Linguistic Audit of the Individual Training and Education System of the Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence - Follow-up

Introduction

In June 2010, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages published its audit report on the Individual Training and Education (IT&E) system of the Canadian Forces (CF), Department of National Defence (DND). The audit revealed that several shortcomings were preventing the CF from fully meeting the requirements of the Official Languages Act (the Act) with respect to the IT&E system. As part of this audit, the Commissioner made 20 recommendations to improve the management of the IT&E system from an official languages point of view. The list of recommendations and the status of their implementation are in Appendix A.

This report provides an update on the progress the CF has made in the implementation of these recommendations since the audit report was released. The follow-up was conducted between December 2012 and January 2013.

At the time of the audit, we noted that CF representatives were very cooperative and saw this audit as an instrument of change with respect to the delivery of this important training system across the organization. As the progress report submitted by the CF and signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff on July 10, 2012 shows, improving the training system from an official languages point of view remains a priority for the CF.

Methodological approach

To carry out this follow-up, the Office of the Commissioner grouped the 20 recommendations under 7 major themes. This approach allowed us to ensure that the follow-up on the implementation of these recommendations was in line with the major intervention strategies identified in the CF Official Languages Action Plan 2012–2017 (OLAP).

The following are the major follow-up themes:

  • The first theme, strategic planning, refers to the first three recommendations in the audit report. These recommendations were made under the first objective of the audit, which was to ensure that strategic planning leading to the IT&E plans takes into account the need to provide training in the official language of choice of CF members.
  • Under the second theme, language training, can be found the five recommendations primarily made under the second and fourth objectives of the audit, which were to ensure that IT&E governance promotes the respect of the official language of choice of non-commissioned members and officers with respect to their training and education, and to ensure that language training is provided in a way that increases the language competencies of officers.
  • The third theme, the review of policies/directives, refers to the three recommendations that were made under the second objective of the audit, which addressed governance, and are also related to the third objective, which aimed to ensure that the IT&E system does not negatively impact the employment, posting or advancement of non-commissioned members and officers from both official language groups.
  • The fourth theme, translation, covers two recommendations made under the second objective of the audit, which dealt with governance, as described above.
  • The fifth theme, teaching methods, refers to two recommendations that were also made under the second objective, on governance.
  • The sixth theme, creating a conducive environment for learning in both official languages, refers to the four recommendations made on this subject primarily under the third objective, which focuses on potential negative impacts.
  • Lastly, the seventh theme, performance measurement, refers to the recommendation that is addressed separately and falls under the second objective of the audit on governance.

Our analysis of these themes will begin by very succinctly reviewing the improvements that were meant to be achieved as a result of the recommendations in question. This will be followed by a brief description of the status of the recommendations in light of the CF progress report, the interviews that were held with officials from the CF Official Languages Directorate and the review of relevant documentation in each case. Finally, we will evaluate the progress that has been made with regard to implementation by examining the collected data and will propose possible avenues to fully implement the recommendations, as required. Some recommendations are considered “satisfactorily implemented,” while others, still in progress, are considered “partially implemented,” and yet others are considered “not implemented.” If, for valid reasons, there is no point in going forward with a recommendation, it will be considered “no longer applicable.”

Analysis of the implementation of the recommendations

Strategic planning

As mentioned previously, three recommendations in the audit report focused on strategic planning. In his report, the Commissioner recommended that the evaluation of language requirements be permanently integrated into the Annual Military Occupational Review (AMOR) process in order to take the necessary measures to address the shortage of linguistically qualified personnel, as required (recommendation 1). The Commissioner also recommended that data from the AMOR process be used to better plan the number of courses required and better establish the training schedules of the various establishments in French and English to accommodate language of preference (recommendation 2). Lastly, the Commissioner recommended that the staffing priority assigned to education always be included in the first three staffing priority levels (recommendation 3).

In the progress report, the CF point out that a review of the current AMOR process does not enable it to adequately address the Commissioner's first two recommendations. The process cannot anticipate all the staffing possibilities and variables related to personnel, including the environment itself (i.e. the Navy, Land Force and Air Force), career progression and personal choices related to language training and language of training.

To address these weaknesses, the CF proposed a different approach. During discussions with representatives from the CF Official Languages Directorate, we were informed that two projects had been launched in response to the recommendations on planning. These projects are part of the new CF OLAP. This plan involves reviewing and updating the language designation of positions within the CF and aims to develop and maintain a permanent linguistic capacity within the CF. The definition and update of the language designation of positions integrated into the human resources management system will help CF career managers anticipate language training needs and meet the needs of bilingual personnel, as required. The project on strengthening bilingual capacity will help to highlight the conditions and questions or issues that are critical to maintaining this capacity. We anticipate that the project itself will be completed by April 2013 and that data will continue to be collected thereafter. The review and updating of the language designation of positions should be completed by the end of May 2013, but given the magnitude of the task delays are possible.

In light of these findings, we consider recommendations 1 and 2 to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented. We encourage the Official Languages Directorate to continue its efforts to integrate data on the language designation of positions within the CF into the career management system.

For the implementation of recommendation 3, which focused on the staffing priority assigned to instructor positions, we have been able to confirm that the priority assigned to training establishments is still among the CF's first three staffing priority levels.

We therefore consider this recommendation to be satisfactorily implemented.

Language training

The issue of language training was discussed in several parts of the audit report. A total of five recommendations were made on this subject on the following issues: the lack of linguistically qualified instructors (recommendation 4); the additional hours of training required for officer cadets to be given the opportunity to attain a level of language proficiency higher than BBB (recommendation 14); the integration of language training into the training plans of members who will be called upon to work in units requiring skills in both official languages [recommendation 17a) and recommendation 17b)]; the priority for second-language training to non-commissioned members who will need to assume leadership roles (recommendation 19); and improved access to second-language training and retention for officers (recommendation 20).

Upon reading the progress report and after discussions with representatives from the Official Languages Directorate, we note many language training initiatives worthy of mention. In terms of access to language training for instructors and members who will need to assume leadership and supervisory roles, the Chief of Military Personnel (CMP), in his letter dated July 14, clearly set out the language training priorities for 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 to all training authorities in all environments. The previously mentioned categories are at the top of the list. Priority 2 includes language training to “meet succession planning requirements, as identified by the chains of command….” We also note, according to the OLAP, that the Official Languages Directorate conducts follow-ups on the application of these training priorities. The first follow-up took place in April 2012 for individual training establishments and the results will be available by the end of the 2012–2013 fiscal year. The Official Languages Directorate is also implementing an audit cycle to examine the cost effectiveness of language training. The review cycle should be in place by March 31, 2014.

For officer cadets who want to attain a higher level of proficiency in their second language, the Royal Military College (RMC) has been providing, since fall 2011, the opportunity to take additional language training every day to those who are interested. The RMC should maintain data on the number of students who are doing so.

In light of the foregoing, we consider the recommendations on the priorities and access to language training [i.e., recommendations 4, recommendation 14, recommendation 17a) and recommendation 17b), recommendation 19 and recommendation 20] to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented. We encourage the Official Languages Directorate to pursue its monitoring and analysis initiatives in this regard.

The review of policies/directives

The issue of updating policies and directives was addressed in three recommendations. Recommendation 5 called for a review of the Defence Administrative Order and Directive DAOD 5031-2 in order to better integrate official languages in IT&E management, in the Order itself, in the mandate and in the composition of the IT&E Committee. Recommendation 6 focused on establishing a model similar to the one currently in place at CFB Borden to integrate IT&E issues into the responsibilities of official languages coordinators in training establishments. Recommendation 18a) called for a tracking system for the appointment of non-commissioned members to leadership positions, similar to the one that exists for officers, in order to ensure second-language proficiency at the time of promotion, as required. Recommendation 18b) called for the adoption of a revised point system that would include the three language skills (reading, writing and oral interaction) for the promotion of non-commissioned members to bilingual positions.

For recommendation 5, the progress report indicated the following achievements: DAOD 5031-2 was modified in 2011 to integrate official languages into IT&E; a sub-group of the IT&E Committee (the official languages and second official language education and training working group) was set up to deal with official languages issues related to IT&E, and the composition of the IT&E Committee was changed to include the Director of Official Languages. The Director will be positioned to contribute to the DAOD cyclical reviews on IT&E and propose the modifications required in terms of official languages.

As for the update of the DAOD 5031-2, it is important to note that this DAOD has not been modified as such, but that it now makes reference to two other DAODs that will be modified to take into account the recommendations in the audit report: DAOD 5039-6, “Delivery of Training and Education in Both Official Languages,” and DAOD 5039-7, “Second Official Language Education and Training for CF Members.” According to the OLAP, these two DAODs will be revised by April 1, 2014.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 5 to be in the process of being fulfilled, and therefore partially implemented.

In terms of recommendation 6, the progress report states that the establishment of a parallel group of official languages champions had been negatively perceived by the three environments (the Navy, Land Force and Air Force). The environments prefer to establish mechanisms that better reflect their own context. For example, the Navy's official languages champion liaises between the Navy's training establishments and IT&E. For the Air Force, the role of official languages champion is carried out in a more centralized manner at headquarters, whereas the Land Force lets each individual base commander decide how to address the IT&E issue from an official languages point of view.

It should be noted that the recommendation did not aim to establish a group parallel to the one that already exists. Rather, it aimed to ensure that, in training establishments, official languages coordinators are visible in terms of IT&E among personnel and students and promote an environment conducive to learning in both official languages.

In light of the foregoing, we consider this recommendation not to have been implemented.

For both parts of recommendation 18, the progress report indicates that a new directive is in effect for the ranks targeted by recommendation 18a) and that a tracking system is in place. In August 2011, a new point system that takes into account the three language skills for promotion of non-commissioned members was put in place. A review of the documents attached to the progress report confirms these statements.

In light of the foregoing, we consider both parts of recommendation 18[recommendation 18a) and recommendation 18b)] to be satisfactorily implemented.

Translation

The question of translation appears in two of the recommendations made in the audit report. The objective of recommendation 7a) was to encourage training establishments to improve their practices related to planning and priority setting with regard to the translation of all course material. Recommendation 7b) encouraged testing the practice of producing internal documents simultaneously in both official languages in some training establishments. The purpose of recommendation 9 was to ensure that technical course material always be translated into French [recommendation 9a)] and that, during the contracting process for the purchase of equipment and machinery, language clauses always be included to ensure the availability of technical documents in both official languages [recommendation 9b)].

With regard to recommendation 7a), the progress report and the directives that were provided to us by various environments revealed that more attention is being paid to translation. Each environment has issued its own directive on translation priorities and, in the OLAP, the Official Languages Directorate commits to conducting a follow-up. During our discussions, representatives from the Directorate also indicated that they would be setting overall translation priorities over the course of the next fiscal year to complement the guidelines that had already been established within the various environments.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 7a) to be satisfactorily implemented.

In terms of testing the practice of producing documents simultaneously in both official languages [recommendation 7b)], the various environments examined the possibility of setting up on-site translation units in several locations. Apart from a few exceptions, particularly at the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA), there is a desire to adopt a more centralized approach and focus on the planning and priority of material to be translated, given various factors such as costs, the availability of specialized translators and the distribution of translation resources.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 7b) to be no longer necessary and therefore no longer applicable.

For recommendation 9a), the progress report and our discussions with representatives from the Official Languages Directorate revealed advances in the availability of technical material in French in the various environments. Each environment describes its achievements in this regard, but there is still work to be done to make all material available. The Official Languages Directorate conducted a follow-up on this issue in the OLAP.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 9a) to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented.

In terms of the language clauses in tenders [recommendation 9b)], the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for purchasing technical material confirmed that a language clause requiring documentation in both official languages currently exists in the Department's procurement policy for technical material.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 9b) to be satisfactorily implemented.

Teaching methods

The question of teaching methods was raised twice in the audit report. Recommendation 8 [recommendation 8a), recommendation 8b) and recommendation 8c)] addressed the approach that should be used to train aircraft crewmembers and operations and communications officers on ships. Varying approaches were proposed based on the learning stage. It was also recommended that basic training be offered in the candidates' official language of choice, that access to pertinent English phraseology be provided and, when it is time to move on to more advanced training that requires exercising manoeuvres and techniques in real time using designated equipment, that training be offered in English only in accordance with established international conventions. Recommendation 10 called on the CDA, together with the other training authorities, to be assigned responsibility for establishing and coordinating an IT&E mechanism aimed at adopting the teaching approaches for each occupational category and complying with the requirements of the Act.

We learned that, in response to recommendation 8, new directives have been put in place at the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy and we believe that they reflect the recommended approach. However, full implementation of the recommendation will take time. Translation is still required in order for the technical material to be made available in French. The Official Languages Directorate will have to follow up on a regular basis in this regard. As a result, we consider this recommendation to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented.

For recommendation 10, the status of the IT&E modernization project led by the CDA that brings together representatives from all the environments, including the Official Languages Directorate, was examined. This project was mentioned in the audit report. The project is a long-term one and the Official Languages Directorate recently proposed adding to the modalities listed in the concept document important modifications that must be included from an official languages point of view and in terms of compliance with the Act. We fully support this decision.

We feel that the Official Languages Directorate's participation in this project is critical given the magnitude of the task and future impact on the entire IT&E system. We therefore feel that the continued participation of the Official Languages Directorate at each phase of the project ensures that recommendation 10 is in the process of being fulfilled and is therefore partially implemented.

Conducive environment

Four recommendations addressed this theme in the audit report. Recommendation 11 proposed that specific measures be taken by the various training authorities and establishments to create an environment conducive to learning in both official languages. Recommendation 13 emphasized the need to highlight the professional and personal advantages of being bilingual during the recruitment process and promotional campaigns. Recommendation 15 called on the RMC to examine the higher failure rate for the “bilingualism” component for officer cadets and take steps to reduce it as much as possible. Recommendation 16 called for the Non-Commissioned Members Professional Development Centre (NCMPDC) to take measures to ensure that non-commissioned members can have access to bilingual presentations and participate in professional training sessions in the official language of their choice.

For recommendation 11, the OLAP reports on a number of activities aimed at ensuring the implementation of this recommendation. This includes the same elements as those identified in the audit report. The Official Languages Directorate is also working on awareness tools to help managers properly understand the concept of a conducive environment. A presentation prepared in October 2012 and sent to commanders of national training establishments clearly indicates what is expected from a school commander to create an environment conducive to learning in both official languages. Lastly, the Official Languages Directorate is currently preparing a DAOD on language of work, planned for June 2013, which will also incorporate these elements.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 11 to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented.

In response to recommendation 13, the CF limited its comments to saying that, in recruitment centres, service is provided in both official languages across Canada and all material is available in both official languages. For promotional campaigns, the CF pointed out that the advantages of being bilingual are integrated into various documents and into various products on the Internet. A review of the Forces.ca Web site found very little on the advantages of being bilingual in the CF.

In light of the foregoing, we consider this recommendation not to have been implemented.

For recommendation 15, the CDA took specific measures to reduce the failure rate for the “bilingualism” component. Extra hours were added for language training during the summer session in 2012, and future summer schedules have been reorganized to improve the second-language learning environment.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 15 to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented.

Lastly, for recommendation 16, we were informed that the NCMPDC adopted the same policies and practices as the Canadian Forces College in Toronto. During the audit, we acknowledged the efforts made by the College to create a learning environment conducive to the use of both official languages. However, the NCMPDC maintains data on the achievement of its objectives in this regard. The Official Languages Directorate gives annual presentations on official languages during the leadership course taken by non-commissioned members who wish to assume leadership roles.

In light of the foregoing, we consider recommendation 16 to be in the process of being carried out and therefore partially implemented.

Performance measurement

Only one recommendation fell under the performance measurement theme. Recommendation 12 aimed to ensure that the CDA, together with the other training authorities, integrate into the current IT&E performance measurement initiative a component on language of training.

The progress report states that the CDA has already integrated official languages components into its IT&E performance measurement system. The concept document for the IT&E modernization project, which is mentioned earlier with respect to recommendation 10, refers to this question as well as to other measures proposed by the Official Languages Directorate in relation to performance measurement. As previously mentioned, this is a large-scale modernization project that will have a major impact on IT&E for many years to come. We support all the additions to this document proposed by the Official Languages Directorate. We also noted that, in the OLAP, the Official Languages Directorate presents a series of activities aimed at developing and using effective and relevant performance measurement tools for the implementation of the official languages program within the CF. The implementation of these tools is planned for 2013–2014.

In light of the foregoing and with the participation of the Official Languages Directorate at every phase of the modernization project, we consider recommendation 12 to be in the process of being fulfilled and therefore partially implemented.

Conclusion

The Commissioner of Official Languages recognizes the effort made by the CF to implement the 20 recommendations from the audit on IT&E and the seriousness with which it has done so. Out of the 26 individual statements—some recommendations have several parts—the vast majority, 23 out of 26, have been either satisfactorily implemented (5/26) or partially implemented (18/26). One (1) recommendation is no longer applicable and two (2) recommendations have not been implemented.

We are also aware of the amount of work involved in bringing about organizational change within the CF and recognize the excellent work the Official Languages Directorate has done in response to these recommendations. We encourage the Directorate to continue its efforts in this regard. We would also, however, like to identify further follow-ups the Official Languages Directorate could carry out to ensure a permanent change in the IT&E system and compliance with the Act.

First, it is imperative that the intervention efforts by the Director of Official Languages to influence the Director General – Military Careers continue, to ensure that the decisions made by career managers take into consideration data on the language designation of positions within the CF. As previously mentioned, the review and update of the language designation of positions within the CF is currently under way and will be completed by the end of May 2013. Integrating this data will enable better planning to take place with respect to the need for bilingual personnel and compliance with the Act.

Second, we encourage the Official Languages Directorate to closely monitor the implementation of language training priorities flowing from the annual letters of the CMP and establish its audit cycle to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of language training. We also believe that the study on the maintenance of the bilingual capacity that the Official Languages Directorate is currently undertaking will identify factors that will help create an environment that is truly conducive to the use of both official languages within the CF.

Third, we would like to highlight the critical importance of the IT&E modernization project being led by the CDA to the IT&E system for years to come. It is for this reason that we have suggested twice in this report that the Official Languages Directorate should participate actively and continuously in this project. In our opinion, this intervention is critical to ensuring that the new system complies with the Act and that French has its rightful place as a language in which learning can take place.

Lastly, to address the two recommendations that we feel have not been implemented, we believe that the Official Languages Directorate must take steps with Public Affairs and the CF Recruiting Group to review the emphasis placed on bilingualism during the recruiting process and in promotional campaigns. We believe the CF should highlight the advantages of a military force that can, among other things, carry out its operational mandate in both official languages and create a work and learning environment conducive to the use of both official languages.

In terms of the roles of official languages coordinators within training establishments, we also believe that the Official Languages Directorate should continue its work with national training establishments, not to create a group of champions parallel to the one that already exists, but to ensure that the official languages coordinators of these establishments are visible in terms of IT&E among personnel and students and promote an environment conducive to learning in both official languages.

In our opinion, by adding the measures identified above to those that have already been taken, the CF will ensure that all the commitments related to the full implementation of the recommendations regarding official languages in the training establishments and units will be achieved.

Appendix A - Recommendations and status of implementation

Strategic planning

Recommendation 1: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces permanently integrate the identification of language requirements into the Annual Military Occupational Review process in order to take the necessary measures to address the shortage of linguistically qualified personnel, as required.

Recommendation 2: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces use the data from the annual needs analysis process by occupational category in combination with the language designation of the various work units to better plan the number of courses required and to better establish the training schedules of the various establishments in French and English to accommodate language of preference.

Recommendation 3: Satisfactorily implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces ensure that the staffing priority assigned to education always be included in the first three priority staffing levels, and that as much effort as possible be devoted to staffing instructor positions, with a view to increasing the capacity to deliver and support training in the member's official language of choice.

Language training

Recommendation 4: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that each year the training authorities, the commandants of the training establishments and the career managers identify the number of instructors required for each occupational category in order to meet the training needs in both official languages, and take the necessary measures with regard to language training to offset the lack of linguistically qualified instructors, as needed.

Recommendation 14: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, while studying at the Royal Military College in Kingston and the Royal Military College Saint-Jean, officer cadets be given the opportunity and be supported in their efforts by the Canadian Forces to pursue their second-language training to attain a higher level of language proficiency after having achieved the required BBB level.

Recommendation 17 [a) and b)]: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces:

  1. hold mandatory discussions between the career management group and the commanding officers of the various bilingual units to ensure that a sufficient number of military personnel can be posted in the context of the functional management concept as stipulated in the Official Languages Program Transformation Model to meet the linguistic requirements of these units; and
  2. integrate language training into the training plans of members who will be called upon to work in units requiring skills in their second language.

Recommendation 19: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces give priority for second-language training, as is the case for the Officer Corps, to non-commissioned members who will need to assume leadership roles in bilingual units at specific stages in their careers.

Recommendation 20: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Chief of Military Personnel, in light of the concerns raised, undertake a review of the existing career management system to improve access to second-language training and retention for officers required to work in their second language and maintain these second-language skills once acquired.

The review of policies/directives

Recommendation 5: Partially implemented

To be more in line with the need for an integrated and unified workforce, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Defence Academy complete the review of DAOD 5031-2 in order to better integrate official languages into the IT&E management framework both in the order as such and in the composition and work of the IT&E Committee.

Recommendation 6: Not implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces adopt at all training bases and establishments a model similar to that which exists at the Canadian Forces Base Borden, whereby a senior officer is identified as a champion for all official languages matters including language of training.

Recommendation 18 [a) and b)]: Satisfactorily implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Forces:

  1. implement a tracking system for promotions of senior officers in line with the recent directive from the Chief of the Defence Staff and provide progress reports on this initiative to the Chief of Military Personnel, and adopt an equally visible and strict approach with respect to the promotion of chief warrant officers, chief petty officers, 1st class and commandants of training establishments, all with a view to ensuring that corrective measures are taken in a timely fashion; and
  2. ensure that the point system for promotion of non-commissioned members who are bilingual and who wish to occupy key positions or receive senior appointments takes into account the three language skills (reading, writing and oral interaction) for these promotions.

Translation

Recommendation 7 [a) and b)]: Satisfactorily implemented [7a)]; No longer applicable [7b)]

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that:

  1. training establishments improve their practices related to planning and priority setting with regard to the translation of all course material; and
  2. the Canadian Forces undertake negotiations with the Translation Bureau in order to test the practice of producing internal documents simultaneously in both official languages in some training establishments with a view to improving the quality and turnaround time associated with these documents and eventually establishing it as a common practice.

Recommendation 9 [a) and b)]: Partially implemented [9a)]; Satisfactorily implemented [9b)]

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that:

  1. for technical support and other technical occupations, the Canadian Forces have technical course material translated and training offered in French, enhanced by the availability of English technical vocabulary and support for manufacturers' manuals if these cannot be made available in French; and
  2. during the contracting process for the purchase of equipment and machinery, the Canadian Forces require that manufacturers' manuals be translated or acquire copyrights for translation purposes.

Teaching methods

Recommendation 8 [a), b) and c)]: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, for aviation and naval occupations such as aircraft crewmembers, and operations and communications officers on ships governed by international conventions, the Canadian Forces:

  1. offer basic training in the candidates' official language of choice and during this basic training Francophones be given access to the pertinent English phraseology;
  2. when it is time to move on to more advanced training that requires exercising manoeuvres and techniques in real time by using designated equipment, offer this training in English only in accordance with established conventions; and
  3. ensure that Francophone candidates moving forward to more advanced training have attained a high enough competency level in their second language to fully assimilate the required manoeuvres and techniques.

Recommendation 10: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Defence Academy, together with the other training authorities, be assigned responsibility for establishing and coordinating an IT&E mechanism aimed at optimizing the teaching approach for each occupation category, taking into account a variety of options with a view to delivering quality training and meeting the requirements of the Official Languages Act.

Conducive environment

Recommendation 11: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Director of Official Languages ensure that specific measures be taken by the various training authorities and training establishments to create an environment conducive to learning in both official languages.

Recommendation 13: Not implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, during the recruitment process and the promotional campaigns, the Canadian Forces highlight the professional and personal advantages of being bilingual in the Forces.

Recommendation 15: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that officials at the Royal Military College examine the reasons behind the higher failure rate for the bilingualism component and take the necessary steps to reduce it as much as possible.

Recommendation 16: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Non-Commissioned Members Professional Development Centre take proactive measures to ensure that, in plenary sessions and during presentations made by experts, every opportunity is given to Francophones to participate in the official language of their choice.

Performance measurement

Recommendation 12: Partially implemented

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that the Canadian Defence Academy, together with the other training authorities, integrate into the current IT&E performance measurement initiative a component on language of training to ensure that the achievement of objectives and sub-objectives in this regard will be measured.