the Canadian Forces and the government in terms of financing, they are very often ably run by volunteers. There is a tremendous intrinsic value in the support provided by the military family resource centres. There is a great deal of empathy exhibited in times of sometimes tremendous stress provided to families, particularly those with children, when a family member has been deployed or has been injured, for example.
I just cannot say enough, in terms of my recent experience over the last six or seven months as minister, for the work that they do — the personal investment that I have seen from those who are associated with the military family resources centres. They are truly making a difference in the lives of military families across the country.
Many of the services that they provide extend into the communities. They are not just limited to the base. There is a great deal of interaction that goes on, for example, when children have friends who live off the base. They will provide a recreation facility to entertain the friends of the families and children who come on to the base.
It is a tremendous service that does not always get the profile or does not always make its way into the discussion. However, these family resource support systems are extremely important, and they are open to the public. They provide social networking in libraries, sporting facilities and recreation areas.
These centres also provide information on official minority languages, community businesses and referral services. The centres promote and invite people to use these bilingual resources, providing for employment opportunities and helping, in some instances, a minority language individual to find employment off the base.
Various base information centres, publications and broadcasts promote relationships between two groups: official language minorities and the volunteers available to help the military families.
[Translation]
These arrangements are only the beginning of what our defence team can accomplish under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence are in a unique position.
No other institution can so broadly offer our minority language communities the host of services offered by DND and the Canadian Forces. We are fully committed to the government's vision for the Official Languages Act. And we are committed to preserving our official languages and the cultures they represent.
[English]
I will conclude by saying simply that we have identified areas that need improvement. We are working diligently toward greater compliance. I am confident that the efforts that have been made are sincere and diligent. The members of the Armed Forces, particularly the two gentlemen here, are tasked specifically to address these concerns. They have regular interaction with Mr. Fraser, and I will say this: Compliance is not a target, but an imperative for the Canadian Forces.
I would now ask Major-General Walter Semianiw to update you on some of the specific developments that are taking place at Canadian Forces Base Borden because I know this was perhaps the impetus for some of the discussion and the collective measures that are now under way to address the situation at CFB Borden.
I look forward to your questions, and I thank you for your work and your continued interest in this important subject.
Major-General Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel, Official Languages Champion, Department of National Defence: Thank you. I very much appreciate this opportunity today to inform you on the progress that is being made at Canadian Forces bases across the country when it comes to official languages.
Since I stood before your House of Commons counterparts on December 6, 2007, Canadian Forces Base Borden has remained a key priority for me and my command team. We have rigorously pursued an overall improvement in the quality of services provided to Canadian Forces personnel who train or serve at CFB Borden.
[Translation]
I can state, without hesitation, that Canadian Forces Base Borden is pulling out all the stops to implement the recommendations made at that time by the ombudsman.
[English]
I would draw your attention to the fact that Canadian Forces Base Borden is home to many military schools responsible for the training of support staff, technicians and specialists. More than 1,700 men and women in uniform serve at the base; and during peak seasons, some 1,800 students receive instruction. The training they receive ranges from the basic training required for individual occupations and trades, to advanced courses for staff officers, including specialist courses. Despite the many language-related initiatives currently under way at Borden, and over and above the additional resources invested in them, it will take years of sustained effort to completely overcome the deficiencies at Borden with regard to official languages.
The recruit's initial period of training at CFB Borden greatly influences how they will view the Canadian Forces as an institution. The Canadian Forces fully recognizes their rights to instruction and services in the language of their choice. We strongly believe that by providing training and services in both official languages, we are building operational capability for Canada.
Here are some of the actions taken to support francophone members in Borden.
[Translation]
We informed new and existing students and staff of their rights and responsibilities and we explained the mechanisms in place to help them exercise those rights.
An extensive awareness and education campaign will seek to use newspaper articles, information sessions, an upgrade of the Director of Official Languages' website and brochures as a way to inform people. In addition, posters and a handbook will be distributed this year.
[English]
We constantly remind senior leadership of their obligation to foster a culture of inclusiveness by ensuring that briefings, correspondence, orders and directives are communicated in the official languages of the audience. I made it clear to our leaders at all levels that our men and women in uniform are to be fully aware of their linguistic rights and obligations wherever they happen to serve, including at CFB Borden.
We have appointed a senior officer as the champion of official languages at the base, in addition to the official languages coordinator. Official languages coordinators were also appointed at each of the units at the base. The members of this network received training to prepare them to take on their new duties, which included taking action on behalf of all Canadian Forces personnel, to ensure that they can raise concerns in regard to official languages without fear of reprisal.
[Translation]
In August 2007, Major-General Gosselin, the Commander of the Canadian Defence Academy, met with senior leaders at the Base to emphasize the importance of the official languages strategic plan; he also met with over 300 francophone students, recruits and staff to discuss their concerns.
[English]
In order to meet the needs of our students, we have practically doubled financial resources for the translation of course material. This year, we allocated $1.8 million to this activity. For basic training, 90 per cent of the material is now available in both official languages. There is every indication that 100 per cent of basic training will be provided in both official languages as of 2009. It will then be possible to step up efforts with respect to advanced training and courses.
We are assigning an equitable number of bilingual staff, both military and civilian, to the course instructor cadre. Also, we are increasing our cadre of linguistically qualified service providers. In fact, we have reviewed 227 civilian positions of which 25 have been re-identified as bilingual and 6 as requiring either French or English. We recently made 15 appointments to bilingual positions primarily related to administrative support that mostly provide centralized services and support across CFB Borden. We have been as aggressive on the military side to improve the situation. I can state that we will be posting 98 bilingual military personnel into this base this summer to reduce the shortfalls identified in the areas of service and instruction. These numbers will be increasing in the coming weeks as we approach the active posting season.
I am also happy to report that we have recently hired four francophone commissionaires. For the non-public fund personnel — as the minister stated, those that provide support as part of the family support and the recreational support services — we are engaged in establishing a language designation for all positions at the base. This review process will clearly take into account the need to provide services in both official languages in the determination of the appropriate language profile.
I will conclude on this critical issue by saying that that is just the start; we intend to pursue our efforts until shortfalls have been filled. We are ensuring that there are equitable and comparable waiting periods for the training of francophone and anglophone students.
The Land Force Command is putting together an official languages action plan that will be promulgated on April 15, 2008 and will be implemented over the next two years throughout the organization to address the other two bases that have been raised as issues: CFB Saint-Jean and CFB Gagetown. This action plan will better position each official languages coordinator to advise the commander and personnel on those bases. The action plan focuses on Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act and reinforces the National Defence Official Languages Program Transformation Model that came into effect on April 1, 2007.
I would also like to highlight a few significant accomplishments. The Chief of the Defence Staff, CDS, has mandated that the current procedure that ensures 70 per cent of Canadian Forces lieutenant-colonels and commanders selected for promotion attain a CBC linguistic profile within one year be increased to 80 per cent starting this fiscal year and 90 per cent for 2010. This is clearly a step in the right direction. We have also pursued an aggressive pan-Department of National Defence-Canadian Forces awareness campaign with publication of articles and the creation and distribution of pamphlets.
[Translation]
Last but not least, the aggressive implementation of the National Defence Official Languages Program transformation model continues. Of particular interest is our unrelenting engagement in ensuring that our senior leadership can communicate in both official languages.
[English]
We must do our part to contribute to the respect of English and French as the official languages of Canada and to help ensure the equality of status of these two languages within National Defence and the Canadian Forces.
[Translation]
In addition, since official languages play a key role in the transformation and modernization of the Canadian Forces, it is our duty to create a professional, effective and sustainable defence team by ensuring that personnel with full linguistic qualifications can be deployed at the right place, at the right time.
[English]
In conclusion, we are fully committed to seeing these results come about and to build upon the recent successes we have brought to your attention today.
Senator Kinsella: Major-General, as I mentioned to the previous witness, although I have the title "Speaker,'' my colleagues do not really want me to talk too much. I assure this distinguished committee that I will be very brief.
Minister, in the Senate, the Speaker can not only participate in debate but also he or she can vote. Whilst you are here and I have this public occasion, I want to thank you and the Department of National Defence for your program on National Defence in Parliament. I participated in that program and, in general, I must confess that I chose to serve with the senior branch of the Armed Forces. I have been to sea on the NCSM Ville de Québec, and most recently with the HMCS Charlottetown. Both the Ville de Québec and the Charlottetown are very bilingual ships at sea.
On board the Charlottetown only a few weeks ago in the Persian Gulf, I was very proud to see the level of professionalism of the Canadian sailors and the work that Commander St-Denis is doing. They even did a boarding the day I was with them. I read in this morning's paper that HMCS Charlottetown made a major intervention of a pirated French ship off of the coast of Somalia.
In my experience, great work has already been done by our Armed Forces in the area of bilingualism, and it is very reassuring to see the specificity brought to making it that much better.
I have an operational question. What advantage does the Canadian Armed Forces see, particularly in our international engagements, in having Armed Forces that are bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: That is a very good question, senator. The program that you mentioned is a wonderful opportunity for parliamentarians, senators or members of the House to experience firsthand the life, the camaraderie and the esprit de corps.
[Translation]
...the esprit de corps. We have this in the Canadian Forces and it is a wonderful experience for all members. It is open to all members of Parliament and senators.
[English]
It also gives members and senators a particular insight into the degree of professionalism that the Canadian Armed Forces bring to the job and the commitment, the courage and the life to which they commit.
You made a good reference to some of the work done by the navy. To respond anecdotally, we were on the HMCS St. John's yesterday in Halifax. The Canadian Forces are often called upon to do more domestic work in conjunction with the Canadian Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Part of this work is the policing of our territorial waters to prevent overfishing in order to preserve species, and they were involved in the rescue attempt of the capsized sealers vessel, the tragedy of L'Acadien II.
Yesterday's occasion was a chance for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to acknowledge the role of National Defence and the work they do in support of this important task.
You mentioned as well some of the interdictions that take place in the Persian Gulf, the work they are doing in support of our efforts and mission in Afghanistan. It is a diverse role that many of the branches of the Canadian Forces — the navy, air force and army — find themselves. They are very versatile.
To answer your question specifically about the advantages of bilingualism within the Canadian Forces, it is not just the language, as we know. Canadians with that capacity bring about a certain cultural understanding and sensitivity that I have seen exhibited in Afghanistan. A cultural awareness of the diversity that exists in a country such as Afghanistan ingratiates our soldiers in some communities. It allows for interaction at a very personal level that goes a long way to sometimes ameliorating tensions.
Much of the work being done in Afghanistan is at a community-based level, where soldiers, particularly those in leadership positions, sit down and interact directly with community leaders in various tribal sects throughout the country. Having language training and having cultural sensitivity training that accompanies this gives Canadians an edge and an advantage. It gives them an ability to bring something extra to the already important military aspect of their job. That is true across the board, not particular to just Afghanistan.
[Translation]
The ability to speak French is a unique and substantial advantage for the work in the field. Our soldiers have the ability to talk directly with the local people. I believe that this is a wonderful and significant advantage for our soldiers.
Senator Tardif: In your presentation, Minister, you spoke about your commitment to linguistic duality and the obligation to respect the Official Languages Act.
However, in concrete terms, we know that several problems have been identified at Borden, as well as at Gagetown and Saint-Jean.
If I understand correctly, the ombudsman, Ms. Mary McFadyen, reportedly told the House of Commons' Official Languages Committee, on March 13, that the investigation had been completed. I am wondering whether the second report or the report that she was to submit is finished and what analyses we can glean from this report.
Mr. McKay: The major-general could perhaps answer this question. I have never seen this report. There are several reports on Borden.
MGen Semianiw: I was at Borden last week and I discussed the matter with the team and with officials from the ombudsman's office on Friday. The report is not finished. It may be in two or three weeks. We discussed what is happening. There have been some successes and there are also some challenges. As far as I am concerned, the plan is good and we will continue implementing it. We are waiting for the report, but after we will discuss the matter with the ombudsman.
Senator Tardif: Ms. McFadyen said that she apparently would have all of the required information in order to complete the report within two weeks, but now nearly a month has gone by and the report still is not finished.
One of the main problems is that additional resources have not been invested to implement the strategic plan in order to bring about change at Borden. Could you assure us that adequate funding has been provided so that this plan will be successful? We have heard that there is no teaching material in French in order to give courses in French at Borden and that some courses are not offered in French at all and that it is not possible to provide instruction to the 300 francophone recruits at Borden. What do you make of this situation?
Mr. MacKay: First of all, we have increased resources in the Canadian armed forces and also in Borden to deal with this matter. Just last year, we provided over $2.3 million to increase official languages staff at Borden in particular. If there is a problem, individuals have been designated to answer questions and we have the capacity to provide courses, books and material in French. The material is a little bit out of date in English.
[English]
For example, we have one course that is quite outdated, and all the materials related to that course need to be improved and modernized in English. Therefore, there is no point in translating the old material until it is updated in English, and then it will be translated simultaneously.
Ninety per cent of the materials are available, as I understand it, in both official languages at CFB Borden. The remaining 10 per cent are the result of the course itself currently being modernized and updated. When that is complete, it will be available in both official languages, and it will be at 100 per cent capacity.
Senator Tardif: With all due respect, why do we not begin with the French version first and then translate to the English version?
Mr. MacKay: As I said, it is being done simultaneously.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: You talked about capacity. We have gone from a universal approach to a functional approach with the new National Defence strategy in order to provide linguistic duality in the armed forces. How can you reassure us that this new so-called functional strategy will be more in keeping with what is expected under the Official Languages Act?
[English]
Mr. MacKay: The intention with this new approach is to ensure that we meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act but simultaneously meet those of the Canadian Forces, the functioning of the units. The approach that is being taken is to see that the unit and its leadership have the ability to communicate effectively and carry out their tasks.
Rather than taking the universal approach, which was found to be wanting, quite frankly, and which was the subject of criticism, in the approach that has been advanced here — and I will again ask Major-General Semianiw to go into greater detail — the emphasis is on functionality and the leadership having the ability to communicate directly with the unit to ensure proper action is being taken in the field and during training.
Senator Tardif: People are moved, so they do not always stay in their unit. They could be given an operational assignment and not have a superior who can give an order in the soldier's language.
Mr. MacKay: The intention under this process is to see that all leadership have the ability to be functional in both languages. We can have units that have emphasis on French, and we want to ensure that their leadership will be able to respond to them. It is to put the emphasis on the leadership.
Senator Tardif: What percentage of leadership?
Mr. MacKay: The goal is 100 per cent. We are not there yet. This is not something that has just come about.
Senator Tardif: Where are you now?
Mr. MacKay: With the leadership right now, we are above the national average, at about 28 per cent.
MGen. Semianiw: There are five issues in Borden; the first is leadership. Having come out of Borden, the leadership is fully behind leading and getting it right in Borden. The second issue, as you mentioned, is the translation. We have provided an additional $1.8 million to translate documents. From the time we began this process until today, there are more documents translated now than there were six months ago. That is a step in the right direction.
The third issue is to bring in bilingual staff — civilian staff and public servants. The issue at Borden is twofold: providing service and providing instruction. We need to look at the three areas: military staff, public servants and non- public fund employees, as the minister said, who work at the fitness centres. We are improving that. Oversight is critical, and the team at Borden is providing great oversight. I have been there on a regular basis, as have my commanders, to get CFB Borden right.
To build on your second point: I am a product of the train for all. The train for all, at the end of the day, did not get it; in this area, focus and priority are needed. Trying to train everyone, we just did not get it and ended up in a situation where we needed more people at the right level to be trained. This is why we turned this around and said that we must focus on those who need to get trained.
We have now connected this to those who are promoted. There are about 300 colonels and captains in the Canadian Forces. As of last year, 70 per cent must be at the CBC language designation level to be promoted. This year, the figure is 80 per cent, and next year it will be 90 per cent. I can take that analogy and go across the Canadian Forces getting the leadership right. Getting the leadership right is the first piece. It brings many of the strengths together. Bilingualism is not about legislation; it is about leadership.
Mr. MacKay: December 2011 is the time frame for this transformation approach to fully take hold. The goal is to have all general flag officers — that is, officers of a certain rank and above — be completely bilingual within the CBC designation. That approach will ensure that no soldier will ever be in the position of having to speak to a superior officer in anything but his language of choice. That is the goal.
[Translation]
This is the objective currently sought by the Armed Forces.
Senator Champagne: I do understand that it is important for an officer to be able to communicate in the two official languages. You can find yourself in a combat zone — such as the case with our troops at the moment — and orders may not be understood by the soldier who is supposed to carry them out. The commanding officer has to be able to speak both languages or otherwise soldiers have to understand both languages.
Mr. MacKay: You are right. It is obviously necessary that, in certain situations, you have to be able to talk directly to all of the soldiers. That is why we have focused on the leadership for each unit. Nobody should find himself in a situation where communication is deficient.
Colonel Louis Meloche, Director of Official Languages, Department of National Defence: There are no bilingual units in the regular forces. All of the combat units have been designated either francophone or anglophone. The language of work in these units is French or English. There is no confusion possible when people are in a combat situation and orders are given to carry out an objective. We are able to do this in one language, namely the unit's language of work.
Senator Champagne: How many soldiers would be in a work unit like that?
Col. Meloche: It varies. For example, there may be 800 people in a battalion of the Royal 22e Régiment. The operating language of this battalion deployed in Afghanistan is French. At the battalion staff level, there is a bilingual group capable of speaking English with the force headquarters. However, the unit's language of work, the language that the soldiers use to carry out operations, it is really the language that has been assigned to the unit. Only one language has been assigned to the combat units. There are no bilingual combat units.
MGen. Semianiw: Leadership is not reserved for the officers alone. That is a myth. Leadership also includes non- commissioned officers. So this is a plan that also includes the non-commissioned officers.
Senator Champagne: You said that you are really making an effort to comply with Part VII of the Official Languages Act and that access to language training, whether in French or English, is easier than it once was. Nevertheless, we are hearing many rumours and insinuations.
Could soldiers' mother tongue hurt their chances of being promoted? Would they have more opportunities if they spoke English or if they were bilingual? Unfortunately, we hear too often that francophones have to wait a long time before being promoted. Show us that we are wrong in saying that.
Mr. MacKay: It is not true. A person's official language has never been a criterion for a promotion. There are equal opportunities for anglophones and francophones in the Canadian Forces. At the same time, it is essential that we acknowledge that a great deal of work has been done to improve services. Obviously, not every region will have trainers, programs and books in French. It varies. That is why we are going through this exercise. This is not a problem that occurred overnight. This problem has been around for 30 years. We have made a great deal of progress, but a lot remains to be done.
As far as promotions and opportunities in the Canadian Forces are concerned, today that does not constitute a barrier.
Senator Champagne: But is it even better for someone who is bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: Knowing both languages may be an advantage.
Senator Champagne: I say this with a smile, Minister. That is the case just about everywhere.
Mr. MacKay: You could say that knowing both official languages is an advantage for all Canadians in every department.
Senator Champagne: What are you doing to promote the linguistic rights of the members of the Armed Forces so that everyone truly knows their rights and recourse? What are you doing to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces know they have language rights?
Mr. MacKay: We have documentation. In addition, on the Bases, we have designated individuals who are there to answer questions.
[English]
MGen. Semianiw will respond to that, but we have an example of that type of literature that is designed specifically to respond to any individual, French or English, who experiences difficulty or who may have questions about programs, education and promotion available to them. There is also a website. There are specifically designated persons on the base.
Senator Champagne: I am delighted to hear that there is someone to talk to. It is always better than a website or a pamphlet.
Mr. MacKay: I might ask my colleagues to respond with more information.
MGen. Semianiw: We ensure we have a strong awareness campaign. As the minister said, this small pamphlet was put out not too long ago. It clearly lays out the issue of one's rights and the obligations of the institution to respect those rights. As well, the website for official languages for the department, for the Canadian Forces, was just updated. At CFB Borden, we have coordinators now in each unit to ensure that there is someone to go to if one has an issue.
Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is it better than it was? Yes, it is better. Do we know where we need to go? Yes, we do, and we are doing everything we can to get there.
[Translation]
Col. Meloche: As the Director of Official Languages, I am responsible for the network of official language coordinators within the Canadian Forces and the department. There is a coordinator in each first-level group, such as the army, the navy and the armed forces, who reports to me. This network of coordinators then includes the bases, squadrons and units. We have breathed new life into this network since last September. I have had two meetings with this group and I have scheduled two more between now and June. We are in the process of finalizing a training kit to be used by coordinators so that they understand their roles and language rights.
MGen. Semianiw showed you a brochure. Posters are now being produced which will illustrate the language rights that soldiers, their families and civilian employees have.
As the minister indicated, the second objective of the transformation model is awareness. We have to ensure that people are aware of their rights and we are working very hard to reach this objective.
Senator Champagne: I will conclude by telling you that we share your sorrow regarding the disaster that occurred in Quebec City last weekend.
Senator Losier-Cool: Could you tell us the percentage of people in the Canadian Forces who are bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: Would you like an overall percentage?
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like a percentage for all of the members of the Canadian Forces. Colonelonel Meloche talked about the three sectors. I do understand that this figure may be difficult to determine given how spread out the personnel is. Are the Canadian Forces bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: The percentage is 28 per cent. This figure has been increasing over the past two or three years.
Senator Losier-Cool: This figure is representative of the Canadian population with respect to bilingualism.
Mr. MacKay: I believe that the percentage is higher than that for the Canadian population.
[English]
Senator Murray: I would like to ask you, for the record, some fairly basic information that I do not believe we have. A goal of the language policy has been, for some considerable time, equitable representation of the two official language communities throughout the government service. What is the proportion of anglophone Canadians and francophone Canadians in the Armed Forces? Also, what assurances can you give us that there is equitable representation at all levels? That is important.
Also, the discussion of units continually leaves me puzzled. There are francophone, anglophone and bilingual units. What is a unit? Do they vary greatly in size? How many are in each of those categories, francophone, anglophone and bilingual?
Finally, while I hear what the minister is saying about equal opportunities for promotion in the Armed Forces regardless of one's first language, I rather doubt that the opportunities for training are equal between anglophones and francophones in the Armed Forces. It was a dreadful mistake, and I said so at the time, that the government shut down the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean in 1994. I understand the present government has taken steps to correct that situation, but it has not fully restored the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. You can perhaps explain where that matter stands.
Minister, first, what are your plans for the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean? Second, without entering into the politics, perhaps your officers could indicate the importance presently of that institution and its role in terms of the training of francophone officers for the armed services.
Mr. MacKay: On the basic number, they are in fact quite similar. The overall percentage of francophones in the Canadian Forces nationally stands at 28 per cent and rising. In fact, as a subtext to that, the recruitment numbers out of Quebec have been amongst the highest of all the provinces. They are in the same range as Atlantic Canada.
Senator Murray: I wanted to have some information from you to the effect that there is equitable representation at all levels.
Mr. MacKay: I am coming to that. The leadership, that is to say staff officers, at the major, colonel and general level, is also at 28 per cent. Therefore what would be deemed flag officers, staff officers, is also at 28 per cent.
Again, those numbers are above what we would consider the national average — around 21 per cent of francophones nationally — so in the military, there is a higher percentage than the national population.
Senator Murray: Francophones are a bit higher than 21 per cent of the population, are they not?
[Translation]
Col. Meloche: According to the last Statistics Canada census figures, the number of francophones in the Canadian population has gone from 24 to 21.8 per cent.
[English]
Mr. MacKay: In any event, those are the numbers as they currently stand. As I said, I suggest that the numbers are actually increasing.
Certainly, the number of bilingual officers is also sharply increasing as a direct result of this transformation that is taking place, with a goal to have all these high ranking positions designated bilingual by 2011.
I do not have the numbers of units that are francophone versus anglophone at my fingertips. Mgen. Semianiw may be able to answer those questions on the units. I will come back to the role of the future of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
MGen. Semianiw: With respect to the size of the units, units range from as small as 50 personnel up to 500, 600 or 700 personnel.
Aside from the issue of equitable representation, the new plan addresses the service piece. No matter what unit you are in, you may want to have some service, as was addressed previously. Therefore, if you are in a French-language unit, how do you get that service in English and in French?
Senator Murray: How many units of each language are there, English, French, bilingual?
Col. Meloche: Currently, there are 547 units in the Canadian Forces of which 61 are francophone, 310 are anglophone, 170 are bilingual and 6 have no linguistic designations. The ones that do not have any linguistic designations, for example, are the Canadian Rangers unit in Northern Canada because their first language is neither French nor English.
Mr. MacKay: During times of deployment, there is sometimes a bringing together of units. For example, on a certain deployment they may draw from two units to bring together, which may change the percentages.
Senator Murray: Please continue, Major-General Semianiw.
MGen. Semianiw: Building on that, you will find that most of the bilingual units are the training units; units where training is being conducted. If one goes into the infantry school at Gagetown, it has both francophone and anglophone students. Therefore, it must be a bilingual unit. That is the theme throughout. In my organization, I have a strong, large training cadre — CFB Borden is a good example — that must be bilingual.
The other issue — and I did not have time to go through it all — is that we have begun another initiative, which I believe you will find very interesting. We have now begun partnering with Canadian community colleges across the country. One of the reasons for this was to help us in the capacity of providing francophone training for francophone students.
A number of community colleges are assisting us in providing that training in French. Given that it was a capacity issue in Borden, that program began in September, with a pilot of five colleges across the country. The minister was at one of the colleges when we signed the memorandum of understanding and began with the program. It has had a lot of positive effects in a number of areas, particularly in this area of official languages.
Mr. MacKay: On the important question you had about the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, I am in complete agreement with you.
[Translation]
I completely agree that this is unfortunate. There will be a decision to close this institution. Like the Kingston College, this is a wonderful institution for the Quebec City region.
[English]
We have decided to reopen this college. It will be an extremely important site for the training of Canadian Forces in Quebec. Nationally, cadets will have the option to enrol in either French or English courses. Clearly, in Quebec, there will be a disproportionate number who will elect to take their entire program in French. There will also be language training at that college, just as there is in Kingston.
It will be an arts and science program. It is very much akin to the Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, or CEGEP, program and will be seen as a feeder system for officers. This will also impact on your earlier question about the number of officers in the upper echelons and the higher ranks, the leadership roles, who have that military training specific in Quebec.
It will re-establish a bilingual institution specifically designated for military in Quebec. That is the initial planning stage here. It will allow francophone or anglophone graduates to proceed to the second-year university programming that will then, if they choose, continue at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston. It will enhance the initial socialization, if I can put it that way, which also goes on between cadets at a younger age in preparation for senior officer training.
Senator Murray: I appreciate that. This is progress over what it was a few years ago, but the college in Quebec is not the French-language equivalent of the Royal Military College of Canada, RMC, is it?
Mr. MacKay: That is correct. It is not. Having said that, senator, in anticipation of your next question, would it be our preference that we get there? Yes, it would be our preference, and it is certainly a possibility. As you have said, it is a step in the right direction.
When an institution with the history and the infrastructure that goes with a college of that size and scope because of the programs that were available is closed, it takes time. We cannot simply flick a switch and have that college come back with the same level of programs and curriculum that existed.
Sadly, some institutional knowledge of the school was lost. It will take a few years to bring it back to a point where the decision to make it the French-language equivalent of the RMC might very well be taken.
Senator Murray: To what extent is RMC bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: Do you mean RMC currently?
Senator Murray: Yes, that is correct. Are not you the chancellor of the place?
Mr. MacKay: Yes, I am. I get to wear the hat.
This programming is also available in both official languages in Kingston. They have an extremely high level of bilingualism. In fact, I have a number of RMC graduates who work on my personal staff as attachés. They put a tremendous amount of emphasis on bilingualism at Kingston, as does the professorial level.
Senator Murray: I hope that progress continues to be made to restore the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean to the status that it ought to have as the French-language equivalent of RMC.
I know that Senator Dallaire, our colleague who was associated with the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, was previously disappointed with the decision that was taken and has spoken about it since. I do not wish to speak on his behalf.
Mr. MacKay: Was he disappointed that it was reopened?
Senator Murray: No, disappointed that it was closed in the first instance, and happy that it is reopened.
The Chair: He said it in the chamber.
Senator Murray: I hope progress continues to be made, and I hope it is restored to the status that many of us believe it ought to have. You, obviously, have some sympathy for that.
Mr. MacKay: I appreciate your support for the government's initiative on that.
The Chair: Before turning the floor over to Senator Ringuette, do you have another 10 minutes? Am I imposing on your good nature?
Mr. MacKay: I have another appointment in about 15 minutes, so I can stay another few minutes.
The Chair: Afterwards, if my colleagues have other questions, could the Colonel and Major-General stay for a few minutes?
MGen. Semianiw: Yes, we can stay.
[Translation]
Mr. MacKay: Madam Chair, if you have more questions, you could send them to my office or to me, we will try to answer them as quickly as possible.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, do you have a final question for the minister?
Senator Ringuette: I have a lot of questions, but the message I would like to get across is basically that, indeed, there is some catching up to do with regard to training for recruits and Canadian Forces members. But even with all our efforts and all the money spent on recruiting, once we have recruited young people, and have spent money training them, we still want to keep them after four or five years, because most of the investment will have been made.
We are looking at the possibility of having an attribution period and we will have to double our efforts to find new recruits, given how competitive the market is. You also have to make sure that the children of recruits have access to good education as soon as possible. The children of recruits who are renewing their period of service on any military base in Canada must be able to receive an education in their own language.
I wanted to mention this because I am not convinced that it is one of your priorities today. On top of the money you are investing in recruitment and training, if you want to keep these people, you will have to meet the challenge of providing an education in either official language for the children of your military personnel.
Mr. MacKay: If I understood correctly, your question is about the education the children of military personnel and staff receive on the base?
Senator Ringuette: If you do not help these families, you will lose them.
Mr. MacKay: You are right, it is a priority. We have to find ways of keeping our recruits. The ability to speak both official languages means that we must make a significant investment in the Canadian Forces. In the private sector, the labour market is very competitive and this is a challenge for the Canadian Forces, because apart from the cost of language training the cost of training is very high. In the private sector, competition is fierce because salaries are often higher.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Minister, I hope you have understood my message. Of course, we must look after the families, but we also have to make sure that the children of officers on military bases have access to education in the language of their choice.
Mr. MacKay: Yes, because this is a tradition for some Canadian families. In some cases, the father, the mother, and the grandfather have been Canadian Forces members and their children want to continue that tradition.
[English]
With no disrespect to previous generations of Canadian Forces, support for families has changed significantly with regard to not only language sensitivity but also cultural sensitivity, particularly during deployments and particularly given the transient nature of the forces. People have to leave for extended periods for training. People are moved suddenly from the region where their entire family support network may be, albeit perhaps off the base, and are transplanted to the other side of the country or to the North or to an isolated base. Cold Lake, for example, is quite isolated.
Changes have been made in the support network of which you speak, not only in schools, but also in childcare facilities, recreation and the counselling that is sometimes required during periods of estrangement and separation, which still happens at a disproportionate rate in the Armed Forces.
Many stresses were not addressed. I believe that the modern Canadian Forces are making great strides toward being much more sensitive by including the family in decisions and considering the language and education requirements of children.
You make a very good point. Progress has been made on this, and the awareness that you and this committee are bringing to the matter is greatly appreciated by the Canadian Forces.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Mr. Minister, before you leave I would like you to tell Quebecers and students of architecture, heritage and memories that you will do everything in your power to rebuild the Quebec armoury.
Mr. MacKay: You are right, what happened was a tragedy, and unfortunately it is impossible to rebuild the building exactly as it was before.
[English]
That military installation is a jewel. It is beyond physical bricks and mortar; it is a symbol of important historic significance for Quebec and for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: And the friends of the Voltigeurs hope so, too.
Mr. MacKay: Certainly. We intend to support the Voltigeurs and the efforts of the Province of Quebec, as well as Quebec City, and anyone else, wishing to see the building rise up from its ashes.
[English]
That is certainly the Prime Minister's intention. When he heard that the tragic fire had occurred, he immediately contacted me and the department to say that we must turn our attention to working with everyone to see that this building is repaired. I can assure you that that is our intention
Senator Champagne: With a bit of luck, we will make the eleven o'clock news.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We will now pause for a moment while the minister leaves, since he has other obligations, but the major-general and the colonel have graciously agreed to stay a bit longer because some senators still have a few questions.
Senator Ringuette: Perhaps the MGen. has some additional comments with regard to what I said about training costs and the fact that we need a much more inclusive approach for the future to ensure that the children of our officers, who live on military bases and who in most cases have been uprooted from their communities, can receive an education in their own language. Of course, there is also the whole cultural and recreational aspect of things. What do you thing about this?
MGen Semianiw: In English, we say: "You recruit an individual, you retain a family.'' This is the most important thing for me and the people who work for me. Education in French for francophone students is a challenge. We are looking at all of the family-based programs.
[English]
We are looking at education and, as the minister mentioned, support for fitness and the like. We agree with you entirely. We are trying to work toward that, but it would be the ideal. That is where we need to be to ensure that when families do arrive, they can have the education they need in their language.
On the other side, if one were to do a quick review of what is available across the country, it is not all that bad.
[Translation]
With regard to second-language education, in either English or French, it is the same challenge for anglophones in Saint-Jean as it is for francophones in Gagetown.
[English]
We need to do better. We realize it is an issue we need to work on, particularly with retention, as you said, and it is something we are looking at.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: What is the approximate cost to recruit and train an officer who would normally serve for a period of four or five years?
[English]
MGen. Semianiw: How I take what you have said, and relate it to what you want, is that for every person who leaves, three more have to be recruited; regardless of whether it is $1,000 or $20,000 up front. That is why retention is so important.
Senator Ringuette: Absolutely. Do you have a ballpark figure for that? Well, it is more than a five-year process. The recruiting process, testing, et cetera, starts prior to receiving a contract.
MGen. Semianiw: I do not have those figures with me, but I will ensure that the committee gets those.
Senator Ringuette: That is good.
MGen. Semianiw: In reality, some Canadian Forces personnel remain recruits for more than six months, some for two or three years, if we look at the entire recruiting process. We then have to complete training at the base.
They must decide what they will become. To become a cook, for example, they must complete their cook's training, so it takes time. It is the challenge of training in both official languages.
There is a flow, and it is not as simple as providing the training in French up front during maybe six or seven months. It is a greater challenge.
Senator Ringuette: I am not only talking about the costs of language training.
MGen. Semianiw: Yes, I understand. I will get those training cost figures for the committee. If you look at me as an example, I have gone to school for probably five years. The Canadian Forces has schooled me from an education and training point of view, so it is costly; but, again, the return, as we know, is great. If you consider what the Canadian Forces has done as a force, for example, in Afghanistan, how they contribute to the interests of Canada and represent the values of Canadians, it is clearly an invaluable investment.
Senator Kinsella: In your presentation, you state without hesitation that Canadian Forces Base Borden is pulling out all the stops to implement the recommendations made at the time by Yves Côté, the ombudsman — now the ombudsperson being Mary McFadyen.
How effective, in your view, has the Armed Forces ombudsman office been in dealing with complaints associated with official languages?
MGen. Semianiw: That is a difficult question for me to answer, given that I have only been in this position for about seven months.
That question would be better directed to the ombudsman. I can tell you that when Mr. Côté did identify the issue at Borden, he immediately brought it to our attention and put the report together. We have worked collaboratively with the ombudsman's office on the Borden issue and others to ensure that we resolve those issues.
As the minister said, this has been around not for the last year but for the last 20 years, and we need to address it as quickly as possible.
Senator Kinsella: I am interested in models of public administration that protect the rights of minorities and, in this instance, language rights. Therefore, you would be able to tell us when there are recommendations made by the ombudsman, whether the Armed Forces listen.
MGen. Semianiw: Yes, we do listen. Not only do we listen but, if you look at the process, the Canadian Forces is obligated through the minister to provide a response. That response is to not only to the ombudsman but to the public on the comments and what the ombudsman has said.
Senator Kinsella: I agree that it would be good to get the ombudsman from the Armed Forces because questions have been raised by honourable senators about the government's decision to phase out or to end the former Court Challenges Program. We heard a previous witness speak to the issue of mediation and conciliation being a key factor in dealing with official language or any other kinds of minority rights issues.
I am curious to see how effective using the ombudsman has been in the Canadian Armed Forces in those cases where members of the Armed Forces have complained to the ombudsman; where in the past, in other circumstances outside the force, groups of non-governmental organizations would have sought support from the Court Challenges Program to go through the court system using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Given that, from a certain point of view, language rights are programmatic in their delivery, I am interested in the experience of using the ombudsman in the operational way because the Commissioner of Official Languages has a role to play as well.
MGen. Semianiw: Both do collaborate and have collaborated on the issue in Borden, the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Remember, the ombudsman has carte blanche to go where he or she wishes across the Canadian Forces and to comment on any issue, which is why this issue came out of Borden from the ombudsman.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I have a brief question which our colleague Senator Dallaire would like me to ask on his behalf. It seems that in the past, when the annual evaluation was done for every Canadian Forces member, points were given for language skills, and more specifically, five points were given for knowledge of a second language. Will this change under the new transformation model for official languages at the Department of National Defence?
[English]
MGen. Semianiw: We talked about the new approach being functional. If we take a look at that functional group, no one is probably more important.
When we have a merit board and we sit around, as I have stated, for promotion to colonel and captain, the leadership — and on the non-commissioned officers side, chief warrant officer, chief petty officer — having to have BBB language requirements by 2011 makes it is tougher than it was in the past. Scores were allocated for being bilingual, either English or French, both sides. Those scores are implemented as part of the functional program and are being used as they were in the past.
The key is to figure out at what level they should be used. Should a private getting promoted to the rank of corporal need to be bilingual, especially if he or she is in an English-speaking unit where that is all that is being done? If he or she is in charge of soldiers, men and women in uniform who speak French, there is a requirement. That is why Colonel Meloche has looked at the units with the army and the air force to ask question with respect to where that requirement is and what part of the leadership needs to have that.
For example, if you are entering a school, you have to have a CBC language profile. If not, you cannot be appointed to the school. We are working to improve that area. The answer is, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: So points will be given for knowledge of a second language?
[English]
MGen. Semianiw: There were, and nothing has changed.
[Translation]
It is exactly the same way, the same approach.
Senator Tardif: Except that under the functional approach, not everyone will be required to work in a bilingual capacity in their own country.
[English]
MGen. Semianiw: Exactly; for a particular rank level. Even in the past with an old program, a private soldier at a merit board, because he did speak French or English, did not get points for that.
[Translation]
That would depend on the rank of the anglophones and francophones. It is a matter of leadership, whether you are an officer or a non-commissioned officer.
[English]
It has not changed, but it is more targeted. The one piece to build on is we have connected the need for training to succession planning, which ensures that those who need the training get the training. As the minister said, it will take a number of years. However, we are already moving toward that this year with all lieutenant-generals having to have a linguistic profile of CBC. We will shortly move on to major-generals, brigadier-generals and colonels as we move all the way down.
[Translation]
Col. Meloche: What really matters here is the language designation of each unit, and how each function is attached to them. Under that approach, we will be able to profile the positions which will be designated bilingual, and fill the positions accordingly. Today, as the general indicated, all generals will have to be bilingual beginning in 2011. Will there be a need to attribute points at the merit board? Absolutely not. Everyone will have to be bilingual to even be considered. So why give the same number of points to everyone? Except that, as the general explained, at one point the council will choose who will head the national schools. The ones who are chosen on the basis of merit and performance will have access to second language training.
[English]
MGen. Semianiw: Madam Chair, I apologize, but we have to leave.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing and giving us this extra time.
The committee adjourned.