# Defence Minister announces new Official Languages Plan



## AIC_2K5 (30 Nov 2006)

Backgrounder - http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2152

News Release - http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2153

So...what does this mean? Lower second language standards for officers...?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

Well, I think this may eliminate the following situation:
Officer "A" and Officer "B" both have similar scores on their PERs.  For sake of argument, officer "A" scored 88 (whatever that means) and officer "B" scored 89.  Both officers have similar undergraduate degrees, so both gain 1 point, putting their scores to 89 and 90 respectively.  So, based on performance, potential and education, officer "B" is better than officer "A".  But, poor old officer "B".  He's from Newfoundland.  His idea of a second language is The Queen's English.  Officer "A", on the other hand, grew up in Moncton, NB, and as a proud (and somewhat typical) Acadian, can switch from english to french as easily as changing channels on a remote.  So, officer "A" gains 2 points, while officer "B" gains none.  The new score?  Officer "A" gets 91, and officer "B" remains at 90.  There is only one promotion this year, and officer "A" gets it, even though based solely on performance, potential and education, officer "B" would be the better choice.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (30 Nov 2006)

On first reading I think it means that Priority for language training will be given to those who need it for work.  I can't see them deciding that the  objective of the universal bilingualism  is not necessary for Officers.  I think that we absolutely need all officers to be functionally fluent in both languages at a minimum.  I'd like to see everyone fluent in both languages but I do have some sense of reality.  :warstory:


----------



## OnTrack (30 Nov 2006)

Sanity prevails.  This is a good news story.  If only the Public Service could adopt such a policy - bilingual imperative staffing kills me.


----------



## geo (30 Nov 2006)

Beats me!.!.!.?.?.?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> On first reading I think it means that Priority for language training will be given to those who need it for work.  I can't see them deciding that the  objective of the universal bilingualism  is not necessary for Officers.  I think that we absolutely need all officers to be functionally fluent in both languages at a minimum.  I'd like to see everyone fluent in both languages but I do have some sense of reality.  :warstory:


I think you may be off on this one.  Consider this quote:
"With the transformation of its official languages program, DND/CF reinforces its commitment to comply with the requirements of the OLA by *moving away from the universal approach and adopting a functional approach to bilingualism*.  This approach recognizes that – unlike the public service – the CF manages personnel by unit and not by position."  (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2152)

And this:
"A *targeted * approach to second-language training also means that DND/CF will make more efficient and effective use of its training capacity than under the former model, which was not sufficiently resourced to meet the *ambitious and unnecessary objective of the universal approach * to bilingualism in the CF."

I agree that a platoon commander in 1 PPCLI needn't have ANY profile in french, just as a platoon commander in 1 R 22eR needn't have ANY profile in english.  Same goes for company commanders and battalion commanders.  Brigade commanders I could see having the need to be bilingual (as well as anyone in a bilingual unit and/or base).  So, being bilingual would still be an asset, but no longer a necessity.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2006)

But here's the problem:  To be considered for certain senior positions (some LCols, and most/all Col and GO positions) you will still reqr bilingualism.  Are we then going to limit the pool of Majs and LCols considered for promotion - ahve most/all of our senior leaders drawn from an even smaller pool than before?

(Back to the earlier example of officer "B" - I know many Newfoundlanders in the Army who arrange postings to 5 Brigade, so they are closer to home.  While in Valcartier, they find attractive French-Canadian girlfriends, and develop a true affinity for the French tongue.  Thus, they're probably more likely to be bilingual than the Acadian.  But I digress)


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But here's the problem:  To be considered for certain senior positions (some LCols, and most/all Col and GO positions) you will still reqr bilingualism.  Are we then going to limit the pool of Majs and LCols considered for promotion - ahve most/all of our senior leaders drawn from an even smaller pool than before?


I doubt that second language testing will go the way of the dodo.  Having said that, they won't waste a year of a member's career putting him or her in St Jean to learn a language.  Is being bilingual an asset?  You bet it is!  Is it necessary?  Nope, not at all UNLESS you work in a bilingual unit OR you wish to move on up and up and up.  And by "up" I mean WAY UP.  

As for Newfoundlanders, my example was very much tongue in cheek and part of an inside joke.  I know this WO who is from Newfoundland and our joke was that his SLT should have been spent learning proper English vice french


----------



## xmarcx (30 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> Having said that, they won't waste a year of a member's career putting him or her in St Jean to learn a language.



As a soon to be sworn in DEO Infantry officer who grew up in Southern Ontario (born to a family of Newfies at that) I'm dreading the 33 weeks of SLT that I am doomed to endure. I believe that on a national scale, bilingualism is a great goal to aim for, but to be perfectly honest as an enthusiastic youngster joining the combat arms I could care less about learning French and just want to start learning my trade. Coming straight from university, I'm a little maxed out on classroom time and would like to start playing in the mud. At the same time, I want to make the forces my career and recognize the long term potential and usefulness of being bilingual for staff positions. 

I just don't see the logic of SLT at the start of a member's career. Assuming everything goes well, I'm going to do 4 months of IAP/BOTC, then 8 months of SLT, then 2 odd years of trade training, and then be posted to an English unit where I won't use any French for 5 years and likely forget way too much of it to actually use it in a functional capacity. 

I'm sure more experienced people can point out instances where bilingualism has been useful to them in this time period, but from the outside looking in, it strikes me that part time classes or self-study closer to the stage of a member's career where they will need to speak French would be a more productive strategy for both the CF and the individual.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But here's the problem:  To be considered for certain senior positions (some LCols, and most/all Col and GO positions) you will still reqr bilingualism.  Are we then going to limit the pool of Majs and LCols considered for promotion - ahve most/all of our senior leaders drawn from an even smaller pool than before?
> 
> (Back to the earlier example of officer "B" - I know many Newfoundlanders in the Army who arrange postings to 5 Brigade, so they are closer to home.  While in Valcartier, they find attractive French-Canadian girlfriends, and develop a true affinity for the French tongue.  Thus, they're probably more likely to be bilingual than the Acadian.  But I digress)



Hmmm, are we talking about the same tongue here?     As a federal employee, I find the glass ceiling of language requirements rather discriminating. I grew up with ADD and languages are still a problem for me and basically rules on any EX postions for me.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (30 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> I think you may be off on this one.  Consider this quote:
> "With the transformation of its official languages program, DND/CF reinforces its commitment to comply with the requirements of the OLA by *moving away from the universal approach and adopting a functional approach to bilingualism*.  This approach recognizes that – unlike the public service – the CF manages personnel by unit and not by position."  (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2152)
> 
> And this:
> "A *targeted * approach to second-language training also means that DND/CF will make more efficient and effective use of its training capacity than under the former model, which was not sufficiently resourced to meet the *ambitious and unnecessary objective of the universal approach * to bilingualism in the CF."



I'm sorry if I'm coming across like a bull in a china shop,  I think there is allot to this but it sounds like we're going to section out branches of the CF by language and make sure they don't have need to interact.  By reducing the ability to integrate units (if they can't talk to each other I wouldn't let them go on operations together) we are reducing our ability to respond quickly to changing situations.  What if a Sgt who only speaks English comes across a group of soldiers who only speak French and he needs to tell them that am American air strike is coming in the haze of battle in Afghanistan. Or a captain who needs to communicate a need for a french speaking Signaler to run.

I read it, and reread it  but I can't believe that it is now policy. (I used the same words)  I believe in being prepared.  If there is even a chance that it may be necessary for someone to command a person who only speaks one of the official language, then the Officer should be able to do so.  I rarely take an absolute stand on something but I honestly believe that every officer in the CF should be able to work in both official languages.  NCMs and NCOs,  being bilingual where it would be useful would be nice,  but at a unit level usually one language or another is used. (even in Newfoundland )

I just have this nagging vision of a Captain who only speaks English running into a group of soldiers who only speak French in the confusion of a dust up in Afghanistan.  Obviously this is a far flung scenario, but I still don't like the possibility that the language barrier could come up inside our own army.  The NCOs who are in charge of a mono-lingual unit/group,  sure language proficiency is 'nice' rather than required.  For any officer bilingualism should be mandatory.

Some positions it is not required to be bilingual,  others it is.  I can't accept that officers may not be required to know both languages,  some NCOs, sure, but not officers.  To those whom much is givin   much is expected. I don't care if you're a 2nd Ltd or higher; you should be able to command and that means in both languages.  (once again,  I know I sound rather absolute on this, espically with my french at only internediate level,  but I don't like it... if one doesn't want to lean the other language,  join as an NCM )

I am sorry if I sound to rough on this, I don't want to upset anyone but I don't like the implications of people in the middle of the command structure and higher not being able to do their job in a dynamic enviroment.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

I disagree with your position.  Just because there is an off chance of something happening does not necessarily mean that you must prepare for it.  To hinder a really good tactician from progressing up the chain of command to say a company command level of a french unit, but deny it to him because he cannot speak english is wrong.  Consider his peer.  Say he really struggles with tactics, but knows how to punch a ticket and can speak english as well as french.  This guy would get company command because he's bilingual.  Consider the previous post.  Our young officer in training is going to learn french for 30+ weeks, spend five years, get an expired profile, and have to do it again.  Wastage. Teach commanders how to command.  (Or, develop their command abilities)  Full stop.  Both official languages?  At Bde and higher levels: certainly.  At sub unit level?  Not at frickin all.


----------



## sigpig (30 Nov 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> Assuming everything goes well, I'm going to do 4 months of IAP/BOTC, then 8 months of SLT, then 2 odd years of trade training, and then be posted to an English unit where I won't use any French for 5 years and likely forget way too much of it to actually use it in a functional capacity.



I went through offr trg before the present system of doing slt was put in after botc. I agree with Capt Scarletts point that for _most_ jnr offrs there is very little need for bilingualism at that stage of the career. 

If the powers that be determine that it is required anyway, my question about this process has always been why do the slt _before_ the phase trg with it's high failure rate? So that the offrs are fresh from phase trg when they hit the units? But then they are further removed from the language trg that is supposed to be so vital. Just seems to me that there will be a fair number of civies out there who failed their phase trg who cost the govt a fair bit of money to put through language trg. 

But, as a unilingual anglophone from NS who did great in high school french, went to the Strats, scored superior on the mlat, and was turned down for slt when he requested it (Who knew jnr armour offrs were supposed to ask for the Advanced Gunnery course and not slt?   ), I'm not the biggest fan of the enforced bilingualism that has existed in the forces for some time.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2006)

I apologize in advance because i'm going to sound like a hammerhead but.....

All you anglophones who complain about having to learn french.......... :crybaby:

I cant wait until you have to work with franco units whos officer didnt have to learn english.  I guess we can start teaching every course in both official languages now too.  I would like to see what your comments will be at that time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

>While in Valcartier, they find attractive French-Canadian girlfriends, and develop a true affinity for the French tongue.

What a wonderful way of phrasing it...

"Train to need", as someone once said.  It is more sensible to invest second language training in an officer who is expected to be in for the long haul (ie. not right away).

The Canadian Army managed to function well enough in WWII without every platoon and company leader needing to be able to comprehend and issue orders and receive feedback in both OLs.  The "what if" is not really a compelling reason.


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Nov 2006)

French fellas get an English course after enrollment, why don't the Anglos get that option instead of later on in their career.  Plus with most military bases in English Canada it is much easier for a Franco to adjust to the English language as he is immersed in the Anglo environment.  

I can take all the french courses I want but if I am not working in a Franco environment my newly acquired language skills will slip.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

To take the argument of forced multilingualism to an extreme: consider NATO.  Imagine, if you will, a Canadian Battlegroup in some overseas country on a UN mission.  Nary an Englishman in sight, but what is the official working language?  It isn't Farsi, that's for sure!

Learning french is important, yes, but not a necessity at some levels, so taking away UNIVERSAL bilingualism is just fine by me.  Except for FACs and FOOs, because when you call for fire, you better be able to speak English, cause that jet overhead sure ain't from Bagotville!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Nov 2006)

> Except for FACs and FOOs, because when you call for fire, you better be able to speak English, cause that jet overhead sure ain't from Bagotville!



More to the point- even if that fighter is from Bagotville, you had better be able to give your 9-line brief in English- because that is what is expected.  I have worked with the French Navy on operations in the Gulf- any guesses on what the language spoken on the net was?

Yep- English.

I have never understood the vast quantity of money we spend on trying (futile efforts) to make 2lts and Ocdts bilingual, when 90% of them have no chance of maintaining their skills.  I am a product of that system and I did not properly learn french until last year, when I had a year long course and more importantly, the motivation to learn.

Not to say that some 2lts and Ocdts might need language trg.  maybe we should test everyone and only send those for trg who demonstrate an aptitude to pick it up quickly.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (30 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> As for Newfoundlanders, my example was very much tongue in cheek and part of an inside joke.  I know this WO who is from Newfoundland and our joke was that his SLT should have been spent learning proper English vice french



I bet I know who you're talking about!


----------



## Magravan (30 Nov 2006)

Though it will mean more time spent away from potentially having easy weekend home visits, the idea of learning to speak French in more than a joking "Haha, an english guy trying to speak french" type way, has been appealing to me. It was definitely one of the 'perks' rather than one of the 'cons' in my consideration for what to do..


----------



## spqr (1 Dec 2006)

I am another soon to be officer candidate and my interviewer CFRC Calgary said that my trade (infantry) training will be a priority over my language training.  He said that in all likelihood I would wind up doing IAP/BOTP, then CAP, then the DP serials, then get my first posting in an English battalion, and then do my language training after my first deployment.  That seems reasonable to me and a lot like what the news release seems to be beating around the bush to say.

Since the interview everything I have read says that the SLT will be after BOTC so I am prepared for that too.  I don't care either way, the language training was a big bonus to the job, but like xmarkx said - I joined for the muddy stuff.


----------



## josh (1 Dec 2006)

National Defence Official Languages Program
Transformation Model - 25 October 2006

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dol/Engraph/TransModel_TOC_e.asp


----------



## GUNS (1 Dec 2006)

I'll offer some advice here, in 1968 I was posted to Valcartier, I am from Newfoundland. At that time in order to qualify for language training you have to be a Bdr/Cpl or higher, I was in the Army for less than two years.

After a few months there I really started to enjoy my posting but was not comfortable with not being able to apply for language training. I submitted my name on a monthly bases for language training but was rejected. I really wanted to speak French.

I was in a Catch-22 situation, you had to be a Bdr/Cpl or above to qualify for language training and I would never be promoted because I could not speak French.

My advice is, if there is an opportunity to learn a second language, go for it. If that opportunity was offered to me, my military life would have changed drastically and on civvy street afterwards. How can anyone make an argument out of not wanting to improve themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2006)

Hmmmm, somewhere in one of the boxes in the basement is a plaque, given to me on promotion to LCol a few decades back; it says:

*Merit means never having to say you're bilingual*







It's a takeoff on a line from a (then) well known _chick-flick_.


----------



## Magravan (1 Dec 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> My advice is, if there is an opportunity to learn a second language, go for it. If that opportunity was offered to me, my military life would have changed drastically and on civvy street afterwards. How can anyone make an argument out of not wanting to improve themselves.



I don't think that they are making a case for not improving themselves. I believe they just have a different direction that they want to improve themselves...


----------



## glenndon (1 Dec 2006)

And most of you people are just talking about the officer world. . .   here in the NCM world, from *my* perspective it seems much easier for a francophone to get english training then the opposite.  And from what I understand, they are moving towards the senior NCM ranks requiring a french profile, which would mean getting SLT out of the way at some point for many.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Dec 2006)

Steve Staples smells a Conservative plot:

Military changing approach to bilingualism
Only those in leadership roles will need language training
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter, Halifax _ChronicleHerald_
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/544462.html



> ...
> One defence analyst questioned whether the military is taking advantage of the fact that there is a Conservative government in power to make the changes.
> 
> "There is no doubt there is an anti-Quebec odour to a lot of their support base," said Steve Staples, of the left-leaning Polaris Institute, based in Ottawa.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2006)

Edward
I love your banner!!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2006)

Looks like we now have two topics mirroring each other.  Bilingualism levels at defence HQ 'insufficient,' audit says


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2006)

I don't know about others, but having finished the 33-week course as a subbie, I can appreciate the skill sets that were given to me in learning the other language of my country.  Don't get caught up in the policies and politics; use it as a tool it is.  My buddy (ex-CF) is an NCO in the US Special Forces and, just as young officers in the CF, he was pulled out of his tactical training to go to language training.  Yes, it was part of his Q-Course to learn a South-East Asian language that he may never use operationally (especially when you consider that all the work right now is in the Sandbox).  However, the tool is there, like it is for those who go on SLT.  Now, having picked up some new approaches to learning, I've begun to learn some other languages as well.

Consider this - English is pretty much the international language right now, while French is spoken in the Carribean, much of Africa and throughout parts of South-East Asia as well.  Having both these languages is a useful skill indeed.  Considering that in today's conflicts dealing with locals is probably the key to winning, I would argue that language skills are just as important as tactics for young leaders who may, as junior leaders, one day find utility in their ability to communicate with others.

The only problem I have with SLT is the way the course is structured.  33-weeks is too long; maybe they could break it up and have you do training in between (like leadership training, maybe even a bit in your other language?).  by the 7th month, the Don't-Give-A-Fuck factor was pretty high.  As well, the SLT learning environment is quite civilianized, and the notion of being in the military pretty much goes out the door (8 months and I never once did drill).  Some of the guys, coming right from CFLRS, are just cut loose with no real idea on how to conduct themselves as CF members.  The fitness level slides for many.  Some of the civilian instructors, quite honestly, have no idea of the system they are in which can cause some problems from time to time.  SLT would probably have been more enjoyable had it been on a real military base, included some military activities from time to time (morning PT maybe?) and had a break in between in order to get the students out of a small classroom environment.


----------

