Management
a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place |
While accountability for proper implementation of some OL responsibilities is specified in the performance agreement signed by senior officers, which is incorporated into the Multi-Year Human Resource Management Plan (MYHRP), the RCMP does not have a full OL responsibility framework. Assignment of responsibility for other OL obligations could be viewed by some people as possibly implicit in documents such as the Senior Executive Committee (SEC) Strategy Map 2004–2005, but they are subject to wide interpretation. SEC meets three times a year to plan and review its strategic activities including OL-related initiatives.
The RCMP does not have an OL action plan, other than the OL representation targets specified in their MYHRP and the recognition that the organisation must meet TBS OL policy requirements. |
|
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization |
The RCMP produces both the Report on Plans and Priorities and the Performance Report, but there is no mention of OL in either of these documents. In effect, the RCMP indicated that even though there may not be any explicit mention of OL in current strategic documents, nonetheless, like the concept of "Integrated Policing," OL are becoming a part of the culture and of the standard way of doing policing.
The RCMP does subject-specific OL audits and evaluations. For example, there was an evaluation of the communications between National Headquarters, "A" Division Headquarters, "C" Division Headquarters and a unilingual-French Quebec detachment during fiscal year 2003–2004. Likewise there was an evaluation of automated systems in 2002–2003. The determination of when, and on what subjects, internal audits will be done is based on risk-management principles. The last OL-related full audit was done in 2003. It was about the operation of the RCMP's bilingualism bonus system.
OL are discussed at SEC meetings on average three times a year. The OL Champion attends SEC meetings. |
|
| c) Complaints |
The national OL Policy Centre sees all OCOL complaints and handles those it judges to be systemic or national in nature; otherwise, they are referred to the particular regional OL Officer. The regional co-ordinators work with the specific manager(s) involved to resolve the issue.
Learning from OL complaints doesn't seem to occur. OCOL has identified a serious systemic problem related to language requirement of positions in New Brunswick, which has not yet been resolved, despite three follow-up reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages. |
|
Service to the public - Part IV
a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff |
Members of the public are made aware that bilingual services are available through Burolis and listings in the Government Blue Pages of local telephone books.
The RCMP's 2003–2004 Annual Review of Official Languages indicates that as of March 31, 2004, 82.0% of non-Public Service employees in bilingual positions serving the public met the linguistic requirements of their position. |
|
| b) Findings on active offer and service delivery |
According to observations on in-person service made by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in the fall of 2004, active visual offer was present in 80.0% of cases; active offer by staff was made in 6.7% of cases, while service in the language of the minority was adequate in 60.0% of cases.
The results of the 2003 telephone service audit by the Treasury Board Secretariat showed that active offer of service was made by staff 41.7% of the time and on telephone answering machines 40.7% of the time, while service was adequate 68.5% of the time. |
|
| c) The service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services |
The contract with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has a clause requiring the provision of bilingual services in it. This was the only significant contract of which the RCMP's OL Section was aware where services are delivered to the public or to RCMP employees by a third party. There appears to be no mechanism to ensure all contracts have a linguistic clause where appropriate. Monitoring is based on complaints. |
|
| d) Bilingual services quality monitoring |
It is the Force's policy that when members receive their orientation upon joining a bilingual detachment, information on bilingual service requirements is to be given to them locally. However, there is no ongoing central monitoring of either the fact that the employee was indeed informed, or of the quality of service provided in both OL to the public by the detachment.
RCMP policy provides that OL co-ordinators should meet regularly with the OL minority representatives to determine their degree of service satisfaction. A satisfaction questionnaire is in preparation to be sent to OL minority community associations. However, presently there does not appear to be much active monitoring of bilingual service quality. The process is primarily complaints-driven. |
|
Language of work - Part V
a) Adequate bilingual supervision and language of work policy |
The RCMP has a policy that specifies the rights and obligations related to language of work. Also, the 2002–2003 Annual Review of Official Languages outlined managers' obligations regarding the establishment of environments conducive to the use of both OL.
As a corporate entity, the RCMP has protected its budget commitment for language training to ensure that their employees get the language training they need. (The Force spends over one million dollars each year to provide such training to its members.)
As concerns adequate bilingual supervision, according to the RCMP's 2003-2004 Annual Review of Official Languages, 79.2%, or 571 of the 721 non-Public Service (i.e., Regular Force or civilian RCMP Member) incumbents of bilingual supervisory positions, met the linguistic profile of their position. |
|
| b) Use of each language in the workplace |
The OL Section provides some information sessions on language of work, upon demand. However, besides this, the RCMP did not provide other examples of measures to encourage employees to use the language of the local OL minority or of reminders of the language of work policy to employees and managers.
Through their monitoring of internal and OCOL complaints and, occasionally, some active monitoring (e.g., informal verifications or asessments, etc.), the OL Section does do some control of compliance with the policy. The RCMP's audit services did a formal internal evaluation of automated systems in 2002–2003. This included the internal Web site to make sure that systems comply with Part V of the OLA. A follow-up to that evaluation was also done in 2003–2004.
Most members of the Executive are bilingual, but Senior Executive Committee meetings are held primarily in English. |
|
Equitable participation - Part VI
a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada |
Based on Table 1 of Appendix III (page A5) of the RCMP's 2003-2004 Annual Review of Official Languages, 18.5% of the RCMP's non-Public Servant workforce in Canada was Francophone on March 31, 2004. |
|
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec |
In Quebec, 12.5% of the RCMP's non-Public Servant workforce was Anglophone. |
|
Development of minority language communities and promotion of linguistic duality - Part VII
a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of minority language communities |
The RCMP does not have a formal mechanism in place to ensure that strategic planning and policy and program development consciously consider the RCMP's corporate impact on the economic and social development of OL minority communities. There is no requirement to consider Part VII implications in either Cabinet documents or Treasury Board submissions, only for Parts IV, V and VI.
The RCMP does some consultation with the communities at the regional level. Furthermore, in the recent past the RCMP has had a mid-level officer who was the Section 41 national co-ordinator even though the RCMP is not one of the institutions designated to report annually to Canadian Heritage. RCMP policy provides that regional OL coordinators should meet regularly with the OL minority representatives to determine their degree of service satisfaction. A satisfaction questionnaire is in preparation to be sent to OL minority community associations.
The requirement for the purchase of space and time in media serving OL minority communities is part of the RCMP's policy. The Director General of Communications ensures all press releases and media-buys respect this policy.
There does not seem to be an organized effort to inform RCMP employees about the needs and situation of minority language geographic communities. Nonetheless, by the very nature of how the RCMP does community policing today, Members are in regular contact with a wide variety of socio-demographic groups, such as representatives of the OL community. This provides them some information on the needs of the communities. |
|
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality |
The RCMP does not have a mechanism to ensure strategic planning, policy and program development take into account the promotion of linguistic duality.
Still, the RCMP's buildings and other capital resources (e.g., cruisers) clearly project the bilingual image of the Force, even in unilingual regions. The Force has a long tradition of being active in volunteer and social activities for the communities in which it operates. Internally, opportunities such as the Rendez-vous de la francophonie are exploited to promote the linguistic duality of the country. |
|
| OVERALL RATING |
|
