LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

The Honourable John McCallum (Minister of National Defence)

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

0925

Hon. John McCallum

Major-General Jan Arp (Chief of Staff - Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources - Military, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

0930

Hon. John McCallum

MGen Jan Arp

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Hon. John McCallum

MGen Jan Arp

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Hon. John McCallum

MGen Jan Arp

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

0935

Hon. John McCallum

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

0940

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. John McCallum

Ms. Shirley Siegel (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources - Civilian, Department of National Defence)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

0945

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. John McCallum

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. John McCallum

Ms. Shirley Siegel

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Hon. John McCallum

0950

Ms. Shirley Siegel

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Raymond Simard

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Raymond Simard

MGen Jan Arp

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Hon. John McCallum

MGen Jan Arp

Ms. Shirley Siegel

0955

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Hon. John McCallum

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

MGen Jan Arp

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

1000

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Hon. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

MGen Jan Arp

1005

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

MGen Jan Arp

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

1010

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

MGen Jan Arp

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1015

The Chair

Ms. Shirley Siegel

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

1020

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 027

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Good morning, Minister. Good morning, colleagues. We are to hear the Minister of National Defence and ask him some questions on section 41, Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Mr. LeBlanc, our colleague, will be joining us later. He sends his apologies. It is easy to understand why he is late—he was in New Brunswick yesterday. I imagine Mr. Godin was there as well, and we might therefore see them both arriving at the same time. I imagine they took the plane for Ottawa this morning. We will welcome Mr. LeBlanc when he arrives.

In the meantime, Minister, we look forward to hearing your presentation. After you finish your remarks, we will move to questions as usual. You are here for an hour and a half, I believe.

The Honourable John McCallum (Minister of National Defence): Until 9:55, if possible.

The Chair: Nine fifty-five? Let us begin right away, then. Please go ahead.

[English]

Hon. John McCallum: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.

[Translation]

Before I begin, I would really like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today, particularly as this is the first time a Minister of National Defence has appeared before this committee since 1994.

[English]

Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the two individuals accompanying me, Major-General Jan Arp, Chief of Staff and Assistant Deputy Minister for Military Human Resources; and Ms. Shirley Siegel, Assistant Deputy Minister for Civilian Human Resources.

We're here today to discuss defence's progress in implementing its official languages program as detailed in our latest annual management report on official languages.

I'd like to say at the beginning that this topic is very important because it's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it's a matter of law, and for me as an individual, it's important as well because of my own background and personal commitment to the principle of bilingualism and its importance in our country.

[Translation]

As you know, the idea was enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is set out in section 16(1):

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

The Canadian Forces are of course a government institution, and the Charter applies to us. The OLA applies to us as well.

As for my enthusiasm for this issue, I can tell you this. My French is far from perfect, but I had the pleasure of lecturing in French at the Université du Québec à Montréal for five years. I therefore had no choice with respect to using and learning the language. I have also learned, and relearned as a politician—that it is extremely useful to communicate with all your colleagues and to gain a better understanding of what Canada is about. I am therefore convinced that this is a very important issue.

Because of this, I was very disappointed during the first meeting on official languages held at the department. I was disappointed with the department's performance in the official languages area and disappointed with the attitude some people had.

First of all, let us talk about attitudes. I have learned that there are two challenges at National Defence: the first is to convince the central agencies that the Canadian Forces are different from civilian institutions, and that for many reasons the rules applying outside the military can be implemented within the military only with difficulty. The second challenge is to improve the official languages performance of the Canadian Forces. I got the impression that 80 per cent of the department's efforts were aimed at explaining why we were different, while only 20 per cent of our efforts were aimed towards improving our performance. I said those figures had to be inverted: no more than 20 per cent of our efforts should be aimed at explaining why we are different, while 80 per cent of our efforts should be aimed at improving our performance.

Obviously, the Canadian Forces is a major institution, and I am not talking about everyone. There are people who are extremely conscientious with respect to official languages, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is himself a French Canadian and gives me genuine support. We are establishing a team that is taking measures to improve performance, as I will explain in a moment.

¿ (0910)

[English]

So in addition to the attitude, the statistics reveal poor performance, and I'll give you three statistics. First, if we take the percentage of the bilingual positions that are filled by bilingual people, for the last five years starting in 1998 it has been 40%, 40%, 41%, 42%, 43% in 2002, versus 85% on the civilian side. That's not good.

Second, if we take the percentage of the senior personnel, colonels and above, who are bilingual as defined by CBC, they call it--meaning people who are judged to be bilingual--again over five years, it goes 41%, 42%, 41%, 41%, 43%.

Finally, if we look at people who are promoted from lieutenant-colonel to colonel, we only have the latest year for that, and it's 45%. So if you're very astute, you might detect an upward trend in those statistics, but a very, very slight upward trend, if any.

[Translation]

I would say that 40 or 45 per cent is not an acceptable performance level. When we have a problem, the first thing we have to do is recognize it. I myself am aware of the problem, and I tell you now that 40 per cent is not acceptable, particularly since we are achieving over 80 per cent on the civilian side.

[English]

The next question is what we are going to do about it. I'd like to set out for you five actions we will be taking to improve upon this rather poor level of performance that is the starting point.

First, in terms of the percentage of bilingual positions that are occupied by people who are bilingual, we will increase that percentage by five percentage points per year over the next three years. This will result in 1,000 more bilingual individuals occupying such posts.

Second, in terms of promotions from lieutenant-colonel to colonel, we will ensure that while today the number is 45%, it will go 50%, the following year 60% and the following year 70%, and we will seek to maintain it at that level. So that's a significant increase in each of the next three years.

Third, the Chief of the Defence Staff has already integrated linguistic capability in the performance management agreements with senior personnel. This will be part of the evaluation of the officers and there will be consequences for non-achievement on the linguistic front.

Fourth, a mandatory five-year evaluation of linguistic abilities will be, or has been, reintroduced. I'm not sure, but I believe it has been done in the past. It has not been done recently but it will be done in the future, again to make it clear that the department is serious on this front.

So those four points are new. The fifth one is not new, but it is important, so I will mention it. All of those graduating from RMC, Royal Military College, are required to be functionally bilingual at what's called the BBB level.

As a former professor, I'm used to B being better than C, but in this case C is better than B, so BBB is not as good as CBC, but it's not bad and it at least ensures a certain level of bilingualism for the younger, new officers coming in. Those who become new officers, not through RMC, will be expected to achieve the BBB level as well.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

I believe that these five measures are realistic and should lead to a significant improvement in the Canadian Forces' official languages performance.

[English]

Finally, Mr. Chair, I'd like to end with two questions.

First of all, why 70%; why not 100%? Why not just make it mandatory?

Second, why should you believe me? One can set goals and the goals might be missed, and given the lack of improvement in the past, a reasonable person might say, well, okay, that sounds nice, but where are the teeth? Why would you believe it, given the past record?

On the first question, Liberals like to think in terms of balance and équilibre and official languages and bilingualism are an important defining feature of the country, as I said at the beginning, but we have to recognize that other factors and forces are also at play.

There is an operational tempo issue; people are stressed and overworked. If one immediately raises the bar by a huge amount, then it is unfair to those currently in the system. So I think it is appropriate to have a more gradual increase in the level of bilingualism that is required. It gives people time to adapt, because as you know, you don't learn a language overnight.

So I think these are pretty tough targets. I think they are realistic targets, and they balance a number of forces, problems, and challenges facing the Canadian Forces today.

[Translation]

So is all this credible?

[English]

Only time will tell for sure. But I think I'd like to close by offering you three reasons you should at least think to yourself that this might work.

[Translation]

First of all, I think it is the first time a Minister of National Defence even admits there is a problem. The first step in solving a problem is to admit that it exists. That is what I am doing today.

Secondly, I have announced very specific targets, and figures will be published each year. The members of your committee and any others interested in this issue can determine each year whether the targets have been reached. So the process will be transparent.

Moreover, the targets I have listed are not only mine as minister, but also those of the military. They are the targets of the Chief of Staff, whose strategic plan has been officially approved and has been signed by himself and the deputy minister. The plan is now official policy. As we know, ministers come and go.

¿ (0920)

[English]

Minister's come, minister's go, that is correct. And no one knows, let alone ministers, exactly when they will come and when they will go.

So it's important to not just have a political person, a minister, saying this, but also within the department, within the military structure, within the bureaucratic structure, to have this institutionalized to give the people inside the system the strong impression that this is here to stay.

So a written--I think it is for the first time that we have this--official language strategic plan, an official policy signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Deputy Minister, lends a certain credibility or realism to the targets I have just announced.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Just when you were making the commitment to do better, you knocked over your glass of water. I could not help but draw the same conclusion as Mr. Ménard—it was good to see a Minister of Defence "get wet", as we say in French—get involved.

Colleagues, we only have time for one round, so I will keep everyone to five minutes. I can already tell you that we can arrange to invite the minister or his officials back in the fall, if you wish. This would give us more time with the minister. Today, he has to leave at 9:55 to go to a Cabinet meeting.

Mr. Reid, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Given the limits on time, I'll give you all of the questions that I have at once. Some of them you might be able to respond to immediately. Some might require that you send in some kind of written response to the committee.

I should explain that I'm drawing the questions largely from the ministerial committee on official languages in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and their report of November 13, 1992. A decade has now passed. It provides us with an opportunity to see whether or not some of the goals that were outlined in the report have been achieved.

One of the things they emphasized, and something I find myself in strong accord with, is the value that is served by having French-language units and English-language units within the military. It was a model that was advocated by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism for the entire public service, but only adopted within the military and only adopted partially within the military.

In their commentary on page 10 of the report, they point out that the major mechanism for allowing work in French is the French-language units. All internal and external communications of such units are to be in French. The objective in the plan is to have 60% of francophone members of the military serving in such units. They then go on to point out that the objective has been achieved in the land forces, or even overachieved by that point, but it has been substantially underachieved in the air force and the navy.

Today, what percentage of francophones serve in French-language units of each of the three services? By contrast, what percentage of anglophones today serve in English-language units?

They discussed the issue of translation. They mentioned that there were very high translation costs. On page 9 of the report, they mentioned that there was an enormous translation backlog, particularly for technical documentation.

They make the following statement: “The most telling problem was the translation backlog. In the navy, we heard that it would be 15 or more years before some courses could be offered completely in French due to the amount of material in the translation queue”. Of course, 11 of those 15 years have passed. I'd be interested in knowing whether or not this problem has been resolved, whether a different direction has been taken, and how things stand.

They did point out, with reference particularly to the situation in Bagotville, that perhaps simply translating everything was not the logical way of handling things. On page 13 of the report, they describe a situation in which “technicians, although working in French orally, refer to the English text even when the French and English texts were presented side by side on the same page”.They explained why this is done by pointing out that:

the technicians were clearly a happy, well motivated, and proud group of men and women. Did they feel terms in French should be substituted for English terms? The question elicited shocked looks. Did we have any idea how many terms one had to learn in a complex system like the CF-18? But we countered: what about the young technicians who have been taught terms in French? Would they not prefer to use and expand their French technical vocabulary?

They then gave the response that I've mentioned.

The suggestion was made, on page 27 of the report, that translations ought not to be automatic but should be given when there is actually a use for it in practice. I'd like to know what the stand is and how this has been dealt with.

Finally, I do have a question that you could perhaps answer orally. This relates to a comment that you made earlier regarding promotions. I jotted down your comment as you said it. You said that “there will be consequences for non-achievement on the linguistic front”.That's a bit ambiguous. Could you be specific in explaining what you mean by consequences? Do you mean an end to the promotion path? Do you mean that the consequence would be better linguistic training or more extensive linguistic training? Could you expand on that, please, Minister?

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

Hon. John McCallum: Thank you.

One consequence, if it is one, is that maybe it would affect one's level of remuneration. Ultimately, it may affect the nature of one's employment.

I would ask Major General Arp to explain in more detail how that works. I would also ask him to bear the brunt of your question on translation.

As I understand it, you have two questions. What is the state of the translation backlog? What is our policy on translation, in the sense of whether we translate everything or only a subset of the material?

Perhaps General Arp could handle those two questions very quickly.

Major-General Jan Arp (Chief of Staff - Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources - Military, Department of National Defence): We currently have four designations of units. There are English units and French units, as well as bilingual units and non-designated units. Non-designated units would be those that are perhaps in the United States of America. Certainly we encourage all the units to work in their language of choice.

With respect to the translation aspect, we do not have a backlog with respect to routine daily correspondence that we send out. As you've indicated, the technical manuals remain a problem. In some cases, we have indicated, and have found out from the technicians who use the books, that they much prefer to remain with the English text. It's what “civilian street” is using and what industry is using.

The pace of change of the manuals is so rapid that it cannot keep pace. There's actually a preference for that. Clearly, it does not apply to doctrinal manuals, military manuals, and the like that are translated in both languages. There is not a backlog, to my knowledge.

With respect to the number of courses that are conducted, 82% or so of the courses are in English.

[Translation]

About 15 per cent are in French, while 3 to 5 per cent are bilingual. Everyone has the opportunity to take courses in the language of his or her choice.

[English]

With respect to the consequences of not achieving the language profiles, it is in the performance measurement agreements. Therefore, every year when a supervisor sits down with a subordinate, he will counsel him on what he needs to do next with professional development. There will be monetary consequences as well that will be reflected in a merit board for military officers, where linguistic profiles have a significant part to play in the consideration of advancement to the next rank.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I have carefully read your department's Annual Management Report on Official Languages for the period of April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002. If I understand correctly, the report mentions language training and testing, and also mentions a Directorate of Official Languages. It appears that this directorate was established in 2002. Is this correct? Here is what the report states:

In January 2002, the Directorate of Official Languages became the departmental authority (DA) for language training and certification testing.

Does this mean that before 2002 the Canadian Forces had no mechanism to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act?

¿ (0930)

Hon. John McCallum: I am not familiar with the background to this.

Would you have an answer for Ms. Thibeault, General?

MGen Jan Arp: Not really, but we did have language training policies at the beginning of the official languages program. I am not certain which section of the report you are referring to.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I brought this up because the minister said a few moments ago that ministers come and go. So it is very important for the department to have a well-established structure to ensure that any efforts initiated are maintained over the years. I would be very interested in seeing this.

Do you have what is known as an official languages champion, as other departments do? This is a term that Ms. Adam likes to use.

Hon. John McCallum: I think there are two champions—the Chief of the Defence Staff and myself. But I don't know whether there are any others. I know there are people like MGen Arp dealing with the issue.

MGen Jan Arp: My boss, General Christian Couture, is the official languages champion for the armed forces. I believe this is different now. As the minister said, we have a strategic plan. In the past we had a great many policies, but we did not have an overall plan or an overarching policy.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: The research data we have been given shows there are good news stories. When we look at the number of complaints laid with the Official Languages Commissioner, in 1995 your department ranked eighth. In 1998, it ranked eighth as well. But in 1999-2000, it ranked twelfth, and then dropped quickly to sixteenth. Obviously, there is progress being made.

Now I have another question. Do the immediate family members of military personnel have access to services in the official language of their choice? The most obvious example would be access to health services.

Hon. John McCallum: With respect to health services, the family members of military personnel use the public health care system. So their access would depend on what the public health care system provides. Is this not so?

MGen Jan Arp: We also provide services to the military, such as family resource centres and similar services. We have increased our capacity there, but the figures are the same as they are for other services. There has been some improvement, but not as much as we would have liked. We have some way to go, and solutions are being addressed in the strategic plan.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you. That is all for now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Minister, ladies and gentlemen—thank you for being here today, but I must add that I am disappointed and surprised to hear you say that the good news is that you recognize the problem. It's like arriving at the scene of a fire, seeing all the ashes, and recognizing that there was a fire.

This is not exactly a major revelation. For the past 10, 15 and 20 years—forever, in fact—the figures at National Defence have stayed the same, and we can see just how bad they are. That is an observation, nothing more. If you are sincere in presenting concrete, targeted objectives, then you have the tools available to achieve them. In September or October, would you be prepared to make a minister's statement on the action plan you have established, the targets you have set, and the penalties that will be imposed on those who fail to meet those targets?

You say that you know how things are at National Defence, but your annual management plan mentions neither the targets nor the strategic plan. You have just announced it now in committee, but you don't mention it anywhere else. It will be nowhere except in the “blues”.

On March 31, Ms. Robillard presented a plan and made a minister's statement, and we have to recognize that she has followed through on it. There are of course deficiencies there, but we have to acknowledge that she is following through. Instead of just mentioning this here, are you ready to go further, in view of the Canadian Forces' appalling failure in the area of official languages?

On page 12 of your report, you state that 35 per cent of non-commissioned members meet the criteria for bilingualism, 46 per cent of military personnel at headquarters meet the criteria for bilingualism, and 41 per cent of military personnel meet the criteria for bilingualism. Every one of those figures falls below the 50 per cent threshold required to comply with the bilingualism standards.

At the Royal Military College, where your intentions are good, there has been a 6 per cent drop this year from last year. While Quebec's military college is being closed, there has been a 6 per cent drop in the number of personnel who meet bilingualism criteria at CFB Kingston. You say we are on the right track, but we are on a downward slope.

Among colonels and generals, who should be the model for others, only 41 per cent meet official languages criteria.

Minister, are you ready to go further than what you have said to us this morning? Are you prepared to make a minister's statement? Are you also prepared in the immediate future to no longer penalize—Ms. Thibeault talked about this—the families of members deployed to areas where there are no services available in their language? When you take members of the Canadian Forces from Quebec and send them to Moose Jaw, you create a problem. If I understood him correctly, General Arp said that French-language services were available to families in 40 per cent of Canadian Forces bases. This means that they are not available in 60 per cent of bases.

Why penalize francophones for deficiencies within National Defence? Are you prepared to consider an immediate halt to deployments of francophone personnel to areas where no French-language services are available? They could go voluntarily. This would be a short-term solution to help military personnel living under unacceptable circumstances. Moreover, the department should very quickly establish a concrete plan, since the official languages situation in your department is appalling.

¿ (0935)

Hon. John McCallum: It seems to me that some people are very difficult to satisfy. I was very frank and did say we have a problem. I have just announced four targets, and each year you will be able to check whether or not we are finishing what we have started.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But there was already a plan, which was not complied with. Why would we have greater faith in your statements?

The Chair: Please allow the minister to finish his answer.

Hon. John McCallum: I can try to answer your question.

I said not only that I had announced the targets, but that those targets had become institutional policy and have the support of the Chief of the Defence Staff. I have recognized there is a problem. That is the first step. I think we have made progress this morning.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Since it has become institutional policy, and since everyone has received it with enthusiasm, but since unfortunately it is not in your annual report, could you give us a copy of this plan, which should be dated earlier than June 2003, so that we can receive it with equal enthusiasm? I just have a suspicion that the statements you have made are ideas you came up with yesterday evening to present to us this morning.

Moreover, I know that a few years ago there was a comparative study of CFB Moose Jaw and CFB Bagotville. In Moose Jaw, there were no French-language services available for francophone military personnel and their families, be it education, psychological services, family services, cultural services or anything else. There were no services available for other aspects of day-to-day life, either—after all, there are non-military aspects to life as well. Could you provide us with the studies done on bases where only English-language services are available, though they are supposed to be provided in both official languages?

¿ (0940)

Hon. John McCallum: In terms of official policy, we try to be efficient, but it is not surprising you do not have the official document today. The new strategic plan I have just told you about was only approved by the deputy minister yesterday. We are fast, but not that fast. The strategic plan will be available in a few days or weeks.

The Chair: Will you send the committee clerk a copy?

Hon. John McCallum: Of course.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon. John McCallum: As for your question on families, if you want to write me a letter on the issue, I will make inquiries. I have no real answers to give you right now, unless the general has an answer for you.

The Chair: With all due respect, minister, a member of the committee has requested information on comparative studies done on services at military bases. Any information you send to Mr. Sauvageau should also be forwarded to the clerk.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): When you closed the Saint-Jean Military College, you promised the French-language families of military personnel that French-language services would be available at CFB Kingston. Were you able to provide those services—some would say it was all just lip service—in the area of education, for example? Primary and secondary education is under municipal and provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. Nonetheless, you must have come to agreements to ensure that primary and secondary schools would provide services to francophones in French. There was also supposed to be access to health care in French for families. Did you provide those services, and to what extent?

MGen Jan Arp: I live in Kingston, and have held a position there. Surprisingly, there are many French-language education services available there. There is a French-language secondary school, a small one with about 300 students. French-language education is available from the very beginning to the end of high school. On the base itself, there are also many services available in French. So this is not really a problem, except occasionally for some community services. From time to time, we have to provide translation or assistance to unilingual francophones.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Minister, how much is invested by your department each year to teach a second official language, either for military or civilian personnel?

Hon. John McCallum: I don't know the exact amount. Do you have those figures, Ms. Siegel?

Ms. Shirley Siegel (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources - Civilian, Department of National Defence): On the civilian side, training is provided by the Public Service Commission. I don't have the figures, but the department does offer part-time courses. We invest some $500,000 for part-time courses. The Public Service Commission handles training. Training is part of the PSC budget.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I see. Which budget?

MGen Jan Arp: I cannot provide the exact figures. However, each year, about $14 million are invested in translation. Language training for all military personnel costs about the same amount.

¿ (0945)

Hon. John McCallum: We will send those data for the civilian and the military side to the committee clerk.

The Chair: Minister, if you would be so good as to send the figures for a number of years, we will be able to determine whether any progress is clearly being made.

Hon. John McCallum: Yes, of course.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Minister, according to the Policy on the Language Requirements for Members of the Executive Group, which came into effect on 1 May, 1998, senior managers in the public service had to meet the language requirements for their positions—CBC—by March 31, 2003. The Department of National Defence must obviously comply with this policy. What happens to EX personnel at National Defence who do not meet the policy requirements?

Hon. John McCallum: This is something I mentioned in my remarks. Our performance in this area has not been satisfactory, and that is why I have announced targets for promotions from lieutenant-colonel to colonel, so that we can significantly improve our performance over the next few years, particularly in the next three years. I also mentioned that linguistic performance played a role in the remuneration scale, because such performance is now covered by the groups' performance management agreements. Part of the pay for EX groups is based on the agreement.

Oh, forgive me, were you talking about the civilian side?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, I was.

Hon. John McCallum: Then please forgive me. Today, we are focusing more on military issues. I did not understand the question. Perhaps Ms. Siegel can give you those details for the civilian side.

Ms. Shirley Siegel: On the civilian side, more than 100 out of the 111 EXs meet their position requirements. At present, the rest of the group is receiving language training. We have had great success with our program for EXs, and have managed to obtain training for the rest of the group.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to put my question another way.

The Chair: I am sorry, Mr. Bellemare, but I think you are out of time. Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions.

First of all, I greatly appreciate the efforts you are making. I think that we are moving in the right direction. I do have some concerns, however. I have friends in the military, and they tell me that the language of work outside the National Capital Region is generally English, except in Quebec I imagine.

In my area, in Winnipeg, for example, it's all very well to ensure that military school graduates meet the BBB linguistic criteria and to promote bilingual people, but if those bilingual people cannot work in the language of their choice, we still have a problem. I would like to know if you are doing anything to encourage the use of both languages outside the National Capital Region.

Secondly, I would like to talk about community interaction. I am from Saint-Boniface, and I know that interaction between the military community and minority language communities outside Quebec is not encouraged in any way. We have made very concrete efforts to forge links with military communities, but they had no interest in responding. Really all they do is use our French-language schools. I would like there to be a concrete effort made to improve the links between the military and local communities. I would like your comments on this.

Hon. John McCallum: I would like to comment on this, and the others may wish to add something. I fully agree with you that better links between the military community and the French-language community in Winnipeg, for example, would be a very good thing. Personally, I have been wondering about this and would like to do some follow-up. There could be a civilian side and a military side for the other aspects you mentioned.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Shirley Siegel: Not necessarily.

[English]

MGen Jan Arp: Allow me to begin by giving you a couple of examples of new programs where we have instituted greater cooperation. One is the reinvigoration of the military family resource centres. Through that community we're putting extra resources into making sure people can reach out and access services. That's become more and more popular and more and more utilized.

We're also reinvigorating our health care. Military health care was in demise for some time, and through a program called RX 2000, we're setting up health care units with case workers. Those case workers are actually seeking linkages through Veterans Affairs and the civilian community. I think over time we will see that happen.

We realize that we need to make some advances in that area.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Can you tell me what you're doing to encourage the utilization of both languages in places like Winnipeg, for instance?

[Translation]

MGen Jan Arp: That's not easy because it often depends on personalities, but we have described the policies used to promote the use of French in the strategic plan. So we will be reviewing the designation of French-language units and bilingual units.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Have you also devised any measurement tools to assess progress?

MGen Jan Arp: Yes, certainly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister.

I can see that you are admitting there are problems and you have set objectives. You are saying that you have a strategic plan that was co-signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister. That's all well and good, but you know how important it is to update the famous strategic plan and take that step from theory to practice, to reality.

Very often, when you want to implement that kind of plan, the attitudes within groups you are working with have to change. That's always the concern I feel when dealing with a matter like this one. Has any thought been given to working on people's attitudes, whether you are dealing with officers or other ranks, to make sure that this plan will be accepted and make your job easier? I would like to know whether concrete measures will be taken to ensure the implementation of this plan.

Hon. John McCallum: First a comment and then I will give the floor to the major general.

I think I was frank in my comments. I have seen certain attitudinal problems like those you have described. I think the difference is that our objectives are now different from what they were in the past amongst other things because in this document signed by the Chief of Defence Staff and the deputy minister there is the matter of permanent support and leadership from the department and the military. How are we going to convince everyone to focus on those objectives? In part, it's a matter of psychology.

Major General, are any efforts being made in that area?

MGen Jan Arp: The senior generals have discussed the strategic plan at the Armed Forces Council level and the members of the Defence Management Committee discussed it also. So all deputy ministers have discussed this plan and they also decided to include specific measures. I think they have shown the necessary leadership and commitment to do so.

[English]

Ms. Shirley Siegel: To reiterate, there are specific measures. There's a specific office of principal interest that's required in the strategic plan so that the activities

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

are properly identified. There are specific measures and an accountable person.

[English]

I mean, we have a very clear document in that plan that will allow us to follow our progress and to identify through the years whether and where we're making progress and what needs to be improved.

[Translation]

It's very specific.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Fine. All these beautiful people met and came up with a plan. Is there any evidence that the plan is meant to be implemented? The theory is very nice but will people, in practice, accept to implement it? I have a concern on that. Have you managed to measure that? I think it's important to measure this to be able to follow up.

Hon. John McCallum: The document was signed last night. It's a bit early to make any judgment call about its implementation. But we do have a framework; it affects people's pay and that is something concrete. It's been accepted by all the different levels concerned. We can't tell, one day after the document has been signed, if it's a success. But I think it's more realistic and more serious than in the past.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Minister, I agree that the plan does exist but we now need a strategy to make sure it will be implemented. I will stop things right here. I don't need an answer. I just want you to be conscious of the fact that we need a strategy in order to implement the plan. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you indeed.

[English]

Mr. Minister, I had a stream of questions I wanted to ask on how people progress through the ranks, and through training and so forth. Your testimony causes me to put that one aside for the time being.

I want to revisit this notion of a plan, a strategic plan that was signed on to last night, I gather. When was this plan developed?

Hon. John McCallum: Knowing the military, it has probably been under development for some time, but I can't tell you exactly its genesis.

MGen Jan Arp: Neither can I, since I'm fairly new to the job. My understanding is this has been under development for at least the last six months and was endorsed by the Defence Management Committee about a month ago.

Hon. John McCallum: Almost exactly one year, I am told, it has been under way.

The Chair: That's about the first time Mr. Sauvageau suggested that we call the department in front of this committee. There is a coincidence here that is interesting. That it would be approved last night when you're appearing today is, I'm sure, pure coincidence.

Hon. John McCallum: Well, it's consistent with my determination to get moving on this file. As for whether it's pure coincidence or not, I can't speak to that.

The Chair: Minister, I respect your desire to get moving on this file.

I wish to pick up on Mr. Sauvageau's questions. Are you prepared to make this a public statement, a ministerial statement that, indeed, the defence department having a strategic plan approved last night, the Chief of the Defence Staff is now moving forward in these areas? Will you put that out there as an official ministerial statement on behalf of the Department of National Defence? We haven't seen anything in writing; that's why I ask.

Hon. John McCallum: I thought this was an official statement I was making today, in the sense that it's recorded and perhaps even televised.

The Chair: I'd invite you to make it in the House.

Hon. John McCallum: If you are suggesting that I do something more formal, then I will certainly think about that. What I say today I believe. I think we need the concrete targets I've announced. We need the plan. We're serious about it. If a more official statement by me would help that process along, I'd be happy to do it.

The Chair: I believe it might, and I would encourage you to consider the House as an appropriate forum in which to do that.

The other question I wish to raise at this time is based on my understanding that the Department of National Defence was not included by the cabinet in August 1994 when cabinet determined 26 or 27 departments and agencies had to prepare an annual plan for the implementation of official languages in their departments. Is that information correct, that you're not on that list?

Hon. John McCallum: I wasn't around in those days, so I don't know, but we can find out the answer to that question.

The Chair: I believe it is correct. Would the department on its own ask to be added to that list? That group of agencies and departments chosen by the cabinet in the summer of 1994--it was announced in August 1994--reflects a good cross-section of the important departments to Canadians. I would imagine that National Defence is as important as any other department to Canadians. It would be an interesting change if it were a department that asked to be included.

The advantage of being on this list is that it kicks in a series of mechanisms to provide help in elaborating a plan, and there are also agencies--be it the official languages commissioner, the Department of Canadian Heritage, or the Treasury Board--that have mechanisms to follow up. So when you say you have these targets for the next number of years, as a committee, we have limited resources. You'll understand that. But the government, through Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage, and the House, through the official languages commissioner--because she is an agent of Parliament--have many more resources and mechanisms and abilities with which to follow up.

And I would ask you point-blank a question--because I didn't expect to be told it was a plan--would you as minister, understanding the attitude you described in your initial remarks, be willing to go forward and ask that cabinet include National Defence in that list of departments and agencies?

À (1000)

Hon. John McCallum: Well, I think this is an excellent idea. I think the monitoring over a period of years, and the knowledge individuals have today that this will be followed through and monitored over the years, is critical. And this committee may or may not be around. I may or may not be around as a minister. Who knows? Anything that will institutionalize the monitoring is welcome to me.

I'll have to find out what all this is about, but the idea has a lot of appeal to me and I will look into it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, Minister, you said you had to leave for a cabinet meeting.

Hon. John McCallum: Yes.

The Chair: Colleagues, we've done the first round.

If your associates, Minister, wish to stay, Ms. Gallant has joined the committee and wishes to have a chance to ask questions.

Hon. John McCallum: So if you'll excuse me...?

The Chair: Will your colleagues, your associates, stay so Ms. Gallant will be able to ask questions?

Hon. John McCallum: Yes, they are able to stay.

The Chair: You'll be coming back in the fall.

Thank you.

Hon. John McCallum: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, had you asked for the floor?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. I don't know if Mr. Arp is going to want to be heard on this. In view of the scope of the problems found in the whole area of official languages, according to your action plan, will the official languages situation in certain bases be taken into consideration before military personnel and their families are transferred? Will it just be a matter of witnessing a situation or are concrete things going to be done? For example, take the case of someone in the military whose wife and children are unilingual francophones. If he's posted to Moose Jaw where there are no medical, educational, psychological or community services in French, will he be able to refuse this transfer without prejudice, as you have acknowledged the scope of the problem?

MGen Jan Arp: Mr. Chairman, many factors come into play in transfers when you have to fill positions in Moose Jaw, for example. It's a matter of experience, training and many other things and language is an important element. If it is possible to post people who wish to be transferred and who are in a position to do the job, then that's what we do. From time to time, we do have constraints and it becomes a problem but some policies may allow the military person to leave his family back in Quebec City or Ottawa and fill the position for a year or two.

À (1005)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You've answered everything except my question. I'll try to be more specific. At National Defence, because of the non-imperative staffing policy, in over 50 per cent of all cases you can fill a bilingual position with a unilingual anglophone. According to your statistics, this person, year after year, can pursue a full career in that manner.

I'd like to know if you would show the same open-mindedness for a unilingual francophone refusing a posting for strictly linguistic reasons. In the spirit of a similar display of open-mindedness, would it be possible for that person and his family to expect not to be penalized for that refusal? Is my question clear enough?

MGen Jan Arp: There is no policy in that respect.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know there is none and there's a simple reason for that: it is only last night, at 9:15 p.m., that you came to realize the scope of the problem. In view of that situation, could you tell us this morning that this policy will come into existence? It seems to me the question is not that hard to understand.

The Chair: You will agree that this is a question Mr. Arp cannot answer. In such a case, the minister's cooperation is needed.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.

Do put the question to the minister for me, if you don't mind. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Does anyone else want to enter the fray?

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Could someone tell me something about the language situation in the reserves?

MGen Jan Arp: The army's reserves are scattered all across Canada. There aren't really any transfers for members of the reserves except for those who have chosen to serve for a year or two with NATO. They normally replace members from the regular forces. It depends on the region and we don't have any statistics on the number of people who are really bilingual, anglophone or francophone.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Fine.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, by virtue of a Treasury Board decision, as of 31 March 2003, senior officials in a position with a bilingual designation who have not met the bilingualism requirements will have to be transferred and replaced by others.

On the military side, not on the civilian side, I imagine there are a certain number of lieutenant-colonels and colonels sitting in bilingual positions who don't fulfill the bilingualism requirements. Do you know how many positions are designated as bilingual and how many senior officers meet the requirements?

MGen Jan Arp: Yes, those figures are in the report. I don't have them here, but we can send them to the clerk.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I understand it's impossible for you to have all those figures off the top of your head, here, this morning. However, I'd like to know if your policy will be the same as Treasury Board's policy. For example, if Colonel so-and-so, in a designated bilingual position does not meet the bilingual requirements, are you going to keep him or send him elsewhere and replace him with someone who meets the requirements?

MGen Jan Arp: In my opinion, the military are different from civilian employees because their positions require they meet requirements not only for bilingualism but also as concerns professional and academic training.

In fact, we're not talking about a specific requirement of the minister here, but he does want to increase the percentage of colonels and lieutenant-colonels able to express themselves in both languages.

À (1010)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In the departments, people who do not meet the requirements will be moved elsewhere. Now what you're saying seems to indicate that on the military side, you'll be keeping those who don't meet the requirements in their positions.

MGen Jan Arp: Our approach is to increase their capacity to speak the other language.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: By sending them off on courses. But if they don't meet the requirements, one might wonder how long this situation has lasted. For example, it is possible that a lieutenant-colonel who has been in this position for one, two, five or six years has no interest in becoming bilingual if he's three years away from retirement. So that affects the linguistic situation in his section.

MGen Jan Arp: In this strategic plan we've discussed, there are ways to evaluate the progress of colonels; that is part of their annual performance evaluation and has an impact on their salary and career. However, that impact is not immediate. In the Canadian Forces, it is impossible not to fill a position because we must carry on with operations and training.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is the salary of a unilingual lieutenant-colonel? What is his salary if he is bilingual and occupying a designated bilingual position?

MGen Jan Arp: The salaries are exactly the same. There is no increase due to bilingualism .

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But you mentioned that his salary would be affected if he did not meet the requirements.

MGen Jan Arp: For colonels and generals, we have an agreement on the management of performance. That document determines the annual bonus linked to at-risk remuneration. Those conditions do not affect lieutenant-colonels.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It can affect the amount of the bonus.

MGen Jan Arp: Exactly.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Chair: Any further questions?

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As a matter of information, Mr. Bellemare and Mr. Arp, on page 17, in response to Ms. Robillard's policy, it states:

Of the 16 EX employees that have not attained the CBC level at 31 March, one will leave the public service in October 2003 and the remaining 15 will need language training.

Of the 15 EXs needing second language training, nine have established a training plan that is to begin in a few months. The other six are in the process of or must establish a training plan.

In other words, Ms. Robillard is telling us that as of 31 March, there will be no further loopholes and that at that date, those who are not already taking language training won't be able to anymore. Now, according to National Defence, 15 EXs are going to be on language training in a few months and the other six will soon decide whether they're going to be going in a few months.

National Defence sent that plan to Ms. Robillard who, in the press release she put out two or three days ago, told us that at National Defence only six EXs are not respecting the 31 March deadline. Now, that is an erroneous statement as not six but 15 EXs are involved. So, we thus may now question all the other figures in the table.

For your information, Mr. Arp, there are 15 employees who have not respected Ms. Robillard's policy and they are now on language training, and that is something Ms. Robillard said she wanted to prohibit.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Do allow me a correction: it is not Ms. Robillard's policy, it is the government's.

Did you have something to add, Ms. Siegel?

[English]

Ms. Shirley Siegel: We have very few people who are on language training at this point. The figures you have, in terms of 15, were perhaps at a given point in time. I'm not sure when Madame Robillard appeared in front of the committee, but certainly on March 31 our progress was much better. We have a very limited number--four to be exact--who are on language training, and we've had much success with our executive group.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.

As Ms. Robillard and the government have asked each one of the departments not meeting that deadline to come back with an action plan, you have surely given such an action plan to Treasury Board for those 16 employees. Through the clerk, could you send the committee a copy of National Defence's action plan? It is a government obligation that you have respected, I am quite sure of that. Could you send a copy to the members of the committee through the clerk, if you please? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

I want, perhaps in closing remarks here, to read three excerpts from a document, which I'll then identify. I'm quoting here:

First, I would observe that the fundamental principle which guides our program is to develop an institutionally bilingual Department, where members from both of Canada's official language backgrounds can have a rewarding career. We have a firm commitment to that principle; we have had such a commitment for the 20 years the program has been in existence, and it remains our continuing objective.

That's the end of first quote, and here's the second:

It is particularly important that we should do this at this time.... We are coming to the end of an ambitious 15-year program...to increase bilingualism and biculturalism in the Canadian Forces. This complex program affected every aspect of military life, from the Forces' structure to the recruiting, training, employment and retention of francophones, and the bilingual requirements necessary to provide services to our personnel and military dependents, as well as a number of other activities.

And here's the third:

There is no doubt that despite our commitment to the goals of the official languages policy, we still have some way to go in meeting all of those goals. But our determination to do so remains firm. We are placing our emphasis and our resources where we think they will achieve the most success: in the young members of the forces, and in the technical documentation, which will see the most use in the future.

These three quotes are from Mr. Dewar, who was Deputy Minister of National Defence when he testified before the official languages joint committee in May 1987. I want to thank our researcher for having dug this up. I think it shows, if I may say--and this is not a reflection on you individually--pretty badly on the whole department.

[Translation]

I dare hope that the minister and the Chief of Staff's initiatives approved last night will mean that greater attention will be focused on the responsibilities we have under the Canadian Constitution, the law of the land and government policies. I think that of all the departments and agencies who appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages this year and in previous years, the Department of National Defence is probably the one where the situation is the most lacklustre. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to get to work because your resolve has not borne fruit in the past.

On that, I thank you and do hope we will soon be getting the information we asked for in order to be able to prepare for a next meeting which will certainly happen before many more years have passed. Thank you.

Colleagues, perhaps we might take a minute to discuss tomorrow's meeting. The group Quebec Community Groups Network, QCGN, was to appear to discuss health issues. Its president was hospitalized. I will send him the best wishes of this committee. This may cause some uncertainty, which I am flagging at this point.

Second, a preliminary and confidential report on television production was distributed to you as a draft. With everything going on right now in the House, it is becoming clearer and clearer that we might not sit next week. If we want to table this report, we have to concur in it tomorrow. It is as simple as that. As we do not have the quorum we need to pass it today, it must be done tomorrow. So, we have to make one last little effort to adopt it tomorrow if possible.

Mr. Sauvageau.

À (1020)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Two questions. The first has to do with the report; it is just a bit of clarification. In one of the recommendations we are asking that 10 per cent of the envelope...

The Chair: We are not in camera right now. Whatever concerns the report must be discussed in camera.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are absolutely right. I will speak to Mr. Marion Ménard after the meeting.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As we are not in camera, I would like to know if you have any information concerning our travelling to the francophone communities to go on-site to see what is going on, to get a feeling for what is happening in the area of health.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, about a week and a half ago you raised the matter that, according to your information, there was opposition to the committee by the House leaders of the different parties. I managed to confirm that there was opposition. At that point you said it came from the Alliance. That remains to be determined, but in the light of all the information I have received I do think it to be the case.

I find it totally unfortunate that we cannot travel because one party is opposed to this. The Standing Committee on Official Languages has never travelled since it was set up. I find this absolutely deplorable, and I will consult you individually to see how we can go about doing our work. We have a mandate from the House to accomplish certain things; we are being blocked by one party and I find that deplorable.

I hope you will examine other alternatives. I am going to throw one out publicly. Perhaps we could think of sitting here during the break and simply have all our witnesses come here. I think it is rather important for us to do our work as the House requested us to do it. I find it totally unacceptable to have one party, the Alliance, oppose it. Thank you.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with you that we could have meetings here this summer. I am ready to be here—I do not live very far away—but the Alliance representative is never here when we are sitting.

The Chair: In any case, Mr. Bellemare, I will consult everyone. There are obstacles to be overcome, but I think the will is there to do our work and we will find the means to do it. Thank you and until tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.