Title: Audit of Official Languages - service to the public - St. John's, Newfoundland
Last saved by: Hugh McNeil

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

– St. John’s, Newfoundland –

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 the nine (9) offices 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 objectives;
–	to determine the extent to which concessionnaires (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
In St. John’s, Newfoundland, the audit team visited the following nine offices between February 1 to 13, 1998:
–	Canada Post - Atlantic Division
–	Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) - Avalon District 
  Human Resources Centre
–	Human Resources Development Canada - Income Security Program
–	National Research Centre of Canada - Institute for Marine Dynamics
–	St. John’s Port Corporation
–	Public Service Commission
–	Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Headquarters - “B” Division
–	Revenue Canada - St. John’s District Tax Office
–	Revenue Canada - Taxation Centre

4.	METHODOLOGY
Before beginning the audit of each office, we contacted the managers of the selected bilingual offices and arranged the dates on which we could 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 institutions 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 which 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 office; and,
–	preparation and drafting of the report.

5.	AUDIT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Managers Responsibilities
All the managers interviewed in St. John’s were aware of the requirements of the Act respecting service in both official languages. The entire management team of the Revenue Canada Taxation Centre was very aware of their obligations. In fact, they were very pro-active in maintaining and expanding the capacity to provide service in both official languages, as they provide a call centre that services all of the Atlantic Provinces.
Over the past year, several of the institutions had been visited by representatives of the Commissioner of Official Languages. They were aware of their responsibilities.
All the offices visited, except for HRDC - Income Security Programs, have controls in place to ensure service is always provided in both official languages. This is especially true at the larger operations where there is relatively more demand, such as at Revenue Canada, HRDC - Human Resource Centre, and the RCMP. For smaller operations however, like the Public Service Commission and the district office for the income security program at the HRDC office, controls are minimal or inadequate, as there was no effective backup capacity.
Generally, controls are in place to ensure there are sufficient bilingual employees at reception, at points of service and on the telephone. In some cases, telephone service is provided by either pre-registered messages or, on a temporary basis, such as at the HRDC’s Human Resource Call Centre, where calls are routed temporarily to Bathurst, N.B., pending staffing action of a bilingual position.
Among the offices visited, some had virtually no general public interface. For example, the Institute for Marine Dynamics’ mandate (IMD) is to conduct research into ocean technologies primarily related to marine structures. As a result, the office does not serve the general public directly. Rather, the business is conducted mostly through contacts that are almost exclusively with industry representatives, very few of whom request service in French. Nonetheless, the Institute does have sufficient bilingual staff (five of 60) in place to provide service in both official languages.
Similarly to IMD, the St. John’s Port Corporation does not serve the public at large; their interface is essentially with English-speaking shipping clients. None of their positions are bilingual, though one staff person can provide limited service in French. Backup is provided by Ports Canada in Ottawa.
Managers generally encourage continuing programs of language training, especially at the Revenue Canada Taxation Centre, where management is especially supportive of French language training both on and off site. Canada Post has also expended considerable effort to ensure two of their four counter staff are bilingual.
Five of the nine offices visited have mechanisms to assess client satisfaction. Revenue Canada uses a client card system administered at the national level, Canada Post measures client satisfaction on a regional basis from its regional headquarters, and the Public Service Commission corresponds with clients on a quarterly basis in order to seek feedback .
Several of the larger operations, like Revenue Canada, HRDC and the RCMP, meet with representatives of French-speaking minority groups at least annually. (The only significant French-speaking population is on the Newfoundland west coast, around the Port au Port/Stephenville smaller offices, from which the only French-speaking newspaper, “Le Gabotteur”, originates). Other smaller offices like the IMD and the St. John’s Port Corporation, consider this unnecessary because of their lack of contact with the general public.
Organization
Generally, offices visited have the capacity to provide service in both official languages.
In the larger operations, significant numbers of staff have French as their first language or have become bilingual through intensive language training (e.g. Revenue Canada Taxation and the RCMP). At the smaller points of service, the capacity to provide continuous service ranges from good to minimal. Canada Post has trained two of their staff of eight to be able to provide continuous service in French. On the other hand, at the St. John’s Port Corporation, where the demand is very infrequent, unilingual staff direct French inquiries to the bilingual employee. At the Public Service Commission, where there is a staff of three, including the manager, on-site service in both official languages is provided by a staff member hired on a temporary basis. Bilingual telephone service is provided through dedicated job lines linked locally or by bilingual staff at the Halifax regional office.
At the moment, in the HRDC District Office (Income Security Program) one of four employees is bilingual. The bilingual employee recent addition resulted from two complaints that arose over the past six months from clients who could not be served in French. In his absence, backup service would have to be provided from the HRDC’s regional office on Water Street, which is not practical (fortunately, this situation has not arisen). In addition, the HRDC Call Centre is temporarily routing calls to a bilingual call centre in Bathurst, N.B., while they recruit an additional bilingual staff officer.
Work instruments were always available on site to provide service in both official languages.
Active Offer
Generally, to ensure that the active offer for service is made on the telephone at all times in either official language, institutions use either one or separate dedicated lines to serve English and French speaking clients with an automated response. That is true of both the relatively larger operations like Revenue Canada, the Human Resource Centre on Water Street and the RCMP Headquarters, as well as the smaller offices like the Public Service Commission and Canada Post.
At reception, the active offer was generally made by Commissionaires, even in instances where demand is extremely infrequent, such as at the Institute for Marine Dynamics and at the RCMP. In other cases, the active offer was made by bilingual officers, such as at the HRDC Income Security Office, Canada Post, and the Public Service Commission. In only one instance, at the St. John’s Port Corporation, where the only bilingual staff member was not present, was the active offer not made at reception.
Generally, the official language symbol and signage were in both official languages. The one exception was at the HRDC office on Torbay Road, where the sign outside the main entrance was in English only. All offices visited have permanent signage in both official languages, and all had publications available for distribution in both official languages.
Service
Where there is an ongoing demand for bilingual service, such as at the larger operations at Revenue Canada, fully bilingual service of comparable quality is provided at all times. The exceptions to this were twofold: at one point of service at the HRDC Human Resource Centre (Call Centre) and at the HRDC Income Security Program office on Torbay Road.
In other instances where there is virtually no demand (less than one percent of volume), some institutions may not provide on-site bilingual service of comparable quality. For example, at the St. John’s Port Corporation, where there is neither public clientele nor bilingual positions, though there is one bilingual staff member, there is no backup and service may have to be provided through headquarters in Ottawa.
On the other hand, at the Institute of Marine Dynamics, where they generally do not have a public clientele, they have sufficient staff (five bilingual employees among a staff of 60) on hand to enable them to respond to whatever requests they may encounter. This may occur during the summer when the Institute may invite the public to tour their facilities. In this case, the Institute engages a bilingual student to conduct these tours in the language of the minority group.
None of the departments provide services to the public by a third party and none use concessionaires.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the audit indicate that federal institutions in St. John’s, Newfoundland are carrying out their obligations regarding service to the public. 
In a province where the French population is less than one percent of the population, we have noted that offices visited had made significant efforts to provide service to the public in both official languages. As an example, the Institute for Marine Dynamics, where the demand is minimal, the commissionaire provided the active offer, and bilingual staff are able to respond effectively to demands in both official languages. While managers underlined that the incidence of demand for service in French is generally extremely small in Newfoundland in general and St. John’s in particular, they all appeared to take their responsibilities seriously and were making every effort to comply with the provisions of the act in regard to service to the public.
Where, on the other hand, departments were providing a regional service to the Maritimes, such as at Revenue Canada Taxation, the efforts to provide continuous service of comparable quality in both official languages were noticeable. In part, this effort appeared to be driven by management’s desire to retain their regional call centres and expand their capacity to deal with an even broader clientele from among businesses in the private sector.
In essence, the audit team found that managers recognize their responsibilities under the Official Languages Act, and are executing them as effectively as possible.
To the extent that problems exist, as outlined, they centre around the capacity to provide effective backup from among limited staff. In the case of HRDC, this problem is currently being addressed. However, at the PSC’s Staffing Program Branch, their limited staff of three forces them to rely for on-site backup upon the office of the Regional Minister, though this has not been necessary. During the past nine years, the office has had only one call requiring the provision of services in French. At the St. John’s Port Corporation, where there is virtually no service provided to the general public, limited service stems from the fact that there are no bilingual positions and only one bilingual staff member is capable of responding in French.
Despite the realities in St. John’s, the active offer was always made, with the exception of the St. John’s Port Corporation.
6.	RECOMMENDATIONS
That the offices audited take the necessary measures 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.