 |
 |
| Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site |
| Home | Site Map | FAQ | Links | What's New? |
|
Audit of the Language of Work at National Defence HeadquartersFebruary 2006 Table of contentsOBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B HIGHLIGHTSThe Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted an audit at the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF) between November 2004 and June 2005. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether DND and the CF have succeeded in creating a work environment conducive to the use of English and French at Headquarters and in enabling their employees to use the official language of their choice, for example when taking part in meetings, receiving instructions, drafting documents and using work tools. Methodology The first part of the audit consisted of a survey of bilingual employees at Headquarters to assess the use of official languages. An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 3,450 potential respondents. Of the total, 1,883 surveys were completed, for a response rate of 55%. The auditors then reviewed and analyzed the documentation provided by DND and the CF and conducted 82 interviews of civilian and military personnel. Observations Commitment in creating a bilingual work environment Senior management is demonstrating some leadership and commitment to the creation of a bilingual work environment. Despite this, there is a significant gap between the formal message, action plans and objectives and the actions taken by employees in the various sections with regard to language of work. Furthermore, middle managers, supervisors and employees do not know what role they should play in the creation of a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages. In various sections, leadership and the place given to official languages leave something to be desired and official languages are not integrated into the organizational culture. In the great majority of sections the work environment is not conducive to the use of French, and English dominates even among French-speaking employees, who tend to use their second language in their daily work, particularly when their supervisor is not comfortable using French. Services provided to employees at Headquarters Major weaknesses were noted regarding the bilingual capability of a number of managers, as well as in the language of meetings and of supervision. We also identified problems with regard to performance appraisals, work tools, software, training and of some central and personal services. Language requirements of positions and language skills of incumbents The language skills of military personnel in positions of management, supervision, central and personal services are still a major problem at Headquarters. Moreover, the rather small number of bilingual positions held by military personnel who meet the language requirements of their positions has been a topic for discussion between the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and National Defence for many years. Among civilian personnel, the situation is better. However, the vast majority of civilian and military supervisory positions require only the intermediate level of language skills (BBB).1 Given the limited language capability of a number of managers and the fact that a large number of supervisors in bilingual military positions do not meet the language requirements of their positions, the majority of Francophones at Headquarters cannot exercise their language rights. Analysis and recommendations While senior management has taken some steps to show leadership and commitment to language of work, it should put more emphasis on the realization of their commitments and ensure an adequate bilingual capacity. Anglophones and Francophones do not enjoy equal treatment when it comes to language of work at Headquarters, and favourable working conditions are not there for Francophones to allow them to use and express themselves in their language. Furthermore, Francophones cannot always use their language in various situations (supervision, software, work tools, meetings, etc.). The number of bilingual military personnel at Headquarters who meet the language requirements of their positions is insufficient. In addition, the commitment of the CF to increasing this number has been slow to produce results. The main reason given for this slowness is that operational needs take priority over the language rights and obligations of employees. The Commissioner has formulated 12 recommendations to DND and the CF for improving language of work at Headquarters. Their purpose is:
National Defence is currently reviewing a number of its official languages policies and the CF Official Languages Model and intends to adopt a new official languages strategic plan next year. Beyond the policies and the strategic plans, National Defence should concentrate its efforts on the core of the problem that has been persisting for a number of years, namely the poor bilingual proportion of military personnel, and take appropriate measures once and for all. The institution prepared an action plan to follow up on the recommendations. This plan is found at Appendix A of the report as well as our response to the action plan. We are satisfied with National Defence’s response to eight of the twelve recommendations. National Defence indicated that it does not currently have the resources to implement Recommendation 5. Furthermore, the steps to implement Recommendation 7 will come too late. Finally, the institution refuses to raise the linguistic profile of bilingual supervisory positions to the CBC level of language skills. We also slightly modified Recommendation 4 in order to take into account some of the concerns raised by National Defence. We maintain that full implementation of the recommendations is needed to enable National Defence to meet its obligation in creating a work environment conducive to the use of English and French at Headquarters. INTRODUCTIONThe mission of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF), and of the organizations and agencies that make up the full Defence portfolio, is to defend Canada and Canadian interests and values, while contributing to international peace and security. Canada’s defence policy is articulated in the 1994 Defence White Paper. It provides for the maintenance of multi-purpose, combat-capable land, maritime and air forces to accomplish Canada’s principal defence roles.
The mission of National Defence is carried out by DND, the CF (Navy, Army and Air Force), and a number of related agencies, including the Communications Security Establishment and Defence Research and Development Canada. Under the National Defence Act, DND and the CF are separate entities called on to work closely under the authority of the Minister of National Defence. The employees of these two entities therefore work side by side in the various regions, as well as at Headquarters. The CF face unique challenges. Unlike the civilian members of DND, who are generally appointed to a position and tend to remain on site throughout their appointment, military personnel are regularly deployed when service requirements call for it. Assignments are legal orders that must be obeyed. All military personnel may be considered for assignment each year, in the context of a formal process. This process is administered by career managers. Depending on the operational requirements, members may be given duties, deployed or often assigned to other functions, or they may remain in the same position for several years. Because of this situation, the Canadian Forces face language of work challenges that are not shared by most other government departments. Also, due to the nature of National Defence’s mandate, it is imperative that members of the Canadian Forces be recruited from across the country. They are and must remain a reflection of the nation. The Canadian Forces are currently embarking upon a period of extensive transformation, which results from the recent federal government international policy review and related April 2005 Defence Policy Statement. It should consist of a reorganized command and control structure centered on the creation of Canada Command–a single national operational command headquarters–assigned the role of integrating land, air, sea and special operations. At the end of 2004, DND and the Regular Force of the CF numbered 21,989 civilian employees and 61,175 military employees. Of these, 6,125 civilian employees and 5,986 military employees worked at Headquarters and were distributed throughout several buildings in the National Capital Region. This audit concerned Part V of the Official Languages Act. Under this Part, the institutions subject to the Act must ensure that their work environments are conducive to the effective use of both official languages in regions designated as bilingual, and accommodate the use of either official language by their employees, subject to the obligations relating to service to the public and to other employees in their language of choice. For example, federal institutions must:
To meet these obligations, institutions must develop an organizational culture that fully respects the language rights of their employees, whether they speak English or French. In the past, the Office of the Commissioner has examined several issues related to language of work at National Defence. Despite this, the problems persist. Between 2002 and 2004, 43 admissible complaints were received about language of work at National Defence. They chiefly concerned training and professional development, central and personal services, internal communications, work tools, telephone communications and communications in person. Of these, 16 (37%) concerned situations that arose in the National Capital Region. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGYThis audit is a continuation of the efforts of the Commissioner to ensure that federal institutions abide by the provisions of the Official Languages Act. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether DND and the CF have succeeded in creating a work environment conducive to the use of English and French at Headquarters and in enabling their employees to use the official language of their choice when taking part in meetings, receiving instructions, drafting documents and using work tools. The objectives and criteria of the audit are found in Appendix B of this report. We conducted our audit at DND and CF Headquarters between November 2004 and June 2005. The first part of the audit consisted of a survey of bilingual employees at National Defence Headquarters to evaluate the use of official languages within this organization. To this end, a specialized firm distributed an electronic questionnaire to 3,450 potential respondents. Of the total, 1,883 surveys were completed, for a response rate of 55%. On the whole, this survey had a very small margin of error of 1.8% (at the 95% confidence level). We then reviewed and analyzed the documentation provided by DND and the CF, such as policies, directives, annual reviews and a number of key reports. We also conducted 82 interviews of civilian and military personnel at Headquarters. We limited our audit relating to training and professional development to the general training of civilian and military employees at Headquarters. We suggest that, given the scope and complexity of a review of training related to the career of military personnel, a special audit be done at some future time. Also, we did not audit the health services offered to CF members, since they will undergo a separate audit later. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe observations and recommendations are presented under five themes that we believe are essential in ensuring the full respect of employees’ language rights. They are: the commitment in creating a bilingual work environment; the accountability framework and performance indicators; the services provided to employees at Headquarters; the language requirements of positions and the language skills of incumbents; and the awareness program. 1. Commitment to creating a bilingual work environment Policies, directives and related documents DND and the CF have various policies, directives and administrative orders governing the language of work that set out the rights and obligations of employees and managers working in bilingual environments. These include:
While some of these documents have been in draft form for some years, a number of employees and managers consult them regularly, since they are posted on the intranet site of the Official Languages Division. Measures will be taken to finalize them once the new official languages strategic plan for 2007-2012 has been prepared and approved by senior management. We encourage National Defence to formalize these documents soon after the new strategic plan has been adopted. Recommendation 1 According to the DND and CF Official Languages Model, in effect since 1992, both English and French can be used as operational and administrative languages. The model entitles employees to work and pursue a career in the official language of their choice. In reality, operational efficiency has priority over employees’ language rights. This model is, according to National Defence, the cornerstone of the organization’s official languages program. According to the model, each unit is designated French, English, bilingual or, exceptionally, non-designated. At Headquarters, units are designated bilingual and their work environment must be conducive to the effective use of English and French and accommodate the use of either by its employees. In June 2003, DND and the CF adopted their Official Languages Strategic Plan 2003-2006. This plan consists in providing a corporate strategic orientation to guide the effective implementation of the Official Languages Act at DND and in the CF by having in a single document the objectives and activities of the Official Languages Program. It lists over 80 separate objectives, some qualitative and others quantitative. They distinguish between activities of change and measures needed to maintain the Official Languages Program over the long term. Activities of change have to do mainly with language of work and consist of: improving leadership; renewing and strengthening the program; establishing a credible strategic framework; reviewing and updating the official languages conceptual model; and examining the structure of training administration and second language evaluation. Also, the former Minister of National Defence established five main objectives when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons in June 2003. These five main commitments, chosen from among the Strategic Plan objectives, are:
The first two objectives are linked to the Bilingual Officer Corps Policy. According to this policy, all officers of the rank of colonel/captain (Navy) or higher must achieve a CBC level of proficiency. Officers of other ranks must meet the language requirements of their positions. We will look at many of these objectives in section 4 of this report. The personnel responsible for official languages told us that the strategic plan contained too many objectives and that some of them will not be met. Consequently, the new strategic plan, which will be adopted in 2006, will contain a limited number of resultsoriented objectives. Also, the cornerstone of this plan will be the establishment of a functional approach for the CF. With this approach, language requirements would be determined for units, rather than for positions. According to officials, unit commanders have the flexibility and authority, under the National Defence Act, to relocate their personnel within their unit, as needed to carry out their assigned mission. This operating procedure differs from that of the public service, since the CF tend to meet bilingualism requirements functionally rather than personally. However, certain positions will continue to be associated with specific language designations. A mechanism will be put in place to monitor this new system. As mentioned in a recent investigation report,2 it is our view that this system will be acceptable from the linguistic standpoint only if a sufficient number of positions are filled by bilingual personnel upon their transfer and if an excellent accountability mechanism is put in place. Recommendation 2 Leadership and organizational culture The leadership demonstrated by senior management and the critical role played by managers in the creation of a work environment respectful of the language rights of their employees strongly influence an institution’s organizational culture. This is an important finding made by the Commissioner in one of her studies on language of work in federal bilingual work environments.3 At National Defence, senior management has taken a number of measures that show its support for the official languages program. Here are a few examples:
Employees are generally aware of the presence of the two co-champions for official languages. In addition, the two co-champions regularly present discussion topics on official languages to senior management committees. Nevertheless, the following passages indicate that the leadership shown by senior management is not found at all levels of the civilian and military hierarchy at Headquarters. Within the divisions, the leadership, the organizational culture and the place given to official languages leave something to be desired. Few work environments have a sufficient number of Francophones to create a bilingual organizational culture where employees feel at ease working in the language of their choice. In the vast majority of sections, the work environment is not conducive to the use of French, and French-speaking employees tend to use English in their daily work, particularly when their supervisor is not at ease using French. “Bilingualism exists only for Francophones and a minority of Anglophones.” In general, middle managers and supervisors do not know what role they should play in the creation of a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages. They do not demonstrate, through concrete actions (for example, respecting the language rights of their employees at all times, encouraging employees to communicate with them and at meetings in their language of choice), the importance they attach to linguistic duality in order to promote a work environment that attests to the equal status of both official languages. Moreover, some managers that we interviewed stated that operational requirements took precedence over linguistic responsibilities. Recommendation 3 At Headquarters, all branches and work units are designated bilingual according to the DND and CF Official Languages Model. Nevertheless, a number of investigations5 and studies6 we conducted at National Defence show that English is used most of the time as the operational and administrative language, and that Francophones have little opportunity to work in French, except in bilingual locations where their proportion is quite high. In one of her studies on language of work,7 the Commissioner states that the more Francophones there are in a given work unit, the more widespread is the use of French as the language of work. National Defence should therefore be inspired by the findings of this report to increase the proportion of Francophones in the branches and units of Headquarters where their numbers are low. The yearly planning of assignments and transfers of military personnel is an ideal opportunity to achieve this. According to the data gathered, about half of employees at Headquarters are military personnel. Also, as stated in a recent investigation report,8 we believe that the DND and CF Official Languages Model should specify that only military personnel having at least second-language reading and oral comprehension skills should normally be assigned or transferred to bilingual branches or units in order to maintain a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. Recommendation 4 2. Accountability framework and performance indicators DND and the CF have an Official Languages Division whose roles include, among other things, ensuring the development of official languages policy, strategic planning, follow-up activities, evaluation, trends analysis, accountability and awareness. Two co-champions (one civilian, the other military) have also been designated to ensure that the official languages objectives are achieved and, if necessary, to take any measures needed to correct the deficiencies identified. There is also an extensive network of official languages coordinators who are responsible for supporting the official languages program of DND and the CF. They ensure that the leaders and managers of their group or force get the best advice and support for the integration of official languages into daily operations and activities. They also play a vital role in the implementation of the Official Languages Strategic Plan 2003-2006. The Official Languages Division is continuing its efforts to improve and strengthen this network of co-ordinators by ensuring that they are properly trained, have an appropriate rank or level and have direct access to the commander or assistant deputy minister to whom they report. In addition to specific activities and objectives, the strategic plan designates individuals responsible for implementing each activity of the strategic plan and establishes specific time frames. Group heads and commanders, those responsible for implementing activities and the official languages co-ordinators of each section are responsible for ensuring follow-up of the activities of their respective sections. In addition, a database has been developed for measuring the progress made with regard to the five main objectives of the strategic plan. All DND senior managers and CF senior officers currently have objectives in their Performance Management Agreements relating to official languages. They have been provided with examples of commitments. The emphasis should be placed on the language skills of the individuals and on the creation of a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. Close to half of the senior managers and senior officers that we met indicated that Performance Management Agreements contain mostly commitments to improve their language skills or those of their respective section. In some cases, official languages are integrated into human resources management. In our view, all senior managers and senior officers at Headquarters should be evaluated specifically on the creation of a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages within the division, branch or section for which they are responsible. To this end, National Defence should develop performance criteria that can easily be measured and are based on the actual use of both official languages and the measures taken to create a work environment that respects the language rights of employees. It should also require the addition of similar commitments in the performance appraisals of all managers at all levels who supervise employees of both linguistic groups. Recommendation 5 National Defence conducts regular follow-up of the accountability framework and performance indicators; for example:
Senior management at DND and the CF is advised of compliance with its policy or its guidelines and directs the measures necessary for ensuring compliance. For example, between April 2003 and September 2004, senior management discussed official languages at several meetings. At those meetings, updates on implementation of the strategic plan were provided and an overview of the official languages annual review for the year 2003-2004 was presented. Senior management also made important decisions about the official languages program following these discussions. The members of senior management are also responsible for closely monitoring and reporting on implementation of the objectives of the strategic plan in their respective sections. In addition, the two co-champions, the Deputy Minister and the Chief of Staff of National Defence had several exchanges about official languages. 3. Services offered to employees at Headquarters This section will show whether employees at Headquarters can obtain the following services in the official language of their choice: supervision, performance evaluations, meetings, work tools and software, training, and central and personal services. Much of our data come from the language of work survey conducted at Headquarters. The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their first official language. This report distinguishes between French-speaking respondents and English-speaking respondents on this basis. Also, at Headquarters it is the employees in bilingual or in either/or positions9 who have the right to work in the official language of their choice. A large majority of those who answered the survey said they had a bilingual supervisor (70%), and an equal number of respondents said their supervisor was a bilingual Anglophone (35%) or a bilingual Francophone (35%). While only three respondents said their supervisor was a unilingual Francophone, 29% of respondents are supervised by a unilingual Anglophone. Our survey found that, according to the Francophones, only 39% and 22% of oral and written exchanges with their supervisors, respectively, usually take place in French (see Figure 1). Among the Anglophones, 87% can communicate orally and 93% can communicate in writing with their supervisors in English. For written communications with senior management, the situation is worse for Francophones. Only 9% of them said they can communicate with senior management in the official language of their choice. Among Anglophones, the figure is 91%.
The low level of second language proficiency of a number of Anglophone supervisors (particularly in the military) who hold bilingual positions is a major impediment to the possibility of Francophone employees working in their language. In the next section of the report, we discuss the issue of the linguistic profiles of supervisory positions and the language skills of the incumbents of these positions. Also, the attainment by an Anglophone supervisor of the linguistic profile of his or her position does not necessarily translate into increased use of French at work. Even if supervisors attain the level required for their positions, few use their second language skills on their return from language training. Military personnel also said it is important at National Defence to respect senior ranks. They therefore feel obliged to adapt to the language of the supervisor, particularly when the latter is not bilingual. Owing to these situations and to the fact that there is no formal mechanism guaranteeing the right of employees to be supervised in the official language of their choice, a large number of Francophones often feel obliged to adapt to the supervisor’s preferred language, which is English. In one of her reports on language of work in federal agencies,10 the Commissioner stated that Francophones tend to favour the language of their supervisor to the detriment of their first official language. Many said they preferred to work in English so that they would receive due recognition for their work. Also, English seems to be considered the language of career advancement. These findings were corroborated in the context of our National Defence audit. Moreover, 21% of Francophone respondents said they preferred to work in English, 32% in French, and 47% specified either official language as the preferred language. With regard to the Anglophones, 90% of them mentioned that they preferred to work in English, 1% in French, and 9% indicated either official language. More than one-third of Francophone respondents said they would prefer to use their first official language more in oral and written communications with their supervisors (see Figure 2).
According to the survey, 53% of Francophones also said that supervisors do not encourage employees to work in the official language of their choice. This could have an impact on the assimilation of Francophones. Our findings on the supervision of employees clearly show that DND and the CF have a number of challenges to meet in order to guarantee the right of their Francophone employees at Headquarters to be supervised in the official language of their choice. In our opinion, Recommendation 6 on page 21 will enable National Defence to improve the situation. The employees we met with knew they could have their performance appraisal in the language of their choice. Moreover, employees are asked to state their language of choice on the performance appraisal form. The directive and administrative order of National Defence relating to language of work states that employees may receive their performance appraisal in the official language of their choice in bilingual regions or units. The survey shows that 72% of Francophones and 91% of Anglophones received their last performance appraisal in the official language of their choice. However, the civilian and military employees we met with stated that a number of Francophones indicate English or either language on the form since their supervisor is not bilingual or the supervisor’s second language skills are weak. Among military personnel, a number of Francophones choose English to ensure that the members of promotion boards clearly understand the comments about their performance. These appraisals play a very important role in the career advancement of military personnel. Meetings of the two executive committees (the Armed Forces Council and the Defence Management Committee) are conducted in both official languages. The documents produced for these meetings and the minutes are fully bilingual. We noted, however, that there are no accents in the French version of the minutes. Measures should be taken to correct this deficiency. Most meetings chaired by a member of senior management are conducted partly in both official languages. The introductory remarks are in both languages and participants are invited to use the official language of their choice. However, the remainder of the meeting is usually conducted in English. Divisional or section meetings are usually conducted in English because of the presence of unilingual employees or because of the low level of proficiency in the second language of the chairperson and some participants. The survey supports these findings. Only 14% and 9% of Francophone respondents stated that they are able to use the official language of their choice at meetings with colleagues and with management or senior management, respectively (see Figure 3).
A number of Francophones would like to use French more at meetings with colleagues and with management or senior management. In fact, according to the survey, 55% and 61% of Francophones would prefer to use their official language of choice more often at meetings with colleagues and with management, respectively (see Figure 4). To improve the situation, management should be mindful of the principle whereby those chairing meetings at Headquarters give participants the choice to speak in their own language and that rigorous measures are taken to ensure that this choice is respected. In addition, a brief summary of discussions should be provided in the other language for unilingual employees.
The majority of Francophones and Anglophones stated that their regularly and widely used work tools are generally available in both official languages. In fact, 73% of Francophones and 97% of Anglophones who responded to the survey stated that manuals, administrative orders, directives, and so on are available in the official language of their choice (see Figure 5). However, we learned in the course of our interviews that certain work tools (for example, the standing operating procedures for the Canadian Forces Support Unit Ottawa) are still being translated and that Francophone employees have been waiting a number of years for the translation of the supply procedures manual. Also, certain technical documents from the United States or other English-speaking countries are not available in French. We believe that National Defence must take steps to ensure that all regularly and widely used documents are available in both official languages at Headquarters and that those now being translated be made available to employees in their preferred official language as soon as possible.
Regarding computer systems, the national systems (for example, the financial management and human resources systems) and the software widely used by employee groups are bilingual. We learned, however, that some software purchased by the branches themselves are in English and that no steps are being taken to find out whether they are available in French or whether similar software is available in that language. We believe that National Defence should put controls in place to this effect. In addition, employees at Headquarters are not given the choice of language for software; they must contact computer services if they wish to have software in the other language. It is usually only Francophones who insist on obtaining their software in French who do so. In view of this, it is not surprising that only 52% of Francophone respondents said that their software was available in the official language of their choice. DND and the CF must take steps to ensure that civilian and military employees at Headquarters are offered software in the official language of their choice when they assume the duties of a given position. The vast majority of keyboards in use at Headquarters do not meet the Canadian government keyboard standard for computer hardware with respect to French accents (Standard TBITS-5). National Defence should therefore correct this deficiency. Most Francophone and Anglophone respondents said they usually receive general e-mails in the official language of their choice (72% and 95% respectively; see Figure 5). However, e-mails sent to smaller groups are sometimes in English, as are some urgent e-mails. In addition, in some cases, the e-mail is distributed in English with the notation “French to follow.” With regard to the intranet, each section has a webmaster to ensure that the information posted on the various sites complies with the relevant DND and CF policies. According to the employees interviewed, occasionally one or two pages on a site are in English or there is a message stating that the French version is under development. National Defence should therefore remind the employees concerned of their language obligations regarding information to be posted on intranet sites and tighten the controls in this regard. The vast majority of the Anglophone respondents (95%) said that they are offered training and development courses in the official language of their choice. The situation is quite different for the Francophone respondents: only 57% said that courses are offered regularly in their language. The main reason the Francophone employees we interviewed gave for this is that a number of courses offered in French are cancelled due to a lack of participants. Between April 2003 and March 2005, 288 and 129 courses were offered in English and French, respectively, and covered the following fields: leadership, human resources, career development, administration, professional and personal development, communications, and corporate services. Of these courses, 48 in English (17%) and 50 in French (39%) were cancelled. Computer courses for regularly and widely used software are given by various private-sector companies and are available in both official languages. In recent years, training managers have introduced measures to avoid cancelling a number of courses in French. For example, the minimum number of participants needed for a course to be given in French is lower than the minimum for courses to be given in English (8 participants versus 12). Also, they often apply the principle of alternating languages for some courses. Thus, the first session of a particular course is offered in French one year, and the following year it is offered after the first English session. Despite these initiatives, the proportion of courses in French that are cancelled remains high. A number of Francophones prefer to take their courses in English since they intend to use the new skills learned in the context of their work. As mentioned before, the work environment is predominantly English in a number of sections, and employees tend to use this language to do their work. It is our opinion that the situation will improve once DND and the CF succeed in creating a work environment that is truly conducive to the effective use of both official languages at Headquarters. In addition, the institution should consider teaming up with other federal agencies for some courses or allowing employees at Headquarters to relocate to another region in order to reach the required number of participants for the courses in French. The vast majority of Francophone and Anglophone respondents said that central and personal services were available in the official language of their choice. Moreover, Table 1 shows that, on the whole, no section presents an obvious major problem for National Defence at Headquarters.
We nevertheless audited the few services that obtained the least favourable results as shown in the table (security services; staffing, classification and employment equity; and computer services). We found that the language capability of the various security services (investigation, site inspection, building security) is insufficient. A number of individuals do not meet the language requirements of their positions. For the classification service, most job descriptions for civilian positions are in English only. Regarding employment equity, some individuals stated that the interdepartmental committee functions are mostly in English and that the Francophone members do not feel at ease using French. Also, the language capability of the section responsible for employment equity for military personnel is insufficient. As for computer services, help desks tend to respect the language preference of employees at Headquarters. However, the technicians who go on site to resolve the problems identified by employees are often unilingual English. Furthermore, a number of unilingual English contract workers consult employees from both language groups in the context of their work. Because these workers are not bilingual, Francophone employees feel obliged to deal with them in English. In some sections we were told that the technical and specialized skills of contract workers took precedence over their language skills. As a result, the contractual agreement does not always include a language clause. The question of the language capability of the sections responsible for central and personal services and of the language requirements of the positions is examined in the next section of this report. As we will see, the language capability is often insufficient. DND and the CF still have a way to go to succeed in creating a work environment conducive to the use of French at Headquarters and in providing the various services (supervision, performance appraisals, software, etc.) to Francophone employees in their language. We believe that the institution must prepare an aggressive action plan that contains clear objectives, specific time frames, performance indicators and control mechanisms regarding language of work, which would enable National Defence to more fully respect the language rights of employees at Headquarters. This plan would fit well into the new strategic plan that National Defence plans to introduce for 2007-2012. Recommendation 6 In our survey, we also asked employees for their views on a series of solutions for improving language of work at Headquarters. You will find below, by decreasing order of frequency, the solutions proposed by the respondents:
4. Language requirements of positions and language skills of incumbents Senior managers (called EXs), senior officials in positions equivalent to the EX level, and supervisors play a very important role in the creation and maintenance of an organizational climate that promotes the use of both official languages. Their level of comfort in the second language also has a major impact on the use of this language in the workplace. According to the official languages annual review 2004-2005, 94 officers who hold bilingual positions were to meet the CBC standard for language skills. This standard was set by the federal government when it recognized a few years ago the degree of influence senior management has on the organizational culture of institutions. Of these 94, 92 incumbents (98%) meet the standard. Of the two who do not, one is on language training and the other will be retiring this year. Among military personnel, the ranks of colonel/captain (Navy) and other senior ranks are equivalent to the EX level. While the CF are not required to comply with the Treasury Board directive on the staffing of bilingual management positions, they are committed to respecting the spirit of this directive for senior ranks, while taking into account the unique nature of the CF. According to the data obtained, only 50% of colonels/captains (Navy) and higher ranks at Headquarters meet the CBC standard. Since these individuals play a critical role in creating a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages, we believe that the CF should take the appropriate measures once and for all. As one of the main objectives of the strategic plan 2003-2006, National Defence committed to increasing to 70% the percentage of newly promoted colonels/captains (Navy) who have at least a CBC linguistic profile between now and the end of 2006. This would increase by 10% per year the proportion of bilingual incumbents of these ranks. While this objective is commendable, we believe it is insufficient. Had these officers belonged to the public service, those in bilingual positions in a bilingual region for language of work purposes would have had to meet the language requirements of their positions (CBC linguistic level) as of March 31, 2004. As mentioned in one investigation report,11 we acknowledge that the CF are different from the other federal institutions. We believe, however, that National Defence should give a higher priority to the implementation of its Bilingual Officer Corps Policy and that proficiency in both official languages should be a condition of promotion to senior officer positions. Therefore, the Commissioner reiterates her recommendation made in the investigation report. The implementation of this recommendation will have an impact on language of work at Headquarters, since a number of military personnel supervise civilian and military employees. Recommendation 7 It is important to mention that the CF managed to surpass their objective in 2004 of increasing by 10% per year the percentage of newly promoted colonels/captains (Navy) who have at least a CBC profile. We encourage them to pursue their efforts in this regard during the coming years. Like senior managers and equivalent groups, supervisors play a key role in the creation of a work environment that respects the equal status of both official languages. It is also important that the incumbents of bilingual positions providing central and personal services meet the language requirements of their positions. The incumbents of supervisory positions and of positions in central and personal services for civilian employees better meet the language requirements of their positions than do the military personnel providing the same services at Headquarters. In fact, Table 2 shows that more than three-quarters of the incumbents of these positions for civilian employees meet the language requirements of their positions. Among military personnel, only between 39% and 44% of the incumbents of supervisory positions and positions providing central and personal services meet the language requirements. In addition to supervising civilian and military employees, some military personnel provide central and personal services to employees in both these entities.
According to National Defence, the system now in place for reporting data on the language skills and bilingual positions of military personnel contains errors and does not reflect the functional approach that will be put in place once the review of bilingual units and language requirements of positions is completed. However, this data best reflects the current situation at Headquarters. According to the information obtained, the CF have a lot of work to do to improve the situation. National Defence must therefore ensure that supervisors and central and personal services employees who are in bilingual military positions or functions meet the language requirements when transferred or assigned to Headquarters. It should also take steps to provide language training to supervisors and central services employees in civilian positions who do not meet the language requirements of their positions. Career managers play a vital role in the assignment of military personnel. When they assign someone to a new position, they must consider about 40 occupational and personal factors. The level of bilingualism is one of these factors. Moreover, the level of bilingualism is considered in promotions from the rank of colonel/captain (Navy), and a scoring system awards points for second language proficiency. We are pleased to note that considerable effort has been made by career managers to transfer bilingual military personnel to bilingual positions to meet the objectives of the strategic plan. Recommendation 8 A second objective of the 2003-2006 strategic plan states that National Defence is committed to increasing by 5% per year the percentage of bilingual military positions held by personnel who meet the language requirements of their positions. In our view this objective would not enable the CF to meet fairly quickly their language obligations with respect to supervision, personal services and central services. Moreover, for the year 2004, the CF managed to increase this percentage by just 2%. Defence should set more ambitious goals beyond 2006 to ensure that the work environment at Headquarters is respectful of the language rights of employees. Recommendation 9 A person's degree of ease in the second language greatly affects the use of this language. Yet, as Tables 3 and 4 show, about three-quarters of civilian and military positions designated as bilingual for reasons of supervision and central services require only an intermediate or lower level of second language proficiency. For personal services, this proportion is about two-thirds. We found that 32 civilian positions for these three categories require a low level (level A) in the second language for a least one skill (written comprehension, writing and oral interaction). Among military personnel, the situation is worse. A total of 891 positions require a low level in the second language for at least one of the three skills.
In our view, it may be difficult for National Defence to expect supervisors trained to the intermediate level to feel sufficiently at ease to provide the same quality of supervision in both official languages. It should therefore increase to the CBC level of language skills the linguistic profile of bilingual positions providing supervisory services. It should also ensure that the low level of second language proficiency for some positions providing central services and personal services is raised to at least the intermediate level. Recommendation 10 National Defence should broaden access to language training to give military and civilian personnel having the potential to fill supervisory or other leadership positions the opportunity to become bilingual to the CBC level of language skills. In addition, language tools should be made available to them to enable them to maintain their second language skills. Recommendation 11 We would like to specify that the Canada School of Public Service recently developed on-line products with regard to language training. DND and the CF should make these available to their employees. National Defence has many tools for raising the awareness of employees about their language rights. Here are some examples:
Official languages co-ordinators have a responsibility to raise the awareness of the employees in their groups about official languages. According to the individuals interviewed, this is not always done since the majority of co-ordinators have other responsibilities aside from official languages. The Official Languages Division is aware of this situation and is currently reviewing the structure and operation of the network of co-ordinators to find ways of making the network more visible in the structure, and of ensuring that its members have the appropriate classification and rank levels and that their official languages responsibilities are their main duties. It will then take steps to properly train the members of this network to enable them to provide good guidance about official languages to the employees in their sections. In the survey, 50% of the Francophone respondents and 65% of the Anglophone respondents said they had been informed orally and in writing of their language rights and obligations. However, in the course of our interviews, employees mostly recalled having received information about the new Treasury Board directives of April 1, 2004, requiring incumbents of bilingual positions to meet the language requirements of positions upon taking up their duties (except in special cases), but not about their rights and obligations with respect to official languages. Also, a number of Francophone and Anglophone respondents stated that National Defence could improve the language of work at Headquarters by clearly explaining to employees their rights with respect to language of work. In view of the foregoing, we believe that DND and the CF should undertake an awareness campaign aimed at civilian and military personnel at Headquarters that:
Recommendation 12 CONCLUSIONAs part of the audit, the auditors looked at whether DND and the CF succeeded in creating a work environment conducive to the use of English and French at Headquarters and in enabling their employees to use the official language of their choice when taking part in meetings, receiving instructions, drafting documents and using work tools. We found that senior management has taken steps that demonstrate some leadership and commitment to the creation of a bilingual work environment at Headquarters. However, these measures are not well known by middle management, supervisors and employees, who do not know what role they should play in the creation of a work environment that is respectful of the language rights of employees. In most divisions, the leadership and the organizational culture with respect to official languages and the place given to both languages leave something to be desired. English predominates, and operational requirements often take precedence over language obligations. In addition, DND and the CF have a long way to go to succeed in creating a work environment conducive to the effective use of French. In fact, the environment does not give French its rightful place as a language of work. Weaknesses were noted regarding the bilingual capability of a number of managers, the conduct of meetings, supervision, performance appraisals, work tools, software, training and some central and personal services. The language skills of military personnel in positions of management, supervision and central and personal services are still a major problem at Headquarters. According to the data obtained, only 50% of colonels/captains (Navy) and incumbents of higher ranks meet the CBC standard. Also, only between 39% and 44% of military personnel who hold supervisory positions and central and personal services positions meet the language requirements of their positions. As a result, the majority of Francophones at Headquarters feel obliged to work daily in English. An awareness campaign showing the merits of working in both official languages is also needed. Furthermore, employees must be informed of their rights and obligations with regard to language of work. Audit Team
APPENDIX AList of recommendations, Department of National Defence and of the Canadian Forces’ action plan and our responses We are encouraged by most of National Defence’s action plan to implement our recommendations, with the exception of its response to Recommendations 4, 5, 7 and 10. The institution indicated that it does not have the resources to implement Recommendation 5 and it does not agree with the proposed deadline to implement Recommendation 7. For Recommendation 10, National Defence refuses to raise to the CBC level of language skills the linguistic profile of bilingual supervisory positions. We also slightly modified Recommendation 4 to take into account some of the concerns raised by the institution. We prepared a response in these four cases. We maintain that full implementation of the recommendations is needed to enable National Defence to meet its obligation in creating a work environment conducive to the use of English and French at Headquarters and in enabling its employees to use the official language of their choice when taking part in meetings, receiving instructions, drafting documents and using work tools. Beyond the policies and the strategic plans, National Defence’s senior management should show more leadership by putting in place innovative measures in order to correct long lasting problems with regard to language of work. In the action plan, National Defence combined its response for some recommendations because the proposed measures were closely related in their objectives. We respected this presentation in preparing the final report. Recommendation 1 National Defence’s action plan We welcome this recommendation and have taken initial steps to implement it. The Director of Official Languages has redesigned the official languages policy framework to reflect our revised official languages strategic vision. Work is ongoing to amend or draft the various official languages-related orders and directives required to flesh out that framework. It is anticipated that the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) number 5039-2, entitled Language of Work Policy, will be completed and distributed by December 2006. Given that DAODs must undergo an exhaustive review process (legal as well as authoritative), approval and publication will take some time. In the interim, the substantive elements of the policy will be disseminated as an instruction for the senior leadership (both military and civilian) to implement within their respective organization. Recommendation 2 AND Recommendation 9 National Defence’s action plan We accept both of these recommendations. The Functional Approach to managing and measuring bilingual capacity is designed to support full compliance with the Official Languages Act-mandated requirement that bilingual functions be consistently and effectively performed in both official languages. The approach focuses on the unit, defined in the National Defence Act, as the cornerstone of the new methodology. In accordance with that Act, unit Commanding Officers are expected to fully comply with Canadian law and are held accountable for their unit’s performance with respect to all acts of Parliament, including the Official Languages Act. The CF has launched an extensive Project to Review the Linguistic Designation of CF Units, Civilian Positions and Military Functions to implement the Functional Approach. In doing so, we have worked with the Central Agencies to develop a process that carefully analyzes the linguistic capacity required to perform each function within a given unit. The central career management system will provide units with the required bilingual manning level (calculated on a percentage of unit strength), and unit Commanding Officers and their superior commanders will be informed of their obligations to ensure that each bilingual unit function is appropriately performed from within unit resources. (“Resource,” in this case, refers to linguistically qualified bilingual military or civilian personnel). In the future, therefore, official languages capacity will be managed in the same way that all other “qualifications” are managed in the CF: unit Commanding Officers will be held accountable for the performance of their unit in all respects – including the provision of services and supervision in one or both official languages, when and where required, to comply with the Official Languages Act. When the new Functional Approach is fully implemented (anticipated by December 2006) unit official languages performance will be monitored in the same fashion as unit safety performance is currently monitored – through a robust reporting system augmented by regular performance audits. In accordance with this system, the “…higher goals…” that will be set are singular: the performance of bilingual functions with linguistically qualified personnel. As described earlier, that goal will be incorporated in, and will be the exclusive focus of, the next Strategic Plan (2007-2012). Recommendation 3 AND Recommendation 12 National Defence’s action plan We accept both of these recommendations, which are closely related in their objectives. National Defence must more actively foster an organizational culture within Headquarters that encourages defence personnel (military and civilian) to work in their official language of choice. To this end, the Director of Official Languages has formed a new Section within his organization with the mandate of promoting the Official Languages Program. The Section’s efforts are focused on developing and implementing an extensive awareness campaign with a special emphasis on educating the military and civilian senior leadership in the NCR. This will include developing and delivering a training package for Headquarters’ managers and supervisors by the June 30, 2006 deadline stipulated in Recommendation 3. A key element of the training package will be a high quality DVD that the Director of Official Languages is in the process of producing. It will emphasize the linguistic rights and obligations of employees and CF members and highlight the merits of using both official languages. In addition, a series of posters and pamphlets will be produced and widely distributed to inform civilian and military personnel of their linguistic rights, all with a view to developing an environment more conducive to the use of both official languages. The Director of Official Languages is taking steps to invigorate the Department’s vast network of Coordinators of Official Languages (COLs). These intermediaries, who are found at all levels of the chain of command, play a vital role in promoting the Official Languages Program and in ensuring that official languages policies are followed. Further to CF transformation initiatives highlighted above, the revised network of COLs will be integrated into the new CF chain of command. To ensure that the COLs are better prepared to carry out their assigned tasks, the Director of Official Languages is preparing a professional training program. The pilot training course is scheduled to take place before the end of this fiscal year. Recommendation 4 National Defence’s action plan The current percentage of Francophones within the CF is approximately 27%, which slightly exceeds the Canadian national demographic norm. In keeping with Part VI of the Act (Participation of English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canadians) and the Department’s national role, we highlight our resolve to ensure that the CF continues to reflect Canadian demographic norms to the extent possible. The CF Official Languages Model was developed in order to ensure that English- and French-speaking Canadians are provided with the opportunity to work in military units in which their first official language is the language of work. At this time, the CF continues to face significant challenges in providing qualified CF members within all of our units. As well, as indicated previously, we are managing a significant CF transformation and an unprecedented level of operational commitment. The CF cannot implement Recommendation 4 at this time for the following reasons:
For the reasons outlined above, we regret that we cannot concur with Recommendation 4. Moreover, we view prescribing to such short-term measures as being counterproductive to long-term success. As previously stated, our new strategic plan for 2007-2012 that will ensure that bilingual functions are consistently manned with linguistically qualified personnel where and when required to comply with the Official Languages Act. We are determined to comply in equal measure with the spirit and letter of all articles of the Act. Acceptance of Recommendation 4 at this time would, in fact, prevent compliance. However, once the objectives of the Strategic Plan and related Project to Review the Linguistic Designation of CF Units, Civilian Positions and Military Functions are attained, we are confident that the intent of Recommendation 4 will be met. Our response We are of the view that it is at the recruitment stage that the Canadian Forces must respect Part VI of the Act. As a matter of fact, the current percentage of Francophones within the CF is approximately 27%. After the recruitment stage, the CF have the flexibility to deploy their human resources in the different units in order to respect operational requirements. Bilingualism at Headquarters is one of those operational requirements that should be taken into consideration during the deployment of Francophone military personnel. Recommendation 4 (reworded) Recommendation 5 National Defence’s action plan With reference to this recommendation, we believe it is important to differentiate between:
Senior Civilian Managers and Senior CF Officers As is indicated in your report, civilian senior managers occupying bilingual positions and CF senior officers (colonels/captains (Navy) and above) currently have obligatory official languages commitments included in their Performance Management Agreements (PMAs). We agree that, within PMAs, specific emphasis should be placed on the linguistic skills of senior managers/officers as well as on their ability to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. We also agree that senior managers and senior officers at Headquarters should be evaluated on their success in fostering a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages within the organization for which they are responsible. To this end, we will continue to publish an annual letter, under our joint signatures, emphasizing those requirements. Military Leaders (Lieutenant-Colonels/Commanders and Below) and Civilian Equivalents DND and the CF cannot, due to our already over extended resources, initiate formal measures to include official languages performance indicators on the annual appraisal reports of military and civilian personnel (lieutenant-colonels/commanders and below and civilian equivalents), at this time. However, it should be noted that reference is often made to an individual’s ability to perform in both official languages in the text of such reports. Bilingual ability is, also, an essential element in the annual process to determine which CF personnel will be promoted. In the interim, the official languages awareness campaign will serve to ensure that all departmental personnel and CF members serving in the NCR are aware of their rights and obligations related to the use of both official languages in the workplace. As described previously, senior leaders (civilian and military) are, and will continue to be, formally assessed on their ability to foster an environment conducive to the use of both official languages. All personnel serving in the NCR will be publicly and frequently invited to participate in the workplace in their language of choice, an arrangement that should go far to fostering the use of both official languages at Headquarters. Once the CF Official Languages Transformation has matured, the CF may study the possibility of developing more formal official language performance assessment criteria, particularly for military personnel employed in occupations and functions that provide integral or personal services, communications with and services to the public, and bilingual supervision. Our response We understand that National Defence would like to study the possibility of implementing this recommendation once the CF Official Languages Transformation has matured. We believe that the institution should study the question as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, in one of her reports on language of work12, the Commissioner indicated that deputy heads must evaluate the performance of managers by developing assessment criteria based on the actual use of both official languages and the respect of the language rights of both linguistic groups. Consequently, we believe that National Defence should identify right now the appropriate resources to ensure that managers at all levels at National Defence Headquarters are made explicitly accountable for respecting language of work requirements during the annual performance review process. Recommendation 6 National Defence’s action plan We concur with this recommendation, however it will not be implemented in the manner suggested in Recommendation 6. The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan will be very sharply focused on achieving a few key strategic objectives as indicated previously. We feel strongly that the perceived shortcomings upon which Recommendation 6 are based will be actively and aggressively addressed as a part of the recently revitalized official languages awareness program. This awareness program will be featured as an important enabling element in the next Strategic Plan. The objectives and timelines associated with this program will be contained in a communication plan rather than in the Strategic Plan. The development of a professional group of Coordinators of Official Languages is critical to the effective monitoring of and reporting on many aspects of Official Languages Act compliance, including those listed in sub-paragraph (a) to Recommendation 6. Accordingly, the establishment of a well-qualified network of Coordinators of Official Languages will be identified in the Strategic Plan even though related efforts are well advanced. Recommendation 7 National Defence’s action plan In principle, the CF accepts the concept proposed in Recommendation 7, but not the timeline. There are several significant issues that prevent us from meeting the proposed implementation date of 2007. Most importantly, the existing pool of colonels/captains (Navy) that are linguistically qualified for promotion to the rank of general is insufficient in size. Once the current target of having 70% of newly promoted colonels/captains (Navy) at CBC or better is attained (for officers promoted in 2006) and maintained for a period of time, the pool of linguistically qualified potential generals will become significantly larger, making it eventually feasible to comply with Recommendation 7. Early modelling suggests that this recommendation will probably be achievable by 2012. This objective will be included in the National Defence 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. Our response We note that the implementation fo this recommendation will probably be achievable by 2012 because the CF want some time to increase the pool of linguistically qualified colonels/captains (Navy). Recommendation 8 National Defence’s action plan CF - Manning of Bilingual Functions With respect to the staffing of military bilingual functions and military bilingual positions, it is estimated that the Project to Review the Linguistic Designation of CF Units, Civilian Positions and Military Functions will have completed its work by December 2006. By that time, the Project will have objectively identified and verified all functions and positions within National Defence Headquarters that require the use of both official languages. This includes functions that provide central and personal services, communications with and services to the public and bilingual supervision, as defined by the Official Languages Act. The CF will begin posting members with the appropriate linguistic capability to fulfill these functions during the summer of 2007, as recommended. Earlier implementation is not possible because the 2006 annual posting cycle will be almost at an end by the time the Project has completed its work. It should be noted here that the posting cycle occurs on an annual basis culminating in the June to August posting period. The Project will verify the CF’s bilingualism requirements related to the three types of service defined in the Official Languages Act (central and personal services, and communications with and services to the public). Where gaps in official languages capacity are identified, Second Language Training will be refocused on individuals serving in service-oriented occupations and in functions that must be performed bilingually. A directive on access to CF Second Language Training is being drafted to ensure that those military personnel who must be bilingual to comply with the Act are given priority access to training. DND - Staffing of Bilingual Positions With respect to civilian positions, as imperative staffing is generally the norm, only by exception will employees be assigned to a position for which they do not meet the linguistic requirements. In cases where non-imperative staffing does occur, employees must meet the language requirements of their position within a two-year “exemption period.” Compliance with this requirement is very closely monitored and only the Deputy Minister can grant extensions to the exemption period. An ongoing major impediment to meeting statutory language training requirements (i.e., completing Second Language Training within the two-year exemption period) has been the long waiting period for such training at the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS). On March 31, 2005, there were ninety-nine (99) DND employees on the CSPS waiting list, and the number on the waiting list remained constant on July 17, 2005. The vast majority of these employees have been waiting for training since the new Treasury Board on policies on Language of Work went into effect on April 1, 2004. DND employees who fail to reach the required linguistic level within the approved time period must be transferred to a non-bilingual position unless they are granted an extension. DND and CF - Bilingual Supervision Our awareness program will emphasize the requirement to ensure that absent military and civilian supervisors serving in bilingual positions are temporarily replaced with linguistically qualified bilingual personnel. The Functional Approach caters specifically to this requirement. This is necessary in an organization such as the CF in which the workforce tends to be extremely mobile. Recommendation 10 National Defence’s action plan The Public Service Commission (PSC) has the mandate to articulate the qualifications and abilities associated with each of the three linguistic proficiency levels (A, B, and C) in each of the three required skills: reading, writing and oral interaction. PSC documentation clearly defines proficiency level B as sufficient for basic supervisory responsibilities. Only in cases of more senior supervisory functions (i.e., individuals representing the institution), where the ability to deal with abstract ideas is required, is proficiency level B deemed to be inadequate. As previously indicated, we have established a project to verify the appropriate language profile required for each supervisory function/position within DND and the CF as a whole. The PSC also indicates that proficiency level BBB is normally the minimum required to properly deliver personal and central services in both official languages. Accordingly, the Project will identify BBB as the normal minimum linguistic proficiency level called for to perform functions providing central and personal services at Headquarters and elsewhere. Our response In one of her reports on language of work13, the Commissioner indicated that an intermediate knowledge of the second language is insufficient for properly carrying out most supervisory tasks. She also made a recommendation to the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, the central agency responsible for the general direction and co-ordination of the official languages policies and programs of the Government of Canada, to raise to at least CBC the linguistic profile for all supervisory positions in bilingual regions, when the incumbent is required to supervise employees in bilingual or either/or positions. Consequently, we believe that National Defence should take appropriate measures to implement the recommendation with regard to the CBC level for the linguistic profile of bilingual positions at National Defence Headquarters providing supervisory services. Our position is strengthened by the fact that presently more than three quarters of supervisory positions at Headquarters, whether they are filled by civilians or military personnel, require only the BBB level or lower. Recommendation 11 National Defence’s action plan DND and CF - Second Language Training Language training comes at a significant cost. Not only is it expensive in monetary terms, but it takes personnel away from operational tasks. As with all other departmental activities, expenditure of resources on Second Language Training is prioritized through the annual Business Planning process. It is our understanding that National Defence spends more on Second Language Training than any other federal institution. With respect to CF members, the recommendations will be addressed in the forthcoming Directive on Access to Second Language Training. A similar Directive on Access to Second Language Training became effective April 2005 for DND civilian employees. While we would like to be able to offer Second Language Training (to level CBC) to every civilian employee and member of the CF, we lack the resources to do so. Consequently, our focus remains on Official Languages Act compliance. As prescribed in the 2004 Treasury Board Directive on Language Training and Learning Retention, DND has done its best to meet the requirements of the “EX at CBC” policy. At present, the Department maintains a 98% compliance rate. As described elsewhere in this document, bilingualism (to level CBC) is viewed as an asset in and a requirement for promotion to the ranks of colonel/captains (Navy) and above (equivalent to civilian EXs). Accordingly, senior officers are provided priority access to language training. Once the Project to Review the Linguistic Designation of CF Units, Civilian Positions and Military Functions completes its work and the Functional Approach comes into being, the priority for all (military and civilian) Departmental Second Language Training will formally switch to providing training to those individuals who must become bilingual to comply with the Act. This approach will allow for the possibility that military and civilian personnel will be selected to participate in Second Language Training because the requirement has been identified through the succession planning process. Individuals who will (or are highly likely to) require bilingual proficiency to perform functions to which they will be assigned in the future also may be sent on Second Language Training. The DND Directive on Access to Second Language Training specifies the priorities for access to non-statutory Second Language Training as follows:
The CF policy, once drafted, will outline similar priorities. Those DND employees and CF personnel who are not selected to participate in Second Language Training for present or future Act compliance reasons may propose to their supervisors that Second Language Training form a part of their Personal Learning Plan. In those cases where the plans are approved, National Defence is committed to placing considerable resources at the disposal of personnel to assist them in acquiring linguistic skills. For example, CF personnel who attend language training on their own time are eligible to have part or all of the costs refunded upon successful completion of the training. Also, National Defence is working on making its web-based versions of the French and English CF language-training curriculum more easily accessible to everyone through on-line and/or computer-based training. DND civilian employees who are not entitled to statutory Second Language Training provided by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) can apply to attend non-statutory Second Language Training funded by the Department. On an annual basis, over $600,000 in centrally managed National Defence funding is spent on providing Second Language Training to DND (civilian) employees through private suppliers. Both military and civilian personnel can apply to their superiors to take Second Language Training funded from unit budgets, if such a requirement has been identified in their Individual Learning Plans. DND and CF – The Maintenance of Language Skills We recognize that National Defence is no different than most other government departments in that “..even if supervisors attain the [linguistic profile] level required for their position, few use their second language skills on their return from language training.” National Defence continues to explore different ways of ensuring that learning tools and opportunities are available to military and civilian personnel who have completed their full-time language training. We feel that this is an important element in ensuring that the Department gets its return on its tremendous investment in Second Language Training, a return that is critical if full Official Languages Act compliance is to become a reality. As a further means of ensuring that CF personnel who graduate from Second Language Training employ their second language skills, where possible, career managers have been directed to assign to the extent possible, candidates graduating from the year long intermediate or superior level “Continuous Courses” to positions where their newly acquired language skills will be put to use. The CF also has a series of courses available throughout the country designed specifically to assist military personnel to retain language skills, once acquired. National Defence has received Innovation Funds to study ways of enhancing second language retention. This initiative will lead to a pilot project that will test the study’s findings. The focus will initially be upon CF senior officers and DND civilian members of the Executive Group (EXs) who have recently acquired CBC or better language profiles. Once a program is developed, it can be expanded to include all bilingual military and civilian personnel. APPENDIX BAudit Objectives and Criteria Objectives The objectives of the audit were to determine whether:
Criteria We expected that:
NOTES1 The first letter represents reading, the second represents writing and the last represents oral interaction. Also, B represents the intermediate level of language skills. The level C, referred to later in the report, represents the highest level of language skills. 2 Investigation report into the impact of language of work on the recruiting, appointment and transfer of unilingual personnel to bilingual positions, Office of the Commissioner of Official languages, 2005. 3 Making It Real: Promoting Respectful Co-existence of the Two Official Languages at Work, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2005. 4 Language Training Canada pays most of the cost of the full-time statutory language training of civilian personnel. 5 Amongst others, Investigation on the distribution of internal correspondence at National Defence Headquarters, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1995; Investigation on the Bilingual Officer Corps Policy, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001; Investigation into the impact of language of work on the recruiting, appointment and transfer of unilingual personnel to bilingual positions, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2005. 6 Special report submitted to the Governor in Council (National Defence), Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1987. 7 Walking the Talk: Language of Work in the Federal Public Service, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2004. 8 Investigation report into the impact of language of work on the recruiting, appointment and transfer of unilingual personnel to bilingual positions, Office of the Commissioner of Official languages, 2005. 9 Either/or: a unilingual position that allows the incumbent to choose his language of work when taking up his duties. 10 Walking the Talk: Language of Work in the Federal Public Service, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2004. 11 Investigation report into the impact of language of work on the recruiting, appointment and transfer of unilingual personnel to bilingual positions, Office of the Commissioner of Official languages, 2005. 12 Making It Real: Promoting Respectful Co-existence of the Two Official Languages at Work, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2005. 13 Walking the Talk: Language of Work in the Federal Public Service, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2004. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Home
|
Français
|
Contact Us
|
Help
|
Search
|
Canada Site
|
1 800 O-Canada
Site Map | FAQ | Links | What's New? |
|
| Last update: 2006-02-07 | |
