:
Now that we're in public, I'd like to make very clear, first of all, what I said earlier in this meeting and what I said in the last meeting; that is, we support—I support, certainly—Mr. Lord appearing in front of this committee. What I don't support is the manner in which this committee operates, which is outside of its own processes. This is what happened with respect to the invitation of Mr. Lord.
[Translation]
The steering committee met and decided to invite the witnesses. But it doesn't work that way. The steering committee must present its recommendations to the committee, and each member here has the right to go over the list of recommendations and to engage in a discussion. That did not happen last time. I find it passing strange, because every time we would like to discuss any subject, the opposition—
[English]
Their arms go up in the air, they overreact, and they make outlandish statements because they don't happen to like it when Conservative MPs want to discuss an issue. They just want to have their way. This is my concern.
So it's not that we shouldn't have particular witnesses; it's that there is a process in place and we should follow that process.
Unfortunately, last time, we lost a meeting because the opposition would not move ahead with a witness who we had called or who had been called in front of the committee. We lost two hours on that.
No one on this committee wants to repeat that. So I, for one, am very glad that we are following a process here now, that 48 hours' notice was given on this motion, that we're free to discuss this motion, and that we will vote on this motion.
That's the way it should happen. We should have a lot less strong-arming going on here. It's not in the best interests of official language communities when the committee breaks down.
[Translation]
We are all here to work in the interest of our official language communities. I would like the work on these important matters to go ahead.
It is essential that we follow the existing process and that we respect the rules we ourselves adopted at our first meeting here at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
:
It applies to all committee members, but you nevertheless allowed Mr. Lemieux to go on. I would like to respond. In fact, it is not up to the government representatives on this committee to decide what our issue will be. We invited Ms. Verner not to talk about the contents of her action plan, but because we are preparing a report on the action plan. We wanted to ask her questions on the machinery of government which would be required for the coming action plan.
The opposition parties are not obliged to give their questions to the Conservative government. I know that the Conservative members are stuck with their prime minister, but that is not our case.
In her letter, Ms. Verner said that she had to respectfully decline the committee's invitation. However, she said yesterday that she had never done so. I want to make sure that this committee actually wants to work and study, and that it can hear from the witnesses it wants to invite. Mr. Lemieux mentioned that we wasted two hours this week, and that's true. However, committee members argued for two hours why she should not come, and they ultimately voted against the motion.
I believe that the minister is an adult and that she is able to answer questions. If there are questions she does not wish to answer, she is free to do so. But I don't think it is right for committee members to block the minister's appearance before the committee.
The same applies to Mr. Lord. We want to ask questions of Mr. Lord. I'll come back to the motion. When we will ask Mr. Lord questions, if he says he cannot answer because the matter is not addressed in his report, he will have to decide which questions he wants to respond to. However, people cannot block his appearance before the committee. He should therefore appear before the committee.
:
I would like to support Mr. Godin's motion, which is that we approve the schedule but allow for a certain degree of flexibility. Indeed, nobody knows what will happen. I would also like to address some of the things that Mr. Rodriguez said. It's very important. He is right in saying that a witness showed up last week although his appearance had not been approved by the committee. So in principle, he is right.
[English]
We do not want to hear the witness because it hasn't been decided yet whether he should have been invited.
[Translation]
However, the witness was already here. He had prepared his notes and had a lot of information to convey to us. He was before the committee. We had to respect the fact that he had taken the time to show up, so we had to hear from him. That was the best thing to do.
It's like today. The National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman and other witnesses are here, even though we had not agreed to the schedule. They are ready to testify before the committee. They prepared their notes, they made sure that they were available. So out of respect for them, we must continue with the meeting.
In future, I would like the committee to adopt a schedule before any final decisions are taken with regard to witnesses and issues, as a true committee would do. We must respect the committee and all members who sit on it.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier, I used the term "honesty". I said that Mr. Lemieux should show some honesty. I apologize, it was not the word I wanted to use. At no time did I presume Mr. Lemieux to be dishonest. I meant to say that he should be consistent since we cannot invite witnesses from a given list and then refrain from inviting the witnesses from that list based on the pretext that the list has not been adopted. It is in keeping with the principle mentioned earlier.
The subcommittee is comprised of members from different parties. We have all, including the chair, debated, discussed, and made decisions based on good will and the presumption that members of the committee of the whole would be in agreement. The subcommittee has carried out the task it was asked to do, and has done a good job.
That being said, can we move on to the next point, Mr. Chairman.
:
I agree with my colleague, Mr. Petit.
[English]
I too was disturbed to read these reports regarding the CBC.
I note that the 1991 Broadcasting Act under which the CBC operates states in subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iii) that the programming provided by the corporation should “actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression”. In subparagraph 3(1)(m)(iv) it reads that it should “be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities”, and in subparagraph 3(1)(m)(vi) that it should “contribute to shared national consciousness and identity”.
I think these three sections make it clear that the CBC has an obligation not only to carry services in both official languages but also to bridge the linguistic divide, the linguistic duality that our country has, and I think that cutting French language programming out of a broadcast when it was an integral component of that broadcast is something that we, as a committee, should study for just one meeting.
I would support completely the idea that we put the motion to study this for one meeting in front of the committee.
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to give an update concerning the treatment of new soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Borden. I am accompanied today by Margaret Brandon, Director General, Operations, and Denis Egglefield, Director of Investigations for this file.
[English]
Given that we have only recently been notified of this meeting and our desire to ensure that we provide the committee with as much information as possible today, I will call on my colleagues who have been involved in the investigation at every step to make sure we can respond to any detailed questions you have.
[Translation]
I would like to start by saying that I am honoured to have been appointed Interim Ombudsman of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, as well as to have been invested with the authority necessary to fulfil the mandate of the office fully and completely.
As general counsel at the Office of the Ombudsman for more than five years, I had the opportunity to work with the past two ombudsmen and to actively participate in all investigations and important matters. I am proud to have taken part in the real, positive and lasting changes that the office has helped establish within the Canadian defence community in the past.
I am fully committed to ensuring that our military members, our employees at the department and our military families who make so many sacrifices for Canada are treated fairly and equitably.
Over the next few minutes, I will describe the work done by our office since the final appearances by the Ombudsman at the end of last year.
[English]
During his testimony before the committee last November, Mr. Côté indicated that our office would be returning to Borden to assess what, if any, progress had been made to address the serious concerns related to the treatment of unilingual francophone recruits and students. I am pleased to inform you that our investigators did return to Borden at the end of January, and we are currently analyzing the information they collected.
[Translation]
I would also point out that, as a result of the committee's recommendations, we sent two teams of investigators to Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, where the majority language is English, and Saint-Jean Garrison, which is mainly French. Our investigators completed over 500 confidential questionnaires with students at the Saint-Jean Canadian Forces Language School and five schools at the Gagetown Base. They also met with students, families and service providers on each base.
What we found, unfortunately, was that the problems at Gagetown and Saint-Jean are essentially the same as those encountered at Borden over the past year. Unilingual soldiers in the Canadian Forces have real difficulty obtaining services and instruction in the official language of their choice.
Generally speaking, students at Gagetown and Saint-Jean were not aware of their language rights. Most of them did not know who to go to, how to raise their issues or how to get effective help.
[English]
These services, including medical care, were singled out by many Canadian Forces members as areas where significant improvement was needed. As an example, some students reported difficulty communicating symptoms and understanding diagnoses and treatment options when dealing with medical professionals on the base. One student said all his medical files are written in French; therefore, he couldn't read or understand his own file. Another student said it was hard going somewhere when people do not speak English; he went in for a broken foot and came out with a cold pack. Others raised privacy concerns resulting from situations where a breakdown in communications required the intervention of a third party to serve as interpreter.
[Translation]
We also found that translation was a problem at Gagetown and at Saint-Jean. Students on both bases said that translated documents were not always available and that much of the translation was very poorly done.
One student at Gagetown said that he was tired of always having to decode the message in badly translated material. I would add that the instructors and administrators also raised similar problems with our investigators.
[English]
As these examples show, there were very serious issues related to fundamental fairness, respect, and the welfare of members stationed on both of these bases.
[Translation]
One student at the Gagetown Base summarized his experience working and living in the other official language by saying that bilingualism was a skill and he felt incompetent because he was not bilingual.
[English]
These concerns, along with others raised throughout the course of our work, create unacceptable linguistic barriers that not only hinder the professional development of these students but also create an environment where they feel alienated and isolated.
Following our work at Saint-Jean and Gagetown, I wrote to the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, to inform him of the problems identified by our investigators and to request his commitment to address these concerns on a priority basis.
[Translation]
General Hillier recently replied to our letter and we are studying his response. As for next steps, as I mentioned earlier, our investigators returned to Borden at the beginning of this year to see what progress had been made to deal with the problems that had been raised.
[English]
However, our findings were not outlined in the letter to General Hillier, the reason being that while a great deal of work has been done to date, our investigators have not yet had the opportunity to complete the analysis of the data from their second trip to Borden. I would expect that this work will be completed in the coming weeks.
[Translation]
We are continuing to keep the Commissioner of Official Languages informed of our work on this file, and we have offered him our assistance if required, given that his office is beginning work on the issue of official languages at military schools and instructional facilities.
In closing, I want to say that I believe, like my predecessor did, that this is an issue of fundamental justice for members of the Canadian Forces. As an independent and impartial organization, our office is committed to ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all members of the Defence community, whether they are francophones or anglophones.
[English]
At this time, Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to provide any assistance that we can to the committee.
Merci.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
To begin with, when we met with the officers on December 6, we were told about the political issue connected with obtaining the resources needed to start to deal with the problems at CFB Borden.
So I am surprised to hear you say today that, according to your report, all the difficulties at Borden are resolved. I am very eager to see that report, since these were serious problems.
Let us talk about the instruction that our soldiers received on how to carry out their various tasks. I contacted the Library of Parliament in order to obtain what was, in my humble opinion, basic information. In particular, I asked for the list of courses offered at CFB Borden, the courses offered only in French or only in English, bilingual courses, how often they were offered, how many francophone, anglophone and bilingual CF members there are there, and if a minimum number of students are required in order for a course to be given. What is the situation for each course?
I forgot to ask you whether the books used on the base for courses in French are in French, or whether the young participants have to translate continually. The Library of Parliament told me to contact the Department of National Defence, which replied that it would take a long time to get that information.
Ms. McFadyen, I would like you to undertake an investigation of those issues at CFB Borden as well. I come from a teaching background, and if the school board wanted to know what was going on in my school—what books, programs or material was being taught and what tools were being used—and I answered that it would take a very long time to get that information, I do not think that I would have kept my job for very long.
I think that the situation at Borden goes beyond what is obvious, and it also involves administrative issues; I would point the finger at National Defence.
I sent a letter and I phoned the Office of the Minister of National Defence, to which I was told to address my questions, and that is the kind of answer I was given. If that is the answer that a member of Parliament gets, imagine what happens with a soldier who does not know his rights. Things have gotten to the point in our country that you need to know that you have the right to speak in your own language and obtain services in that language. That is hurtful and it is an extremely flawed system.
Would you be prepared to do an in-depth investigation? You have received a copy of what I have just described. The necessary research needs to be done. This is where the rubber hits the road. Could I please do my course in French? If I speak French, am I given second-class treatment?
Do you intend to get to the bottom of this?
:
You say these courses should be given in both official languages. Let me show you something. Based on what I will show you, could you ask National Defence how many other courses are given this way?
On March 12, 2008, there was an online announcement in French for a naval technician course. My assistant will give you a copy. The French version reads as follows:
If you are applying to the Naval Technician Training Plan (NTTP), you must complete and submit:
-Admission Form to the Marine Institute AFMI (in English only)
Here is a copy. It is posted on the Internet. The Marine Institute is based in Newfoundland. We contacted National Defence or the Marine Institute, and this course is given in English only. Anyone from National Defence or from the outside who wants to take the naval technician course can only do so in English, based on the information provided.
I began by saying that the Ombudsman began his investigation in 2006. It is 2008, and once again, it is clear that National Defence provides courses in one language only. Has the department learned its lesson or is it thumbing its nose at the government? There is something going on. There is no respect for the law, whether it protects francophone or anglophone Canadians. National Defence sends people abroad to spread democracy and uphold the laws of other countries, and yet one of our own laws, the Official Languages Act ...
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McFadyen, thank you for your presentation. Your testimony, like that of your predecessor whom we heard from last November, is key to understanding the situation in Borden.
I think that everyone—certainly all of the members here—agree that the situation in Borden must be improved. The government must find practical workable solutions. The Canadian Forces has a long way to go, after having been neglected for over a decade.
I was in the Canadian Forces for 20 years. I am proud of the initiatives for francophones and bilingualism that our government has taken. Reopening the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean is an example. When I enrolled in the armed forces at 17, I went directly to the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean. I was really disappointed when the former government shut down the college. I am very proud that we have now reopened it.
The Canadian Forces is trying to improve its bilingual training and its bilingual system. The last system was a complete failure. The commissioner said it was a failure. Something must be done. To my mind, the Canadian Forces are trying to react positively.
Your predecessor, Mr. Côté, was deeply concerned about the situation in Borden, but he also mentioned that certain constraints existed, like the fact that it is sometimes difficult to assign francophones to Borden as they prefer to remain in a francophone environment, which is normal. So we need to be pragmatic and take concrete steps that will improve the situation in Borden.
In my view, the challenge appears to be finding qualified bilingual personnel. The Canadian Forces training system is under great pressure because they are attempting to increase enrolment. Therefore, they are accepting a lot of recruits, but there is a shortage of resources to increase the training, because of the operational tempo. For example, the Van Doos are in Afghanistan. So the francophones who could help us in Borden are currently participating in an operation. Those are the major challenges we are facing.
You went over several recommendations, which came both from your predecessor and members of Parliament as well as from elsewhere. In your opinion, would those recommendations help effectively resolve the problem?
[English]
Of all the recommendations you've seen and considered and studied, could you share with us which ones you would find more effective in quickly resolving the situation that exists at Borden--and, now that you've identified it, that also exists in Gagetown, and in Saint-Jean at the recruit school?
Good morning, Madam. Following a short preamble, I will ask you some questions about Borden or what you know about the base. You have given us an overview of the situation at several bases, be it at Gagetown, Borden or Valcartier, which is in my riding, and of the situation regarding bilingualism.
Over the past two or three years, the Canadian Forces have received new funding for equipment, among other things. But as you know, our soldiers deployed to Kandahar in green uniforms rather than beige ones. There is nothing more ridiculous than that. In addition, we could not even transport our soldiers into a given theatre of operations. We had to use American planes to transport them.
Is this underfunding not also a problem in terms of teaching materials in Borden? My colleagues asked earlier if there were books, among other things. We have been ridiculed for two or three years because of the underfunding of the Canadian Forces. Have you seen this underfunding resulting in a shortage of books, making it impossible to provide training in both French and English?
At present, the recruitment of francophones is higher than it has ever been. How are you going to meet the demand? Are you short of funds, professors, schools? What are you currently short of? You undoubtedly noted that something was missing in Borden, I am sure of that.
:
Mr. Chairman, I think there is a problem. Let's not fool ourselves. It is impossible for a bilingual instructor to provide a course to two groups of individuals speaking two different languages. I do not think that it is possible. That is why in Canada, we have francophone colleges and universities on the one hand, and anglophone colleges and universities on the other.
I think that is where the problem lies, whether it be in Borden, Gagetown, or the Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland. How can these individuals provide a course in French when they are all anglophones? If we want francophones to be trained in their own language, then we are going to have to add a francophone institution. That is the problem. We do not need to look elsewhere.
I have trouble accepting what Mr. Lemieux stated, that is that the problem is due to the fact that they are having trouble finding instructors who speak French. There are more than 9 million francophones in Canada, so do not try to make me believe that it is impossible to find a few instructors. I am not even going to say out loud what I am thinking. This makes no sense.
In the same vein, I would say that in this case National Defence does not respect both official languages of this country. I do not think this is a problem of money, but if it is, then these people should tell the government that they cannot cover the cost of two institutions.
It is all very well to say that the instructor speaks French and English, but how can he use a book and provide explanations to everyone at the same time in both languages? That is not done anywhere else. You stated clearly that at Saint-Jean, the courses that are offered are not the same as those in Borden. It is not surprising that the problem exists: in order to respect both official languages, this training has to be provided in two different institutions.
Would you agree with me?