Strategic planning

Each year, the CF undertakes a strategic analysis process to define its human resources needs for the upcoming years. Each environment reviews its operational needs within the framework of the Annual Military Occupational Review (AMOR). This review is based on the Military Occupational Structure (MOS) as defined by the directives of the CMP. This structure includes the breakdown of the various occupational categories of the Regular Force, including each group and sub-group. The MOS also provides framework to produce occupational specifications as well as job and training requirements for each group and sub-group identified in this structure. The CF is in the process of reviewing these specifications. More than 1,200 of the 6,000 required specifications had been reviewed at the time of the audit.

The AMOR exercise results in production and strategic intake plans. In short, these plans define the internal (internal movement of staff) and external (recruitment) production sources required to meet operational needs. These plans span many years and their success depends on internal training capacity, attrition, early retirements and the success or lack of recruitment efforts. For some functions, second-language training must also be taken into consideration, which could delay assignments to specific fields for certain CF members after their basic training. We were informed that only lawyers currently fall within this category, given the requirement that they be bilingual from the outset of their assignments.

With regard to official languages, the process used to forecast human resources requirements as well as the resulting production documents do not take into account the language designation of the various CF units. For example, it may be foreseen that 250 new resource management systems (RMS) clerks will be needed over the next few years to meet demand; but this forecast will not take into account how many will be required to meet the linguistic needs of the various CF units. Such information, if it were available, would enable the CF to determine whether the linguistic capacity would suffice to meet identified needs. Put another way, if a shortfall were identified, the CF would have an idea of the weight it would be placing on the language training system.

It is with this in mind that the proposal put forward by the Director of Official Languages (DOL) for the 2009–2010 process should be understood. While waiting for the language designation of military functions to be completed, the DOL proposes that an interim measure be taken in the AMOR process that consists of quantifying second official language education and training (SOLET) needs. The following statement can be read in the DOL’s October 8, 2008, directive addressed to the AMOR chairs:

"[…] AMOR chairpersons are requested to consider what occupational positions/jobs require second official language capability and, as an estimate, identify how many members of the occupation(s) under review may be available for SOLET in order to satisfy this requirement."

We support this initiative, as it integrates into the AMOR process a language component, and a component of this type is required to plan the official languages needs in various occupations. That said, this component must be integrated on a permanent basis.

Operational planning

To commence our analysis of operational planning, we will make a link to the AMOR process described in the previous section. Once the CMP makes the decisions related to recruitment and expected internal production, each environment must undertake the necessary steps to ensure it produces a sufficient number of individuals with the capabilities to meet the identified requirement. It is at this point that the IT&E authorities of each environment, in cooperation with the training establishments involved, produce the specific IT&E plans for each institution for the upcoming year. It is also at this stage that, for the first time in the process, the issue of offering courses in one or both official languages comes into play. We have noted that these IT&E plans reflect mainly the capacity of the training establishments to deliver courses.

From the point of view of the requirements of the Official Languages Act this approach poses some problems. First, there is no assurance that the number of courses offered will meet the demand—even less so for courses in French. Simply put, the number of training courses is limited greatly by the number of available resources. This reality is further exacerbated by the application of minimum loading levels for pedagogical reasons for certain courses. For instance, if, to deliver a course in English or French, a minimum number of students is required, and this number is not reached, the course might not be given.

For courses offered in French this is more of a problem as there are fewer enrolments. As a result, training establishments either offer courses solely in English or adopt an administrative measure known as Language Assist to offset the demand. Language Assist is applied most often when training is given in English to French-speaking students. The students are given technical assistance in French to help them understand the concepts. Language Assist usually consists of a Francophone instructor assigned to a Francophone student to provide explanations in French as required, or of documentation in French for the student to help with his or her understanding. In the training establishments we visited, we estimated that 50% of the courses offered fell into this category. Furthermore, in discussions with students to see whether they actually received language assistance when the course was given in their second language, a quarter of Francophone students indicated that, in fact, they did not receive this kind of support.

Second, the loading approach described above makes it difficult to synchronize the schedules of training establishments with the arrival of graduates every 13–15 weeks from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. By establishing training schedules at the beginning of the year, as is the current practice, there is a risk that training will be delayed for candidates that arrive after courses have commenced. This situation arises frequently and is of considerable concern to various training authorities and establishments. This is especially an issue for courses that are long or offered only once a year. Indeed, our research revealed that many students are affected. In September 2008, there were more than 900 personnel awaiting training (PAT) from all environments. In Borden, in the Post Recruit Education and Training Centre (PRETC), where over 650 of these candidates were posted, more than one-third were Francophones.

In most cases (62%), Anglophone and Francophone candidates awaiting training in their respective occupations were assigned to various projects at several bases throughout the country to gain on-the-job experience. A few (11%) were awaiting a disposition of some sort, such as a medical release. But close to one-third (27%) were waiting on-site for their courses to begin. While a CMP directive stipulates that the waiting period should not last more than 90 days, we noticed during our visits that some candidates were at the PRETC for longer periods. Figures dated February 10, 2009, indicate that 31% of PRETC candidates had been there for more than a year. During our visit to this centre, we were told that Francophones did not have longer waiting periods than Anglophones did. We were also told that the CF dropout rate during the waiting period at PRETC was similar for both language groups. However, there were no statistical data available to support these statements.

The officers responsible for PAT at the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Borden, as well as many candidates themselves, mentioned several times that during these waiting periods it would be beneficial to have access to second-language learning via distance education or by CD-ROM. This would permit members of both linguistic groups to improve their second-language skills. We agree with this suggestion and believe the idea should be pursued. In fact, the Canadian Forces Language School now makes available second-language training using remote access through its Autonomous Language Learning in Interaction with Elements in Synergy (ALLIES) program using the Defence Area Wide Network.

To return to the issue of operational planning, we believe the primary issue is that the main focus is on the training establishment’s capacity to deliver training. To fix this, a planning process would need to be established based more on demand and less on an institution’s capacity to offer training. It should be possible, in our view, to anticipate training needs in the various job categories and better synchronize course delivery, thereby improving the effectiveness of IT&E.

Shortage of instructors

To ensure the success of the planning process proposed in Recommendation 2, the human and financial resources to meet the training demand must be found. Our visits revealed that commandants of most training establishments were concerned about this issue. In 90% of the training establishments we visited, the commandants indicated a general shortage of instructors. A high number (83%) of training establishments raised concerns about a lack of instructors capable of working in both official languages. We also noticed that, in most of these establishments (80%), it was the Francophone instructors who were bilingual and capable of working in both official languages. These findings corroborated numerous comments from instructors and commandants that the delivery of training in the members’ official language of choice depends on the ability of Francophone instructors to teach in both languages. We were informed that Francophone instructors were either teaching exclusively in one language or teaching in French and English to meet demand, whereas Anglophone instructors taught only in English. In our interviews, some Francophone instructors expressed their concern about having to continue as instructors to the detriment of their operational experience and, ultimately, their promotion opportunities.

Two issues need to be addressed with regard to the shortage of instructors. The first is the staffing priority level granted to training establishments to fill these functions. The staffing level of instructors is currently ranked as priority 3. There are six staffing priority levels. The first is reserved for deployed forces, commitments outside Canada and selected high-readiness units. The second covers critical sustaining and change activities such as recruiting centres and major projects to enhance future operational effectiveness. The third includes education, training and career management. The fourth touches on operational units and the fifth on support to reserves. All other positions are priority 6.

Based on information obtained during the audit, at least 96% of manning is achieved for level 3 priority, 98% for level 2 and 100% for level 1. As for level 6 priority, staffing is at only 85%. We understand that the first three levels are of the utmost importance to the CF and every effort is made to achieve 100% staffing. However, this is not always possible. We maintain that the additional capacity with respect to instructors in training establishments would allow these establishments to more effectively meet their responsibility with regard to language of training in the student’s official language of choice. This would be particularly beneficial for training establishments identified as centres of excellence in their field. These training establishments have additional responsibilities with regard to the identification and distribution of technical vocabulary in both official languages and the sharing of best practices. We noticed that the Army was particularly interested in this issue. In January 2007, it distributed a document entitled Centres of Excellence for the Canadian Forces and the Land Force for discussion.

The second issue with respect to the shortage of linguistically qualified instructors is the appearance that Francophone instructors do more than their share of working in their second language. This has been the case for a long time. In fact, in 1989, a previous commissioner mentioned this in his special investigation report entitled The Language of Occupational Training in the Canadian Forces (see pages 15–19). It is time that the CF deal with the perception of lack of fairness affecting Francophone instructors who are seen to be burdened with most of the responsibility of delivering training in members’ official language of choice. There should be a sufficient number of instructors from both language groups to ensure a fair distribution of the workload.

IT&E management framework

The Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD 5031-2) entitled IT&E Management Framework currently under review by the CDA describes in detail the responsibilities and accountabilities of the various stakeholders with regard to IT&E. We analyzed two versions, one dated October 22, 2007, and the other July 28, 2008. Both documents contain the definition of terms related to IT&E, the broad principles of governance and operations, and a table detailing the responsibilities of each person involved in the process. For example, we discovered that each environment is responsible for implementing IT&E in its areas of responsibility. We also learned that the CMP is responsible for overall coordination and that the CDA is responsible for developing, coordinating and implementing IT&E programs, including leadership programs and various IT&E policies, throughout the CF. The CDA is also responsible for common training programs for the various environments as well as professional development programs within the CF. However, only in the first version of this order is the DOL’s responsibilities with regard to language of training specified in the table of responsibilities.

These responsibilities include developing, promulgating and updating policies for language of training with regard to IT&E, and for order DAOD 5039-2 concerning language of instruction, which is also currently under review. There is no reference to the DOL or the order about language of training in the most recent version of DAOD 5031-2. Furthermore, there are no references in either of the two versions of DAOD 5031-2 to the fact that language of training is an essential factor in the success of IT&E in the CF.

Therefore, official languages are not expressly integrated into the IT&E management framework. However, there are many places where references to official languages could be incorporated. First, in the section describing the operating principles, the issue of official languages could be added when referring to the considerations that ensure effective implementation of IT&E. Second, in the section about the outcomes to be achieved, training in the student’s official language of choice could be added as one of the expected outcomes. Next, in the section about performance measurement, official languages could be added as an additional element to be measured. Finally, in the table detailing the responsibilities of IT&E functional authorities in the various services, the responsibility of ensuring the delivery of language training in both official languages could be referenced in the implementation of IT&E.

The two versions of the order we analyzed also refer to the governance committees for all professional development and IT&E activities within the CF: the CF Professional Development Council and the IT&E Committee. The Council consists of the CMP and his counterparts in the various environments, including the Commandant of the CDA. This committee works at the strategic level by providing broad directions for professional development. The IT&E Committee focuses mainly on coordinating and implementing IT&E and consists of those responsible for IT&E in the various environments, including the CDA. When reviewing the terms of reference for the IT&E Committee, it was noted that it focuses on the IT&E management framework, IT&E coordination throughout the CF and the synchronization and integration of IT&E in keeping with the other CF programs. Moreover, this committee manages professional development programs and ensures that IT&E meets the needs of an integrated and unified CF.

However, as is the case with the latest version of the IT&E DAOD, the terms of reference do not mention official languages. Moreover, the DOL does not participate as a full member of the Committee and does not have observer status. However, it was mentioned during our interviews that, if the DOL wished to discuss an issue related to official languages with the members of the Committee, he could be invited as a guest.

In terms of official languages, this situation is of concern. It is clear that the notion of delivering IT&E in the student’s official language of choice is not an issue either in the policy or in the governance structure for IT&E, notwithstanding the fact that we have identified many areas where official languages could be integrated both into the policy and into the IT&E Committee. This issue needs attention since one of the responsibilities of the IT&E Committee is to ensure that IT&E activities meet the needs of an integrated and unified workforce.

Responsibilities of official languages coordinators

On many occasions, we broached with various individuals the issue of their respective roles and responsibilities in the field as well as the integration of official languages into IT&E-related practices. Through these discussions, we were able to verify that, generally, official languages are perceived as part of administrative management and not as an integrated component of IT&E. The coordinators of official languages on-site at the various bases and training establishments are mainly responsible for administrative matters pertaining to language of service and language of work. Questions pertaining to IT&E often are not within their purview.

However, during our visits to CFB Borden, we witnessed first hand how the intervention of a senior officer responsible for official languages, including language of training, had a positive impact on individuals faced with serious problems relating to language of training. It also reinforced the fact that language of training in one’s official language of choice is a full-fledged component of language of work. Furthermore, the fact that these responsibilities are assigned to a senior officer increases the opportunities for intervention at higher levels.

Other governance issues were raised during our visits that affect the CF’s capacity to ensure delivery of training in the official language of choice of military members. These issues include, among others, translation of the various teaching materials, the impact English has as an operational requirement on the language of training and the teaching method used by most training establishments when delivering courses. We will discuss each of these issues in the following sections.

Translation of teaching material

The availability of pedagogical material in both official languages is essential to achieve the CF’s linguistic objectives with regard to IT&E. However, during our visits we noticed that the translation issue was at the heart of the problems experienced by training establishments when it came to meeting their linguistic responsibility towards Francophone students. Indeed, our interviews revealed that every training establishment had translation-related problems. On the one hand, there were long turnaround times for documents sent out for translation (usually from 10 to 12 months) and, on the other hand, we were told that in most cases the texts had to be revised to ensure that the terminology met CF requirements and was understood by all in a consistent manner. Most of these texts were related to classroom instruction (e.g. training and lesson plans with regard to the courses offered, supporting documentation such as manuals, audiovisual presentations and reference documents).

Our interviews with representatives of the Translation Bureau (Public Works and Government Services Canada) revealed that translation costs are substantial within the CF. Translation costs for the first 10 months of 2008–2009 amounted to approximately $12 million for National Defence. Moreover, the Translation Bureau informed us that the CF meets only about two-thirds of its translation needs. We were also told that it could be difficult in the future to meet demand as there is a shortage of translators in Canada. This means that the total current translation capacity has reached its limit for the foreseeable future.

Given that the majority of work in training establishments is done in English, translation is often not planned until the end of the writing process, if at all. Therefore, it is often too late to ensure reasonable turnaround times. We noticed that some training establishments faced with this problem would sometimes delay the delivery of modified or updated courses for Francophones. This was the case in eight training establishments in the process of reviewing their course curriculum. In these instances, Francophones received what is known as legacy training (i.e. courses that had not been updated) while Anglophones had access sooner to courses that had been modified to reflect changes in technology and changing use of equipment. At one particular training establishment in Borden, school officials and the senior officer for official languages had discussed this issue of unfairness. From our perspective, legacy training is not acceptable.

However, we believe that solutions are possible for the translation problem. Clearly, translation should be better integrated into the planning process from the beginning when document production and needs are identified. Similarly, setting priorities for the translation of some types of documents could be better thought out. Perhaps more importantly, the work paradigm that drives the preparation of new documents at training establishments should be reviewed. In most cases, where documents are produced on-site, it would be advantageous to consider producing them in both official languages from the very beginning. This approach would offer the advantage of significantly reducing turnaround times for producing documents in both official languages and would also guarantee the use of terminology that meets the CF’s needs. We have already suggested this approach to some training establishments and one of them said that it would be willing to try it. However, most establishments mentioned that it would be difficult to proceed this way due to a lack of human resources available to work in French and also because of the additional time it would take to produce these documents simultaneously in both official languages. We disagree with this last argument, since the time and money saved on translating the documents would largely offset the additional time spent writing them.

When we discussed this issue with Translation Bureau representatives they were open to participating, where possible, in simultaneous production in both official languages at the various training establishments.

Impact of operational requirements on language of training

As indicated earlier, a recurring theme of our visit was the impact that operational requirements have on language of training. Indeed, this issue was raised in one way or another in the majority of training establishments (58%). It was often raised by the Navy and Air Force, but also by the Land Force, although less often. We heard the argument that, in some fields, particularly in the Navy and Air Force, the operational language is English and therefore it is more efficient and safer to train Francophone members in English while making sure that they have sufficient knowledge of the English language before they take a course. These arguments were mostly made for aircraft crews, air traffic controllers, and operations and communications officers on ships. Nevertheless, we did take note of some views that more training in the candidate’s official language of choice should be possible.

In other situations, where maintenance and user guides were available only in English, we were told once again that it is more efficient and safer to train candidates in English. For the most part, these arguments affected aircraft maintenance crews (who also said that it is necessary to communicate with the pilot in English to ensure better operational safety) and the more technical and specialized jobs in the Navy, such as sonar operators. We also encountered this argument in the land force, where we were told that English comprehension is essential in fields dealing with communications and signals, as well as explosives and the transportation of dangerous goods.

The teaching method

There is another problem that has an impact on the capacity of training establishments to offer courses in students’ official language of choice: the teaching method. In most cases, the preferred approach is to have a military instructor present the material in a classroom setting. This approach puts a lot of pressure on already limited military human resources. However, it does offer the advantage of putting instructors, who are often returning from an operational experience, in contact with students. Instructors returning from deployment can use real-life scenarios to support their teaching and have a great deal to share with students.

During our visits we noticed that each environment was experimenting in its own fields with alternative methods of delivering courses. We noticed that considerable effort was being made to offer distance learning for some courses, supported by existing technology or simulators. We also noted the use of community colleges, and, in some cases, training establishments offered training contracts to the private sector. However, we found these initiatives localized and poorly shared among environments. We know that the CDA is compiling a list of the work being carried out currently in the environments related to alternate methods of teaching.

We also noticed during our visits that when developing most of these alternative approaches, such as distance learning, official languages needs were usually taken into consideration from the initial stages of course development and preparation. This was the case, for example, for an interesting project with respect to professional development in the Air Force entitled Air Force Officer Professional Development Program.

It is evident that the CF is aware of the need to develop varied approaches to course delivery. In fact, this is a major initiative of the CDA at the moment. The program entitled IT&E Modernization accepts as a given that approaches must be adjusted when military resources for delivering courses are increasingly scarce, where candidates’ expectations are changing with respect to technology and where efforts should be focused on students and their needs—not on traditional course delivery practices. However, a presentation from the CDA on this program did not cover in its anticipated results the positive impact of such initiatives on the language of training.

Therefore, with regard to official languages, a strategy is required based on identified needs and not on supply. This strategy should focus on establishing beforehand the appropriate teaching approach for each occupation. For example, in the case of the previously mentioned RMS Clerk, it would be necessary, in our view, to establish beforehand and to regularly review for this job category the best combination of approaches to achieve the best possible results and meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act. For instance, a combination of distance learning and the use of community resources and classroom work through a combination of military and civilian personnel might be the best approach to guarantee quality learning and ensure that the rights of individuals wanting to learn in their official language of preference are respected.

Given the responsibilities of the CDA with regard to IT&E modernization, we believe that the CDA would be in a good position to deal with the issue of varied teaching methods in concert with other training authorities. It is in this spirit of a more proactive and integrated approach that the following recommendation is made.

Administrative order and directive on language of instruction

DAOD 5039-6, Delivery of Training and Education in Both Official Languages, which was recently promulgated in August 2009, focuses on the main issues related to the delivery of training and education to CF members in the official language of their choice. The following topics are broached: language of choice, access to IT&E in both official languages, language assistance and availability of educational tools in both official languages.

DAOD 5039-6 is very concise and does not provide much flexibility in its application. However, it does provide that exit examinations for certain military occupations (such as pilots) should be administered in English only according to international conventions. Additionally, the order indicates that language assistance (i.e. Language Assist) may be provided, but it does not mention that this type of assistance should be only a temporary administrative measure and should not replace training in the students’ official language of choice. Furthermore, there is no mention of the notion of creating an environment conducive to learning in both official languages. This is very important to creating awareness with regard to teaching in both official languages. The following section examines this question more closely.

Conducive environment

One of the main initiatives of the Official Languages Program Transformation Model is to revise and subsequently adjust the linguistic designation of the various CF units across Canada. Hence, the application framework provides for ELUs, FLUs, BUs and Unspecified Language Units (ULUs) for the purposes of language of work. Language of work is limited to the internal functioning of the unit. However, regardless of the language of work designation or location of the unit, certain services, such as dental, medical and legal, will always be offered to the recipient in their official language of choice. Therefore, according to the Official Languages Program Transformation Model, a Francophone in an ELU, for instance, while working in English, will still have the right to receive his or her medical services in French. According to this model, all training establishments must be designated as BUs.

Accordingly, we would expect that, if these schools wish to fulfill their role as bilingual institutions, they should create an environment conducive to learning in both official languages. Among other things, this entails that all signage in the training establishments be visible in both official languages; that the memoranda and notifications that circulate be in both official languages; and that an equitable proportion of documentation in both official languages be available in the school resource centres and libraries. This would also mean that the activities of the faculty and administration should promote the respect of both language groups in training establishments and also ensure the equitable use of both official languages in speeches and presentations, and during customary ceremonies.

Our visits revealed that there were major differences among the various training establishments when it came to creating an environment conducive to learning in both official languages. In general, we noticed that signage was bilingual, but many times it was noted that memoranda, notifications and written or oral communications were not always provided in both official languages, and that in many cases speeches and presentations were not in both official languages either. With regard to resource centres and libraries, many training establishments informed us that they made efforts to obtain French documentation, but that in numerous instances more technical or specialized documents were not available in French. With regard to bibliographic research capacity, we were impressed by the Canadian Forces College, which had undertaken considerable effort to ensure that references to periodicals in French were provided and that an equitable proportion of research documents were available in French. Also, the electronic research engine was available in both French and English.

During our visits we observed that some institutions had not put much thought into promoting a learning environment conducive to training in both official languages. In some cases, we were informed that the geographic location of training establishments could play an important role in establishing this type of program. In other cases, institutions told us that they were waiting for directives from the various headquarters or the DOL to establish such programs and that financial assistance would have to be allocated. (However, this was not the case at CFB Borden, where the CF Support Training Group implemented a well-structured awareness and education campaign in the base’s training establishments.)

It was clear during our conversations that more awareness must be raised with respect to this issue. We believe that sharing best practices through success stories, such as that at CFB Borden, and promoting a well-structured awareness campaignwould be appropriate.

Performance measurement systems

During our visits it was very difficult to access data about performance with respect to language of instruction. In most cases, these data were not regularly available and often had to be manually collected. Generally speaking, information pertaining to the number of Anglophones and Francophones registered in the various courses was available. But very little data were available (and it took considerable effort to obtain it) with respect to the following: success or failure rate of Anglophones and Francophones, dropouts for linguistic reasons and number of Francophones who had to take their training in their second language. When we asked questions about the data, we were informed that it was gathered empirically and numerous responses were based on personal experience. The students we interviewed provided similar responses. The individuals who were interviewed had their own experiences and incidents to recount, but no one ever referred to statistical reports on the issue. The CF must look into defining formal ways to systematically and periodically measure its performance with regard to language of training.

However, during our visit to the Armour School in Gagetown, New Brunswick, we were particularly impressed by the diligence used to review the assessments of courses completed by students with regard to language of training issues. The school demonstrated a precise and well-organized way to continually improve performance in official languages.

We mentioned earlier that the CDA was implementing an IT&E modernization plan. In this plan, we noted an initiative that aims to implement a comprehensive IT&E performance measurement system across the CF. This plan includes broad system parameters regarding the capacity to meet needs, efficiency, affordability, student satisfaction, collaboration and access. Based on these parameters, it is our opinion that the CDA should integrate into this system a series of performance measures related to language of instruction. IT&E language objectives and sub-objectives should be identified and certain measures should be made to verify that these objectives have been achieved.

Recruiting

The 2007 document Canada First – Defence Strategy recommends that the number of members of the CF Regular Force should be increased to 70,000 by the year 2028. During our meetings we were told that this would be difficult to accomplish in the current environment, where there is a fairly high attrition rate of baby boomers and where attraction to military life has diminished. In 2007–2008, it was estimated that 6,865 new recruits would enlist and 6,774 did so. Targets are only just being met. Nevertheless, the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group (CFRG) informed us that the percentage of Anglophones (73%) and Francophones (27%) reflect the language demographics of the Canadian population. This does not hold true for the Navy, where Francophones make up approximately only 15% of personnel.

In recruitment centres, official languages are addressed to the extent that candidates are asked to indicate their first official language and may also indicate whether they are proficient in both languages or in other languages. However, candidates who indicate they are bilingual are not formally assessed in their second official language. We also learned that the choice of first official language will be used as the language of choice for recruit training in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS). New courses are continuously offered in both official languages to accommodate the recruitment process throughout the year.

The CFLRS students we met during our interviews repeatedly mentioned that the language indicated on their application form as their first official language was not necessarily their preferred language for training purposes. Numerous individuals at the training establishments also made this comment. This was surprising, as the Defence Administrative Order pertaining to delivery of training in both official languages refers to training in one’s official language of choice, which may not be the same in some cases as training in one’s first official language. The DOL is aware of this issue and will follow up with CFRG and CFLRS.

Promotion of bilingualism

With respect to the choice offered on the enrolment form for candidates to indicate that they are bilingual, we were not able to identify during our interviews what becomes of this information. However, during our meetings, Anglophones and Francophones often mentioned that it was very advantageous to be bilingual in the CF and that it opened doors in terms of career choice and living in various geographical locations. However, personnel stated that the advantages were not promoted enough. The CF should create an environment and promote opportunities so that both official language groups see bilingualism as an advantage for assignments and promotions. In our opinion, bilingualism is a goal that must be fostered upon entry into the CF.

After recruit training at the CFLRS, candidates move on to their occupational training or to one of the two military colleges for officers in Kingston or Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Earlier in this report, we touched on issues related to language of training for the various occupations, but we did not refer to what specifically takes place at the two military colleges and we did not discuss non-commissioned officer training. These two issues are addressed in this section. We will also touch on more general issues linking language of training with posting opportunities and career advancement.

New officer training

Two years ago, the Royal Military College (RMC) located in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, reopened its doors as a military college. This institution offers an academic program enabling officer cadets to obtain a CEGEP (Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel)—equivalent diploma in Quebec and then pursue their university education at the RMC of Canada, located in Kingston, Ontario. These two facilities provide courses in both official languages. Moreover, officer cadets take a second-language training program with the goal of attaining, at a minimum, a language proficiency level of BBB (reading, writing and oral interaction) in their second official language over the course of their training. Once officer cadets attain the BBB functional proficiency level, whether they do so during their training at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or during their first years at Kingston, they are accredited for the bilingualism component of their program of study and no longer need to formally pursue second-language training unless they wish to.

Moreover, at Kingston the language of use within the college alternates between English and French every two weeks. This permits officer cadets to apply their second official language when interacting with colleagues and school staff with the objective of gaining practice in real situations. Students not having obtained the BBB functional level of bilingualism also have the opportunity to take immersion courses during the summer at their college, whether it is at Kingston or Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Generally speaking, officer cadets at Kingston indicated they were satisfied with the training program in the official language of their choice, although some of them mentioned that they found it difficult at times to find reference books in French.

It should also be mentioned that, at RMC Kingston, to graduate with the traditional red tunic and receive the military college diploma including the post-nominal RMC letters next to their name, officer cadets must complete and pass the four components of the RMC program: academic, military, athletic and bilingualism. Officer cadets may still obtain their university degree in their chosen discipline and pursue a career in the military without the military and athletic standards or the BBB level in their second language. However, during the formal graduation ceremony, these individuals are not permitted to wear the red tunic or the RMC pin, both of which are national symbols of the college. Most cases (on average 70% between 2002 and 2008) in which officer cadets failed to meet one of the standards involved not meeting the language proficiency component.

After graduation there is no guarantee that officers will be assigned to functions that correspond with their official language of choice. Assignments are made according to operational needs in the various environments. Most officer cadets with whom we spoke told us that the BBB proficiency level did not adequately prepare them to work in their second language.

The Non-Commissioned Members Professional Development Centre (NCMPDC), located on the campus of RMC Saint-Jean, provides leadership courses to non-commissioned members wishing to become officers (Sergeant, Warrant Officer, Chief Warrant Officer, etc.). The leadership program comprises courses with durations of nine to ten weeks and with a distance-learning component available in both official languages. However, from a language of training standpoint, the situation is not the same as it is for officer cadets at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or Kingston. Regarding the primary leadership course, while the NCMPDC is responsible for this course, and while it is available in both official languages, it is actually offered by the various environments themselves in eight locations across the country. As for other course levels (intermediate and advanced), even though students can work in groups in their official language of choice, courses are provided in English with Language Assist. Furthermore, plenary sessions and presentations are usually prepared or delivered in English. On several occasions, we were told that, after having reached intermediate and advanced course levels, Francophone non-commissioned members preferred to continue taking courses in English since they had spent most of their careers up to that point working in English (nearly 20 years in some cases).

The situations described above raise a number of official languages issues. One of these issues is the bilingualism component, which is one of the four main pillars of the RMC located in Kingston. There are two concerns in this respect. First, there is the question of the minimum competency level of BBB required to successfully complete the program. It should be noted that the B level is no guarantee of being able to competently express oneself in a work situation. Military personnel made this comment on numerous occasions during our visits. Furthermore, while the Public Service Commission standards may associate this level with situations that may be non-routine, these situations are relatively simple and for the most part adapted to the performance of concrete tasks. Therefore, we can appreciate the concerns of officer cadets and of students in many training establishments who fear being assigned to a function that requires the use of their second language. In our opinion, this is a serious disadvantage for them.

It is our view that RMC Kingston and RMC Saint-Jean students should be given the opportunity while at the colleges to attain a higher language proficiency level than BBB. The Commissioner has on many occasions referred to language mastery as a key component of leadership in the public sector. The C competency level for oral interaction assures greater capacity to be persuasive, to explain a complex issue, to intervene in a conflict, to give advice and to better understand the subtleties of any situation. Leaders must be able to do all these things. The CBC language proficiency level ensures a level of language mastery worthy of the leadership and management cadre of the Canadian public service. It is our opinion that attaining the CBC language proficiency level at the beginning of their careers would enable officer cadets to better perform in their second language from the outset and would ensure better retention capability, thereby reducing the load on second-language training down the line.

With respect to meeting the requirements for obtaining a degree, we are concerned about the fact that bilingualism has the highest failure rate. Apart from the embarrassment that this could cause for students graduating without honours, the underlying message is that the bilingualism component is not that important. We believe that this is the wrong impression for new officers to have at the beginning of their careers. We believe that RMC officials should look into the underlying causes for this high failure rate and take necessary steps to correct the situation. This is particularly important in light of Recommendation 14, which proposes that students be given the opportunity to attain a higher proficiency level in their second official language.

Regarding the intermediate and advanced leadership courses offered to non-commissioned members, we understand why in many cases Francophones, having reached higher levels in their careers and having worked mostly in English, would prefer to take these courses in English. However, we are hoping that the DOL’s recent efforts to establish linguistic designations for all work units in the CF will further standardize opportunities in which French could be used in a work situation and enable Francophone non-commissioned members in leadership positions to work more often in their first official language. To increase demand for French leadership courses over the long term, the CF needs to change the work habits within the various bilingual units. In the short term, those responsible for these courses should be encouraged to use proactive measures that will enable Francophones to take leadership courses in their first official language. Those responsible should also increase their efforts to hire external experts capable of giving presentations to participants during plenary sessions in English and French.

Well-defined assignment and promotion processes and systems govern postings and advancement within the CF.

Assignments

Responsibility for assignments lies with commanding officers and the Director General Military Careers (DGMC). The DGMC administers military personnel assignments as soon as the basic training period is complete and military personnel are accredited in a specific field. The DGMC relies on, among other things, well-defined assignment priorities. We alluded to some of these priorities earlier in this report when we addressed the issue of the shortage of instructors at the various training establishments.

Our interviews with representatives from the DGMC group revealed that there was a shortage of personnel in many fields and at some ranks. We were told, for example, that overall, the CF is short at least 20% of established strength for the rank of captain and nearly 10% for the rank of major. According to the DGMC, this kind of personnel shortage affects the CF’s ability to meet its objectives in general and, by extension, its ability to assign bilingual personnel to bilingual functions. At the time of our visits, there were no data available for the DGMC’s success rate in this regard.

From our point of view, these personnel shortages seriously hinder the capacity of the CF to post members who have completed their training in one language and who are looking to pursue a career in this same language (Francophones being the most numerous in this category). These shortages also limit the capacity of the CF to appoint candidates who have the required language skills to work in their second language. Such postings are more of a possibility now, since one of the objectives of the Official Languages Program Transformation Model is to establish language of work regimes according to the linguistic designations of the work units.

We believe, however, that there might be solutions to address such problems. First, linking the linguistic designations of work units with the functional management concept as stipulated in the Official Languages Program Transformation Model increases the number of opportunities in which assignments can be proposed to meet the needs of managers in the various units. As a result, one relies on a larger pool of personnel to deliver quality services in both official languages. Second, it is absolutely imperative that second-language training be integrated into the training plans of employees who desire or have been asked to work in units requiring skills in their second language. It is also a means of targeting the best moment to access language training.

Promotions

With respect to promotion or advancement, there are systems and procedures in place specifying the conditions under which officers and non-commissioned members are to be promoted. A points system is used, which includes language skills. This system determines the order in which officers and military personnel are ranked on the merit list for promotion. Up to five points are given for bilingualism for officers, regardless of rank. These values encompass the three linguistic skills: reading, writing and oral interaction. For non-commissioned members only oral interaction is assessed, which is worth two points. For senior officers, language skills are an unchanging requirement that must be met by specific dates for them to be promoted. For example, all brigadier generals/commodores must meet and maintain a linguistic profile of CBC by December 31, 2011. A recent memo from the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Officer Corps, dated January 5, 2009, stated that "All General Flag Officers who do not achieve and/or maintain a CBC profile required for the rank by the date indicated will not be recommended for promotion or subsequent appointments." We believe that this is a significant message about the importance of bilingualism as a key component of leadership. For other ranks, bilingualism is still an asset qualification as a factor in promotion and is part of the required leadership qualities for promotion.

With respect to the current promotion system, we commend the Chief of the Defence Staff for his directive on the promotion of senior officers. This is a step towards reaching a goal that has eluded the CF for many years. In this directive, language skills are associated with fundamental CF skills for senior officers. That said, given that at present an average of 18% of generals and 37% of colonels and navy captains do not meet the required CBC language competency level, the application of this directive should be monitored closely.

It would also be advisable to adopt an equally visible and strict approach for the three other employment and rank categories identified in the Official Languages Program Transformation Model: commandants of training establishments, chief warrant officers and chief petty officers, 1st class. These ranks are highly important in creating an environment that promotes the use of both official languages at training establishments and in the various bilingual units.

Furthermore, we feel that it is necessary, in the current context, with the linguistic designation of units just completed and the language designation of functions still ongoing, to assess the three skills (reading, writing and oral interaction) required for promotion of non-commissioned members who need to work in both official languages. Each of these skills is important for providing high-quality service.

Canadian Forces College

With regard to the issue of higher ranks in the CF, we also visited the Canadian Forces College in Toronto. The College’s mission is to provide professional military education to high-ranking CF officers with the objective of preparing them to take on greater leadership roles. This is an environment where participants are selected based on their leadership potential.

Our visit to this establishment revealed that Canadian Forces College management has devoted great effort to ensure that English and French are on equal footing as languages of training. We noted many initiatives through which the College has improved its capacity to provide document research possibilities in both official languages, hired more instructors capable of working in French and increased translation services and course delivery mechanisms in both official languages. Many officers taking courses at the College told us during our visit that the school promotes a learning environment that encourages the use of both official languages. They indicated they were particularly satisfied with syndicate work, where all the candidates were able to use their official language of choice, and with opportunities for doing their research and academic work in their own language. When examining its performance report for 2007–2008, we did notice that the College had difficulties attracting bilingual and Francophone personnel in Toronto, but efforts were being made to rectify this issue.

Given the strategic importance of this school with respect to leadership development in the CF, a leadership that reflects the values of Canadian society and that will reflect these values to other countries with which Canada will be involved, we encourage the College to pursue its efforts to create an environment conducive to learning in both official languages.

Second-language training

Second-language training has been discussed many times throughout this report. We raised it when we addressed strategic planning; we recommended prioritizing second-language training for military personnel wishing to become instructors; we recommended ensuring that candidates be able to access second-language training when courses were available in English only; we touched on this issue again with respect to officer cadets at RMC Kingston; and, finally, we recommended that language training be mandatory for any candidate promoted to a function where the candidate would be required to perform functions in his or her second language. This places enormous responsibility on a program that is clearly so vital to the success of IT&E.

Our analysis thus far brings us to the conclusion that second-language training can and should be used with two goals in mind: it should support the acquisition of work-related language skills, and it should be used for career development. The order on second-language training (DAOD 5039-7, Second Official Language Education and Training [SOLET]), promulgated in June 2009, confirms these two application parameters. Furthermore, it states that SOLET is an important component of IT&E. We agree wholeheartedly. In our opinion, one of the major weaknesses of IT&E is that language training is not an integral part of it at this time.

Regarding access to second-language training, DAOD 5039-7 states that access to SOLET is based on obligations under the Official Languages Act as well as CF operational requirements as determined by each environment and the DOL on an annual basis. We would like to make the case in this audit for priority access for one category of potential candidates that repeatedly came up during our interviews. This category was non-commissioned members from both language groups who repeatedly mentioned that it was quite difficult for them to access second-language courses. This access was needed either because of the function they were occupying or would soon occupy, or because they were going to be promoted as officers in a bilingual unit.

Limited access to second-language training was a major concern for non-commissioned members, except for those candidates who had been identified in succession planning and for whom language training was a part of their preparation. We feel that access to second-language training should be a priority for these members and integrated at specific stages in their career development (as is the case for the Officer Corps). Non-commissioned members exercising leadership roles work closely with other non-commissioned members and we believe that, as a group, they exercise a great deal of influence.

BBB language proficiency standard

The BBB linguistic standard seems to be used for a variety of purposes in the CF. We have come across the concept of a functional level throughout this audit. There is a general belief that this level can be applied to most situations requiring second-language skills. As is the case in the public service, each function or employment category should be assessed according to its specific requirements in each competency (reading, writing and oral interaction). We were often told that the BBB level was not appropriate for all situations and, in many cases (e.g. for instructors), it was not sufficient. Moreover, it should be noted that in some cases, level B proficiency may be appropriate for one or two of the targeted skills, such as reading or writing, but not necessarily sufficient for oral interaction. We are aware that the DOL is currently reviewing the linguistic requirements for the various functions and that he is aware that a differential approach is required based on all skills, including reading, writing and oral interaction. In addition, the draft order on second-language training, which does not provide any details on this issue, is also being reviewed to take this into account.

Linguistic competency of officers

The Official Languages Program Transformation Model includes a series of priority activities, such as ensuring that officers meet the CBC language profile before being promoted to senior levels. For example, the model anticipates that brigadier generals and commodores should achieve and maintain a CBC language profile by 2011. As stated previously, at present, not all generals, colonels and navy captains meet these levels. Equally important, one must maintain the required level once it is acquired. On many occasions we were told that once the required level was reached, some candidates did not make the necessary efforts to maintain their skills or did not have the opportunities to apply their newly acquired language skills.

In addition, our discussion with those responsible for the career management system for military personnel revealed that it is impossible at present to guarantee that an officer who has completed language training will be assigned to functions requiring the use of his or her newly acquired language skills. We were also told that it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of bilingual positions in line with operational needs to deliver on this. The Official Languages Program Transformation Model specifies that it will be necessary to make major adjustments to the career management system of military personnel in order to select personnel to take second-language training and then assign them to functions where they will be able to use their second language. This situation deserves special attention, as it is central to the success of the language-training program as an integral part of IT&E and the Official Languages Program Transformation Model.

Notes