Title: Audit of Official Languages - service to the public - Saint John, New Brunswick
Last saved by: Hugh McNeil

Treasury Board Secretariat	December 1998
Audit of Official Languages - Service to the Public

TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT
Audit of Official Languages
– SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC –

– Saint John, New Brunswick –

December 1998

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Objectives
3.  Scope
4.  Methodology
5.  Audit Findings and Conclusions
6.  Recommendations

1.	Introduction

The purpose of this audit was to determine the extent to which offices from the organizations selected for this audit of service to the public are complying with the policies of the Treasury Board Secretariat and with the Official Languages Act, especially with regards to service to the public.
2.	Objectives

The objectives of the audit derive from Part IV of the Official Languages Act that sets out the obligations of federal institutions and the third parties they use to serve the public. The objectives of the on-site audit are as follows:
–	to determine the extent to which the selected offices are fulfilling their obligation to serve the public in the official language of its choice;
–	to determine whether these offices have the work tools required to assist employees in meeting the service to the public objective;
–	to determine the extent to which concessionaires (third parties) which provide services to the public on behalf of an institution provide or make that service to the public available in the official language of the public's choice;
–	to determine the extent to which the linguistic minority is receiving service in the official language of its choice.

3.	Scope

During the audit in Saint John, New Brunswick, the following nine (9) offices were visited between January 11 and 23, 1998:
–	Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)
–	Citizenship and Immigration
–	Canada Post, Post Franchise, Lancaster Shopping Centre
–	Fisheries and Oceans - Canadian Coast Guard (Aids to Navigation) District Base
–	Fisheries and Oceans (Conservation and Protection) District Office
–	Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), District Office
–	Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) - Fredericton Sub-division headquarters
–	Revenue Canada, District Office
–	Veterans Affairs

4.	Methodology

Before beginning the audit, we contacted the managers of the selected bilingual offices and arranged the dates on which we would be on-site to meet with them and conduct the audit. At the same time, we contacted the internal audit heads of the institutions whose offices were to be audited in order to inform them of the date of our visit to their institution or to coordinate audit efforts and avoid any possible duplication.
The methodology used included the following activities:
–	review of the relevant documentation;
–	interviews with managers and employees, where applicable;
–	visits to sites to which the public generally has access;
–	conducting tests and observation with respect to active offer by telephone and in person, availability of publications in both official languages, existence of the work tools needed to serve the public in the language of its choice, etc;
–	confirmation of the audit findings (working file) by the manager responsible for each of the offices visited;
–	analysis of the findings for each metropolitan area; and,
–	preparation and drafting of the report.

5.	Audit Findings and Conclusions
Managers Responsibilities
All the managers interviewed in Saint John were well aware of the requirements of the Act respecting service in both official languages.
All the institutions visited have controls in place to ensure service is always provided in both official languages. Controls in place ensure there are sufficient bilingual employees at reception, at points of service and on the telephone, though in some cases, telephone service is provided by either pre-registered messages or employees at regional centres. Given the small size of some offices, it is difficult to ensure a permanent and effective bilingual service. However at Citizenship and Immigration and Fisheries and Oceans office of Conservation and Protection, managers encourage continuing programs of language training.
In the case of the RCMP district office, its mandate is essentially one of drug enforcement and does not require to serve the public directly. Rather, its contacts are almost exclusively with law enforcement officers from provincial and municipal jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the office has more than sufficient bilingual staff in place to provide service in both official languages.
Five of the nine offices visited have mechanisms to assess client satisfaction. Veterans Affairs ensures client satisfaction through bilingual team leaders (i.e., dedicated French and English speaking teams). Regional offices in Moncton and Halifax and the Coast Guard base ensure client satisfaction through meetings with the French-speaking minority groups. HRDC conducts periodic surveys, Revenue Canada uses a client card system and Canada Post measures client satisfaction on a regional basis from its regional headquarters.
Most departments, meet with representatives of French-speaking minority groups on a regular basis. In some cases, like Fisheries and Oceans - Coast Guard base, meetings are arranged through their regional offices. Other departments, like the RCMP District office and Citizenship and Immigration, consider this unnecessary because of their lack of contact with the public (less than five inquiries per year). In the case of the RCMP, as mentioned previously, the mandate is one of drug enforcement that rarely brings the officers in contact with the general public. The mandate of Citizenship and Immigration has shifted from counselling to enforcement and this has greatly diminished their contact with the public.
Organization
Generally, departments have the capacity to provide continuous service in both official languages. At the moment however, Fisheries and Oceans’ Conservation and Protection office does not have a bilingual employee, though this situation will be remedied when the employee currently on language training return. Meanwhile, clients who cannot be provided with on-site service in French are served by bilingual staff from the St. Andrews office.
In some cases, significant numbers of staff have French as their first language (e.g. Revenue Canada and HRDC). At other sites where the demand is very infrequent such as at Citizenship and Immigration, unilingual staff are able to direct inquiries to bilingual staff immediately. (The department also has a bank of translators available at all times via telephone, should the need arise for this service). At the Coast Guard Base, front line inquires are handled by the Commissionaire, whose mother tongue is French.
In all cases but one, work instruments were available to provide service in both official languages. The RCMP does not interface with the public at large and consequently, there are no work instruments essentially used for the provision of service to public.
Active Offer
Generally, to ensure that the active offer for service in either official language is made, institutions use either one or separate dedicated lines to serve English and French speaking clients with an automated message. In some cases, bilingual service is provided by staff on hand. However, in two instances, the active offer was not made upon reception, though neither office had a reception area. At ACOA, they share an office with a provincial institution and reception in this instance was provided by a unilingual English-speaking employee from the provincial development agency. At Citizenship and Immigration, the active offer was not provided as the sole bilingual officer was away that day.
In all cases, official language symbols and signage were present and visible at all times. All offices visited have permanent signage in both official languages. In only one case was a temporary sign in English only (“Ring for Service”) at the RCMP District Drug Enforcement Office).
All institutions had publications available for distribution in both official languages.
Most departments visited do not have reception areas. Those that do (Veterans Affairs, HRDC, and Revenue Canada), do provide the active offer. In the smaller offices, bilingual staff generally provided an active offer upon reception. In the case of Fisheries and Oceans, both the Conservation and Protection and Coast Guard Offices provide the active offer via one of two Commissionaires who is bilingual. Citizenship and Immigration did not provide an active offer as the one bilingual officer was away from the office.
Service
In all cases where there is a sufficient demand for bilingual service (e.g. HRDC, Revenue and Veterans Affairs), fully bilingual service of comparable quality is provided at all times. In other instances where demand is limited to one or two on-site requests per year, some departments (Conservation and Protection Office of Fisheries and Oceans) may not provide immediate on-site bilingual service. However, back-up service is provided either by other staff on the premises or by their office in St. Andrews. In other cases where demand is minimal, like ACOA and Fisheries and Oceans’ Coast Guard Base, bilingual service is either directly available from the incumbents of the three bilingual positions, or from back-up staff either locally or in Dartmouth (Coast Guard) were service was not of comparable quality due to delays and a lack of proficiency in providing information in French. At the Canada Post Franchise, bilingual service was provided.
With one exception, departments do not provide services by a third party. In Veterans Affairs, a French-speaking medical doctor provides comparable service to the minority language group. This doctor will soon become an employee of the department. 
With the exception of Canada Post where the concessionnaire fulfils all official languages obligations, organizations do not use concessionaires.
Conclusion
Results of the audit indicate that federal institutions in Saint John, New Brunswick are carrying out their obligations to service to the public in both official languages relatively well.
In essence, the audit team found that managers recognize their responsibilities under the act, and are making all efforts to fulfill their obligations.
To the extent that problems exist, they centre upon the active offer which is not always made at the small offices, the absence of bilingual employees (Fisheries and Oceans), and the provision of services not comparable in French (Conservation and Protection Office at Fisheries and Oceans). However, managers at Fisheries and Oceans are addressing these problems through language training.
Where the active offer does not occur, it is because of the infrequency of demand (e.g., less than five inquires annually handled, at Citizenship and Immigration, and two inquiries during the past five years at ACOA).
Managers underlined that the incidence of demand for service in French is generally extremely small in the Saint John area and this accounts for their struggle to have staff provide the active offer. In addition, some managers pointed to downsizing (e.g. Coast Guard from 170 to 95 staff, and Citizenship and Immigration, from 33 to 3) and budget reductions as reasons for why they may find it difficult to meet the requirements at all times.
6.	Recommendations
That the institutions audited take the necessary measures, with the assistance of the TBS where applicable, to correct in each office all of the shortcomings identified in the area of service to the public, especially with respect to the following points:
–	ensure an active offer of service in both official languages at all times both on the telephone and in person;
–	take the necessary action to ensure that offices designated as bilingual have adequate bilingual capacity, both in terms of numbers and proficiency (level of bilingualism), to offer service in both official languages;
–	meet regularly (at the local, regional or national levels) with representatives of the official language minority community, when they are present in the metropolitan area, in order to determine their needs and concerns and to jointly find solutions to any problems;
–	ensure that control measures for the continuity of service in both official languages and measures to evaluate client satisfaction are established, so as to be able to take the necessary corrective action;
–	take the necessary action to ensure the availability of comparable services in both official languages at all times.