ARCHIVED - Audit on Official Languages - Grants and Contributions - Number 27

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•  

This page has been archived.

CANADIAN HERITAGE

1. 1998-1999 Estimates
Parts I and II Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates

Budgetary expenditures allotted to grants and contributions:

	1997-1998	1998-1999
	$497,619,470	$464,515,479

2. Departmental policies

The Department has an official languages policy which includes a general paragraph on grants and contributions. It is a paragraph of intent stating, "When the Department awards grants or contributions to non-governmental organizations serving the public in both official languages, it must see to it that the recipients of public funds ensure the delivery of services in both official languages in accordance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act." The Department has no policy of its own on grants and contributions and uses the Treasury Board policy on transfer payments.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The person in charge of official languages at Canadian Heritage in 1997-1998 was interested in the agreements concluded with Sport Canada. However, that person was not consulted directly for the drafting of the financial agreement clauses governing contributions for all the other organizations receiving funding from the Department. The person now in charge of official languages at Canadian Heritage has only been there for a short time and has not as yet been required to play an active role in this area. This officer is not involved in the drafting of guidelines nor in the drafting of clauses on forms, nor is there any specific role with the recipients of grants or contributions.

Branch program officers are responsible for recommending the awarding of grants and contributions and for monitoring developments. They ensure a follow-up which takes linguistic elements into account. The institution's legal services were consulted during the development of the clauses on official languages found in departmental agreements. The Department's financial services receive the agreements only after they have been negotiated and check only the financial aspect of the matter.

4. Departmental process

We did not study in detail all the sectors of the Department which offer grants and contributions. The granting of funding for the sectors examined is done by means of a competitive process through which organizations answer calls for proposals initiated by the Department. Program officers analyze applications according to criteria indicated in the call for proposals, in certain cases visit the recipient's premises and make recommendations regarding the appropriateness of awarding a contribution and the amount to be awarded. These recommendations are examined in committee and are then sent to the Minister's office. A letter from the Minister informs the recipient of the amount awarded and that an officer will be in contact to draw up the agreement in the case of contributions. It should be noted that in the cases analyzed the Department had not funded operational or capital activities but rather specific ones.

We examined proposal calls from two sectors of the organization along with application forms. In one of the sectors involved, it was stipulated that projects destined for the public must be carried out in both official languages without indicating what that implied in terms of verbal, visual and written communication. Guidelines for the submission of applications in another sector specify that, to be eligible, the requester "must be accessible to Canadians of all regions of the country within the framework of a national competition in both official languages."

5. Examination of the agreements

Many of the agreements examined as part of the first sample were signed with industries and this automatically excluded them from this study. This is also true for whole sectors of the organization. The study deals with nine contribution agreements (four for 1997-1998, three for 1998-1999 and two for both years) and with one grant (1997-1998). These agreements come from different sectors of the Department.

The five agreements in the youth sector were the most complete in terms of linguistic clauses. All the agreements contained a general clause stating that any promotional or publicity program concerning activities funded by the agreement should mention the Department's participation in both official languages. Three of these agreements had specific clauses on official languages; they referred to all the points mentioned in Chapter 1-4 of the policy. Another agreement contained a more general clause stating that "the recipient organization ensures that its communications with the public and its services to the public and those provided by its partners are in both official languages in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act" (our translation). The fifth agreement examined in this activity sector had no specific clauses. However, an examination of the file revealed that the recipient organization had set aside in the budget a considerable amount for translation.

All the agreements contained a clause stating that the recipient organization must submit a final report including statistical data such as the number of participants, costs and data on the number of bilingual groups which were formed.

In the other sectors of the organization, the situation was not as clear. The four agreements had a general recognition clause through which the recipient organization must in its documents recognize in both official languages the financial participation of the Department in the activity. We noted, however, that the following caveat had been added in a few agreements: "in both official languages if the need exists" (our translation).

Although there were no specific linguistic clauses, documents on file from one of the four agreements show that the activities of the recipient of the contribution were in both official languages. The three other files showed no capacity to offer bilingual services. It should, however, be noted that one of these agreements without a specific linguistic clause was funded by a program in which funding eligibility conditions required that the recipient be able to show that the programming and the eligibility procedures were bilingual. The linguistic aspect was thus covered during the contribution application process.

An examination of the grant file showed that the recipient organization was concerned about the linguistic aspect of the subsidized event; the budget proposed by the recipient includes sizeable amounts for translation and simultaneous interpretation; furthermore, all documents on the programming of the event were in both official languages. The result is therefore satisfactory although the file does not have the analytical grid used by the Department and which could show that bilingualism was a determining factor in the awarding of the grant for activities of some scope affecting both linguistic groups.

6. Interviews with officials

We met three program officers representing two different sectors of the Department. In the first case, we were told that the approach to official languages was more informal than legal. Program officers regularly meet with the recipient organizations, help them prepare proposals, and advise them on how to reach the various linguistic communities. Program officers state that they sometimes consult official languages authorities to establish the linguistic obligations of a recipient for certain events, but all is done informally in a spirit of mutual cooperation.

Officers are aware of the standard official languages wording but believe that this wording was drafted some time ago. They are also of the opinion, however, that it would be easy to recommend that a specific clause be added to some agreements.

In another sector of the Department, program managers we met do not think it useful to include a linguistic clause to the agreement since a certain linguistic capacity is one of the eligibility criteria for funding. Actually, to be eligible for contributions, an association must demonstrate that its documentation is in both official languages and that admission procedures are such that people from both linguistic groups have access to the program. That means that the guidelines and explanations as well as the examiners are bilingual. There is no requirement, however, that the training itself be offered in both official languages.

In both sectors represented, official languages monitoring is carried out during visits to the recipient organizations. Observations are then made on the efforts of the recipient organization and/or on the truth of the data provided when the proposal was submitted.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

We met two recipient organizations. One of them has worked with the Department for over 20 years to the point where the guide for the drafting of proposals is no longer required as a source of information; only the application form is consulted. The members of the organization are from both linguistic groups and the organization has English-speaking and French-speaking chapters in two Canadian provinces; the other chapters work in the majority language of the province. The organization considers it quite normal to use simultaneous interpretation when needed, that is when "unilingual Francophones" participate in an activity or when bilingual Francophones indicate that they would like it. This matter does not appear to have been discussed with the Department.

According to the organization, no special funds or technical assistance were ever received from the Department to ensure bilingualism. The organization ensures bilingual service since overall documentation and programming are bilingual and since it is ready to provide any documentation in the minority official language when requested. The bilingual capability at headquarters is limited to one person, but applications could be referred to regional chapters. The organization has a unilingual English Web site to distribute information and this has never been discussed with the Department.

The second recipient organization that we contacted has received contributions and grants for many years. All its services are offered in both official languages and its Web site is completely bilingual. The vast majority of its publications are available in both official languages. The person we interviewed over the telephone seemed well aware of his official languages obligations and believes that the Department follows up well in this regard. The organization considers that since roughly 30% of its clients are Francophones, it must be bilingual.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that agreements with recipients for the financing of events or activities aimed at a cross-Canada clientele or at a clientele made up of both official languages groups include a detailed linguistic clause listing the various points which constitute bilingual service;

than an internal mechanism be set up to ensure that the linguistic aspect of an event be examined during the analysis of grant applications; and

that follow-up mechanisms be developed and implemented to ensure systematically that organizations fulfill their responsibilities in the implementation of the policy.

HEALTH CANADA

1. 1998-1999 Estimates
Parts I and II Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates

Budgetary expenditures allotted to grants and contributions:

	1997-1998	1998-1999
	$562,040,600	$717,993,100

2. Departmental policies

The Department no longer has an internal official languages policy; it considers that it does not have sufficient resources to maintain such a policy up to date and decided, a few years ago to use the Treasury Board policy on official languages. On the other hand, the Department regularly issues communiqués on official languages; its employees are kept aware of any important changes and a number of reminders are given on regular practices.

As for the policy on grants and contributions, the Department also uses the Treasury Board policy on transfer payments. It is found in Chapter 9 of the Guide on Financial Administration which deals with accounting and control of spending. Health Canada has an Internet site on which the two policies are easily accessed by all employees. These policies are also accessible at Health Canada's Policy Centre.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The Department's Official Languages Program consists among other things of providing advice and interpretation on the Official Languages Act, its policies and regulations to the management and staff of Health Canada. The Official Languages Program does not suggest special follow-up action linked to grants and contributions. The people we met told us that, in their view, the Official Languages Division had not received requests for information from volunteer organizations concerning their official languages obligations, nor does the Program seem to have had requests for information from managers responsible for the awarding of grants and contributions. Official languages authorities consider that it is up to the managers to monitor official languages in the same way as the other factors they examine.

That is often how things are actually done because the managers we met told us that they monitored the application of linguistic clauses when there were any in the agreements. There do not however appear to be any systematic feedback mechanisms to keep the Official Languages Division informed of the situation.

4. Departmental process

We contacted two branches and only one could provide documentation related to grants and contributions. We examined three documents, one on contribution program procedures, the pre-screening form and finally the applicant guide. There is no mention of official languages in the three documents. When there is a reference to the target population, it is not in terms of linguistic composition but rather referring to various groups such as children, adolescents, adults, older people, etc.

In the document on contribution procedures, for instance, there is a description of the program involved, fields of application, categories of recipients, the documentation having to accompany the application (description, appropriateness and importance of the project, activity plan, results expected, etc.), payment terms, the length of the mandate, and so forth. There is no mention of the official languages policy, nor is there any requirement to indicate if the project is aimed at the two linguistic communities or if it might involve members of the two linguistic communities, etc.

The other two documents we examined seem even more complete because they go so far as to identify possible partnerships, links and cooperation with other resources in the community, the overall evaluation strategy, the results distribution plan, etc. There is nothing in these documents that requires organizations requesting a grant or a contribution to clearly identify if the project or the activity for which they are requesting involves members of the two official language groups.

Of course the three documents are bilingual, they are aimed at organizations involving the two official language groups and all those who fill them have the option of so doing in their language of choice and of indicating their preferred language of correspondence.

5. Examination of the agreements

We examined 17 agreements on contributions (eight in 1997-1998 and nine in 1998-1999) and one grant. The content of the agreements varied from branch to branch. Since nothing had been found on official languages in the departmental process we examined, we thought that it would be the same for the agreements, but such was not the case. Actually, a dozen contribution agreements have an official languages clause stating:

"The recipient is responsible for clearly identifying the clientele of the program/project and, if required, to do what is necessary in consultation with the Department in order to conform to the spirit and the letter of the Official languages Act, in order to communicate with the public in the language of its choice, that is either English or French.

If it has been jointly determined or should be determined that the clientele includes members of both official language groups, Annex A is said to include the following stipulations: Announcements, services, documents, conferences, meetings, workshops, etc., must be in the two official languages and members of both official language groups must be encouraged to participate in the program/project."

That clause regroups the main linguistic obligations as formulated in the Treasury Board Policy. To that we should add that in four cases out of 12, there was another clause indicating that the final report should be published in both official languages.

In the five other contribution agreements, the situation was not the same and the wording of the agreements was quite different. In two of them, there was a reference to official languages in that it was indicated that the recipient organization must take the bilingualism policy into consideration when providing services to the public or to its members. The three other agreements were linked to contributions provided as part of conferences with a national or international scope; the agreement on the conference which was held in Montreal had a clause on simultaneous interpretation services while there was nothing scheduled in this regard for the other two conferences, one of which was international in scope. The last three agreements did not mention that documents related to these conferences were to be available in both official languages. As for the grant, it covered a period of two years and there was nothing on the file related to official languages.

6. Interviews with officials

The project officers that we contacted indicated that, when they believe it appropriate, they inform the recipient organizations of their official languages obligations. They also stated that they checked linguistic aspects among others, during visits to where the activity is held, during meetings with the organizations and by means of quarterly reports.

The officers indicated that there are often parallel projects and that rather than translate a project held in Vancouver, another one is held at the same time in a Francophone area. It is believed that often translation does not bring out the real life of a region compared to another because the contexts are different; in this regard, they say they prefer an approach with emphasis on adaptation rather than translation. For instance, a pilot project which worked well in Regina will not necessarily succeed in Chicoutimi, but that does not guarantee that it will work in Halifax because the linguistic context is not the only element which can be different.

One of the responsible officers indicated that legal services had been involved in the wording of a clause on official languages in the agreement on contributions.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

The two recipient organizations that we contacted are both capable of offering services in both official languages. One is a completely bilingual organization with its own official languages policy, bilingual reception, publications available in both official languages, an almost totally bilingual Web site and a bilingual 1-800 number. The organization estimates that 25% of its clientele is Francophone and it has no difficulty providing services in both official languages.

As for the other organization, it is also capable of implementing the contribution agreement clause because it offers its services in both official languages. Almost all the publications of the organization are bilingual; the Web site will soon be translated and we were informed that the annual general assembly is held in both official languages. The organization has members in Quebec and New Brunswick; it estimates that between 20% and 25% of its clientele is Francophone.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that Health Canada take the necessary action to ensure that contribution application procedures used by program officers have a section on a review of the linguistic characteristics of the clientele targeted by the project; and

that the Official Languages Program and legal services recommend to the various departmental contribution programs the inclusion of an official languages clause in their contribution agreements when the scope of the event or activity is national or international.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

1. 1998-1999 Estimates
Parts I and II Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates

Budgetary expenditures allotted to contributions:

	1997-1998	1998-1999
	$716,000	$716,000

2. Departmental policies

The Department has its own official languages policy regarding service to the public and more specifically its restricted clientele; however, the policy has no section referring to grants and contributions. It uses the Treasury Board Policy on Official Languages (Chapter 1-4) on grants and contributions. There is no departmental policy on grants and contributions and the Department uses the Treasury Board policy on transfer payments, Chapter 2-12.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The person in charge of official languages in the Department has held that position for less than a year and has indicated that resources allocated to official languages have greatly diminished over the last few years. Her present position was vacant for about four years. She has not been consulted since her arrival on the drafting of agreements in the area of grants and contributions nor has she been contacted by a recipient organization seeking information. She said she had not been approached for a follow-up on compliance with the Treasury Board policy on grants and contributions.

At headquarters, responsibility for coordinating contributions (there were no grants which met our audit criteria) rests with one person. That person did not seem to have any in-depth knowledge of official languages obligations in the area of grants and contributions. The coordinator is responsible for recommending the awarding of contributions and for monitoring developments, but linguistic items are not part of follow-up measures. There is no systematic mechanism in place nor any clearly defined responsibility regarding follow-ups in the area of official languages.

4. Departmental process

Contribution procedures at Correctional Service of Canada are very precise as regards:

• eligible recipients,
• the aims of the contributions program,
• authorization of contributions,
• procedures for the handling of contribution applications; these procedures include the description of the content of the application and the evaluation criteria for the applications,
• evaluation criteria for the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, and
• verification procedures.

Official languages obligations are not mentioned anywhere in the process, whether at the beginning, during the analysis of contribution applications or at the end of the process during the evaluation of the program or activity or during the audit. In a nutshell, none of the departmental processes dealing with contributions and grants refer to obligations linked to service to the public as described in the Treasury Board policy.

5. Examination of the agreements

We examined some fifteen agreements on contributions but only eleven met our selection criteria (six in 1997-1998 and five in 1998-1999). None of these agreements had an official languages clause. They all referred to the Freedom of Information Act and to the Protection of Personal Information Act but there was no mention of the Official Languages Act. It is not surprising that there is no official languages clause since there is nothing in departmental processes in this regard.

6. Interviews with officials

In this department, we met only the contributions coordinator since he handles all contributions awarded by headquarters; he did not appear aware that there was a section of the Treasury Board official languages policy dealing specifically with grants and contributions. On the other hand, he was well aware of the Department's obligations in the area of publications and mentioned that the Department sees to the translation of documents and reports provided by non-governmental organizations which receive contributions from the Department when it is considered that the publications are aimed at groups in which both linguistic communities are represented or when the publications are of interest to the population as a whole. We were given examples of such publications.

The coordinator was very interested in obtaining models of contribution agreements which meet and explain linguistic obligations linked to grants and contributions. He also seemed quite open to the idea of receiving any information and/or training related to official languages in this area in order to be in a position to suggest a new departmental approach which would consider the official languages aspect in all departmental processes related to grants and contributions.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

We contacted two recipient organizations, one of which seemed more aware than the other of its official languages obligations. We first communicated with a national association which was working on a pilot project and which was not at all aware of its linguistic obligations towards its clientele. The other organization is capable of offering services in both official languages and was already doing it. It is an organization which had received contributions in the past from two other federal institutions and is therefore aware of its official languages obligations. The organization in question has even had its annual report translated at its own expense and on its own initiative.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that a sector within the Department be assigned responsibility for reviewing the application of Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy and its follow-up;

that volunteer organizations be clearly informed of the content of the official languages policy in order that they might take it into account when submitting contribution applications to Correctional Service Canada;

that departmental contribution procedures have a section bearing on an examination of the linguistic clientele targeted by a project or an activity. In cases where the scope of the event or activity is national or international, conditions related to the application of the policy should be integrated into the letter of agreement signed with the organization;

that an item on the implementation of the official languages policy be integrated into the list of items to check when the quality of letters of agreement is being reviewed; and

that follow-up mechanisms be developed and implemented to ensure systematically that organizations handle their policy implementation responsibilities appropriately.

SPORT CANADA
(Department: Canadian Heritage)

1. 1998-1999 Estimates
Parts I and II Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates

Budgetary expenditures allotted to contributions:

	1997-1998	1998-1999
Contributions to national amateur sports organizations:	$28,235,114	$26,365,059
Contributions to elite amateur athletes:	$7,250,000	$7,250,000
Contributions to sponsor organizations for regional, national and international multi-sport games:	$12,200,000	$14,780,000

2. Departmental policies

Sport Canada is part of Canadian Heritage. The department has an internal official languages policy with a general paragraph on grants and contributions which applies to Sport Canada. However, Sport Canada uses the statement of Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy for its own internal purposes and for external information. It has incorporated the statement into its guidelines for the contributions program. It also uses Section 3 of the same policy stating all the items which constitute the necessary measures to ensure that recipients of public funds conform to the spirit of the Official Languages Act and to the intent of the legislator regarding services to the public. In short, all the items of the Treasury Board policy are explicit except those of Annex A (Guidelines for the federal institution which awards funding). In reality, we have noted that those guidelines were applied to the letter.

Sport Canada also has an internal policy entitled Federal Policy on Holding International Sports Events. Furthermore, documents on file show that Sport Canada has been greatly inspired by the Treasury Board document entitled Invitations: How to take advantage of official languages in popular events at the national or international level to establish minimal expectations in the area of official languages.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The person in charge of official languages at Canadian Heritage in 1997-1998 was directly involved in the information sessions dealing with services to the public for organizations receiving contributions and in the signing of the responsibility contract to be discussed later. That person was not consulted directly for the drafting of the financial agreement clauses governing contributions for those recipient organizations which have not yet signed a responsibility contract. The person presently in charge of official languages at Canadian Heritage has been in the position for only a short time and has not yet had to play an active role in this area. Final responsibility for the observance of official languages matters lies with Sport Canada program officers.

Sport Canada has a position of policy consultant and has appointed a person to be in charge of official languages. This person's main role consists in following up on any complaints which could be lodged. All management levels at Sport Canada assume responsibility for official languages. In November 1998, under the person responsible for official languages at the time, management of Sport Canada called all contribution recipients to an information session on the delivery of bilingual services. Besides all the officers working with recipients, all the key members of Sport Canada participated in that meeting: the director general, the chief of intergovernmental policies and the policy consultant. Representatives of the Official Languages Support Programs attended as resource people.

4. Departmental process

Sport Canada awards contributions to many types of programs:

• National Sport Organizations Support Program (NSO);
• Multi-Sport and Multi-Service Organization Support Program (MSO);
• Single Sport Hosting Program (SSHP);
• Domestic Sport Program (set up in 1999);
• Athlete Assistance Program (AAP);
• National Sport Centres Program;
• New Funding for Sport Program (set up in 1998).

Sport Canada also contributed to the funding of the Canada Games, the Pan-American and other games held on Canadian soil and to the funding of Canadian delegations to games held abroad.

The departmental process is not the same for the funding of these various ventures. We examined in particular the departmental process governing the NCO, the MSO and national or international sports events held on Canadian soil.

NSO and MSO

In 1995-1996, Sport Canada drafted a Sport Funding and Accountability Framework which has a life span of four years. As a result of a competitive process, 38 NSOs met the obligations of the framework and will receive, if they demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the framework, an annual funding for the 1997-2001 cycle. The framework contained a linguistic item stating that organizations were assessed on the fact that they had developed an official languages policy in accordance with the Treasury Board policy and the Sport Canada policy. The weighting for that item of the framework was 3%.

In 1996-1997, Sport Canada added to the framework a responsibility contract with eligible NSOs. Two thirds of NSOs signed such a responsibility contract, the rest all negotiated a first draft. The responsibility contract, negotiated by officers and ONS representatives, is a statement of the various minimal expectations of Sport Canada with a section devoted to official languages. Organizations must meet some of these expectations before March 31, 1999. Their annual submission of funding applications must indicate the level of achievement of each of the following expectations for the 1996-2001 cycle:

• a properly completed policy on official languages;
• a bilingual charter and statutes;
• internal regulations in both official languages;
• agreements with athletes in both official languages;
• criteria for the awarding of certificates in both official languages;
• selection criteria for athletes in both official languages;
• the capacity to hear appeals and hold audiences in both official languages; and
• the development of a work plan to offer additional documents and procedures in both official languages.

For March 1999, NSOs must:

• have a policy on harassment and procedures in both official languages;
• be able to answer requests for information in the language of choice of the requestor;
• have a telephone answering device with service in both official languages;
• be able to draft correspondence in the language of choice of the requestor;
• be able to provide athletes with survey questionnaires in their language of choice;
• be able to provide bilingual services during national championships and international events that is, invitations, registrations, signs, communiqués, announcements;
• have information in both official languages on the home page of the NSO's Web site; and
• offer bilingual services during the organization's annual meeting.

In short, Sport Canada's minimal expectations go beyond the Treasury Board policy of grants and contributions.

The process described above for NSOs is presently being implemented for MSOs. Two MSOs have signed responsibility contracts of the same type as those of the NSOs as part of a pilot project. The implementation of the process for all MSOs is scheduled for 1999-2000.

National or international sports events held on Canadian soil

A Sport Canada advisor is assigned to ensure close contact with the organizers of such events. The officer works with the Canada Games Council (owner of the Games) and with the local Games host organization. Sport Canada's contribution goes to the host organization. As indicated in the agreement with the host organization, Sport Canada has a representative on the administration committee of the host organization and on its management committee. The officer trains those responsible for the event and works closely with the person(s) hired by the host organization to see to the linguistic aspect of the games. The hiring of the coordinator is mentioned in one of the clauses of the agreement signed with the host organization.

5. Examination of the agreements

We examined two agreements on contributions related to the holding of multi-sports: one for the Canada Games and one for international games held on Canadian soil. We also studied overall agreements on NSOs, MSOs and SSHPs and, in the case of NSOs that had signed the responsibility framework with linguistic commitments, we examined eight annual reports (1997-1998).

The Canada Games agreement is a multiparty agreement involving Canadian Heritage (representing the Queen), the provincial government, the host city, the host organization for the Games and the Canada Games Council. The agreement has a complete section on official languages covering the official languages obligations of the host organization before, during and after the Games. All the obligations mentioned in Chapter 1-4 of the policy are covered and surpassed. We could mention, for instance, the hiring of a coordinator for the linguistic aspect of the Games and the hiring of a bilingual receptionist, bilingual people in the media relations section, the use of the minority language media or the issuing of bilingual messages in the majority language press and at least one bilingual service wicket (tickets, information and so forth) wherever there are wickets. The host organization must hire a sufficient number of bilingual people to be in a position to offer all required services in both official languages.

The official languages agreement for international games held on Canadian soil follows the signing of the multiparty agreement. It is an addendum to the agreement already signed. Besides the definitions, this agreement has 17 clauses which describe in detail the obligations of the games host organization. All the obligations of Chapter 1-4 of the policy are indicated clearly and here again, the description of the services to be offered in both official languages is more complete than what is indicated by the Treasury Board; there is, for instance, the hiring of a coordinator of linguistic services and the wearing of an insignia by employees who can communicate in both official languages. This agreement also has a clause which states that Canada accepts to provide the host organization with translation services at no cost to the organization.

In the case of the NSOs and the MSOs, we first examined five overall agreements on contributions dealing primarily with finances. When there is no responsibility contract (as is the case with most MSOs and SSHPs), that is the type of agreement which governs funding conditions. The only linguistic clause of this type of agreement (clause g) is very general "take official languages into account when there is an offer of services to the public or to members" (our translation). For recipients who have not as yet signed a responsibility contract, this type of clause could have been misunderstood. Fortunately, these organizations were all invited to an information session held last November.

We also examined nine annual reports (1997-1998) submitted by recipients who had signed a responsibility contract and we noted that recipient organizations were not all at the same level. Some met all Sport Canada's minimal expectations while, for one organization in particular, objectives to be reached still included the translation of some documents, the offer of bilingual services to athletes, bilingual correspondence and telephone services.

6. Interviews with officials

Interviews with three officers revealed that they were well aware of the official languages obligations of recipient organizations and that they were actively helping organizations achieve their objectives.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

We spoke with the person in charge of the linguistic aspect in one NSO and with the linguistic coordinator of a multi-sport event held on Canadian soil. Both these people were obviously well aware of their linguistic obligations and stated that they received from Sport Canada all the information they needed on the matter.

In the case of the NSO, we were nevertheless surprised to note that, although the organization's annual report stated that all objectives of the responsibility agreement had been met, telephone service in Toronto was not bilingual. The person in charge did not seem preoccupied by the issue and seemed to indicate that since such a service was available in Montreal, that was sufficient.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that the time frame for the implementation of the responsibility framework be maintained for 2001.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•