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

This page has been archived.

Audit on Official Languages
Grants and Contributions

July 1999

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Audit Objectives

3. Scope

4. Approach

5. Summary of Results

6. Recommendations

1. Introduction

This audit was conducted to assess the degree to which selected federal institutions met their obligations under the Official Languages Act to provide service to the public in both official languages, especially in awarding grants and contributions as required by the Treasury Board policy in this regard (Chapter 1-4). Given the national and international scope of activities and events, and the level of funding provided by federal institutions to voluntary non-governmental organizations, it is important to ensure that federal institutions honour the spirit of the Official Languages Act when redistributing public funds.

This report outlines the objectives and scope of the audit, the procedure followed, and the results of our study.

2. Audit Objectives

The audit objectives were based on Part IV of the Official Languages Act, particularly Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board Policy on Official Languages:

• To determine whether, and to what degree, the targeted federal institutions awarding grants (unconditional transfer payments) or contributions (conditional transfer payments) to voluntary non-governmental organizations for activities, projects or programs affecting both official language communities:

• - are familiar with the provisions of the Policy on Official Languages that relate to awarding such grants and contributions;

  - apply this policy;

  - monitor the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with recipient organizations;

  - follow up on the application of language obligations included in agreements and the implementation of language clauses in awarding grants and contributions.

• To examine the circumstances and the reasons if the policy is not applied as it should be.

3. Scope

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat selected the following federal institutions⁽²⁾:

It was first agreed that the audit would focus only on grants and contributions awarded to voluntary non-governmental organizations by the headquarters of these various institutions. However, we were then obliged to modify this initial approach slightly and to reflect the regional role of two organizations. We also agreed to consider only grants and contributions for events or activities of national or international scope, or at least aimed at both language communities. For the purposes of this study, an event or activity was defined as being of national scope if several provinces participated, including one of the following, if possible: Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario.

We were to review a predetermined distribution of 90 per cent contributions and 10 per cent grants. However, it was not always possible to maintain this distribution. Among other things, one of the institutions in our sample awarded practically nothing but grants.

Grants and contributions under $10,000 were not considered in this audit.

In the case of Canadian Heritage, the audit did not focus on grants and contributions made in applying section 43 of the Official Languages Act.

4. Approach

The audit followed the procedures outlined below:

• Review of legislation and policies applicable to TBS and the nine selected departments and agencies.

• Development of questionnaires to collect data and information.

• Review of grant and contribution agreements in federal institutions.

• Personal or telephone interviews with official languages officers and officers responsible for preparing and approving grant and contribution documents.

• Telephone interviews with grant and contribution recipients.

• Development of recommendations for each department and agency, where necessary.

• Analysis of results and drafting of report.

• Inclusion of feedback from federal institutions after submitting the draft of their worksheet.

5. Summary of Results

Our audit enabled us to determine that half of the audited institutions had no corporate policy on official languages. The institutions concerned are the Canadian International Development Agency, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Human Resources Development Canada and Health Canada. These institutions use the Treasury Board policy, to which electronic networks allow them easy access.

Status of Women Canada and Correctional Service Canada have a corporate policy on official languages, but it contains no grant and contribution provisions. These two agencies also use the Treasury Board policy.

Sport Canada is part of Canadian Heritage, which has a policy on official languages. This policy contains only a paragraph of intention, however, whereby the department must ensure that recipients of public funds provide services in both official languages. It should also be noted that, at Sport Canada, all of the provisions of the Treasury Board Policy on Official Languages (Chapter 1-4) are well known and published in a brochure for recipient organizations. Sport Canada also uses Chapter 1-3 on Events of National or International Scope for the General Public. Finally, Sport Canada has an internal policy entitled Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has no internal corporate policy on official languages and uses the Treasury Board policy, except for grants and contributions. The department has developed its own policy, Policy concerning Third-Party Services, Grants and Contributions. This policy reflects all of the obligations described in the Treasury Board policy. It is even more specific in some respects, since it outlines various characteristics associated with different types of agreements. The policy even provides that managers must ensure compliance with the official languages clause as a condition for grant or contribution payments. This policy has not been fully implemented but is nevertheless a step in the right direction.

Federal institutions do not have an internal corporate policy on grants and contributions. They use the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments found in the Financial Administration Manual. This policy contains a section on official languages (clause 12), which reads as follows:

This policy thus refers to circulars that are obsolete and inconsistent with Chapter 1-4 of the policy on official languages. Thus, managers who are unfamiliar with Chapter 1-4, and who consult only the policy on transfer payments in preparing their contribution agreements, would not have the proper information to make sound official languages decisions.

The official languages representatives of federal institutions that we met generally feel that applying Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy is the responsibility of grants and contributions officers. When they examine the wording of their terms of reference, moreover, they do not acknowledge being specifically accountable for this chapter of the policy. We also note that official languages divisions have not developed measures to monitor the application of the policy. Managers and recipient organizations virtually never consult them to determine the ramifications of Chapter 1-4 of the policy or to obtain advice on its interpretation.

It seems that legal counsels have contributed more to developing and drafting standard clauses found in the contribution agreements of some federal institutions. Several official languages representatives could not say whether the contribution agreements of their institutions contained a language clause. Apart from Sport Canada, where the Official Languages Division actively took part in organizing information sessions for recipient organizations, and from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, where the Official Languages Division helped to develop a corporate policy on official languages grants and contributions, official languages divisions may be said to have played a fairly minor role in applying Chapter 1-4 of the policy in other organizations.

Grant and contribution program officers must apply the Treasury Board policy in this regard. Program officers in operational sectors are responsible for making recipient organizations aware of the objectives of their programs, eligibility criteria for government funding, application evaluation criteria, and so on. They must also analyze proposals, recommend approving or rejecting requests for funding, and prepare memorandums of understanding.

The issue of official languages depends on the level of knowledge that program officers possess. In most cases, they are aware of the Official Languages Act but do not necessarily know that a policy exists in this regard. As a result, official languages considerations are often limited to translating documents or providing simultaneous interpretation. Rarely do program officers concern themselves with ensuring the participation of both language groups. The operational sector at Sport Canada has adopted a systematic approach to including bilingualism in events of national or international scope, via an accountability agreement negotiated with recipient organizations along with financial agreements. The agency has also prescribed mechanisms for monitoring the execution of these accountability agreements.

The financial services of departments and agencies are often responsible for creating files and ensuring that payments are consistent with the department's or agency's commitments as described in memorandums of understanding. Program officers inform them whether the clauses of the memorandum have been applied and when it is appropriate to make contributions.

Federal institutions that make grants or contributions possess different tools to inform voluntary organizations about the existence of their programs. They publish guidelines for organizations seeking funding, guides for applicants, procedural requirements for contributions, requests for proposals, and so on. Each department and agency thus has its own operating procedure, which is formulated differently but requires basically the same kind of information from participating organizations: the objective of the program for which it is applying, scope, categories of recipients, documentation accompanying the application (description, relevance and significance of the project, business plan, expected results, and so on), terms of payment, duration of mandate and so on.

Proposals submitted under contribution programs are then analyzed by program officers. Some federal institutions use analytical grids, but these do not include information related to Chapter 1-4 of the policy, even if language concerns are reflected in the request for proposal. When the analysis is completed, the officer recommends accepting or rejecting the proposal. Once the proposal is accepted, the applicant receives a letter, generally signed by the minister, announcing the news and indicating that a program officer will contact the applicant to prepare the content of an agreement.

Some program officers contact the representatives of applicant organizations, discuss official languages with them, and refer them to the Canadian Heritage Official Languages Promotion Program for translation and simultaneous interpretation. The departmental official languages procedures of some federal institutions are not based on all the information contained in Chapter 1-4. Rather, they tend to be written in very general terms. Thus for example, an organization that is organizing an international conference is required to reflect the bilingual nature of Canada or an applicant is required to reflect the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. The latter leaves us perplexed as the Official Languages Act contains several sections, including one on language of work and another on equitable participation. Needless to say, applicant organizations cannot be required to apply these sections of the Act but they should hold particularly to Part IV of the Act regarding service to the public.

Slightly more specific requirements are sometimes found. For one type of contribution, a department requires that the participating organization be of national scope and able to provide part of its services in both official languages. Moreover, Sport Canada is the only institution that regularly informs applicant organizations of their official languages obligations. Indeed, Part 8 of the guidelines contains a complete section on official languages. It reproduces all the information in Chapter 1-4 of the policy, so that the applicant organization is aware of its obligations before completing its application for funding.

We reviewed a total of 152 files (18 grants and 134 contributions). We eliminated 29 of these contributions since they were outside the parameters defined in the scope (such as contributions under $10,000, contributions to for-profit organizations, contributions for activities aimed at a single language group, and so on). We thus selected 105 contribution agreements for analysis. Our main findings with regard to official languages are as follows:

• About 25 per cent of contribution agreements contain a language clause clearly outlining all of the information in Chapter 1-4 of the policy for events of national or international scope.

• About 15 per cent of contribution agreements contain a clause whereby the recipient must consider the Official Languages Act or the client's language of choice in providing service. These agreements usually also contain one of the three following clauses.

• Slightly more than 10 per cent of contribution agreements contain one of the following three clauses: a clause on translating the summary of the recipient organization's report, a clause on the relevance of translating the recipient organization's entire report, or a clause in the copyright section authorizing the department to translate the deliverable of the funded activity at its own expense.

• Finally, about 5 per cent of contribution agreements contain only one language clause in the recognition section. This clause encourages the recipient organization to publicize, in both official languages, the department's contribution to funding the activity.

• About 40 per cent of contribution agreements contain no language clause.

The above-mentioned copyright clause, which is used by three federal institutions (nine agreements), creates no financial obligation for the recipient organization, which is not required to translate its deliverable. However, this clause allows the federal institution a way out if it must use the finished product for its own purposes. The federal institution can thus meet its obligations regarding service to the public, while respecting the recipient organization's intellectual property rights. In our opinion, this is a stopgap solution. It has the advantage of being economical, since not all documents are systematically translated. However, it has the disadvantage of departing from the spirit of Chapter 1-4 of the policy, which requires any government-funded deliverable of national or international scope to be available immediately in both official languages.

All contribution agreements contain a section stating that the federal institution reserves the right to conduct an audit. This audit is mainly financial in nature. Only Sport Canada audits the official languages accountability agreement.

We would like to point out that one federal institution has taken an initiative regarding Web sites, although Chapter 1-4 of the policy does not mention this subject. Since recipient organizations increasingly use electronic communications to publicize their research findings or the content of their government-funded activities, this federal institution has requested that other organizations have bilingual Web sites. This exemplary practice is entirely consistent with the spirit of the Official Languages Act. The file review indicated that, in applying for contributions, several recipient organizations specify that the consultation or information output or process will occur electronically. Some recipient organizations are justly proud of having bilingual Web sites. In this regard, these organizations go beyond the requirements of Chapter 1-4 of the policy. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should examine this issue in order to provide clear guidelines on the subject. The Treasury Board Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks, which is based on the obligation to have bilingual offices, does not apply to grants and contributions. Recipient organizations cannot be considered as offices.

We reviewed 18 grant files. There are no grant agreements as there are contribution agreements, nor are there analytical grids that would mention official languages data. We examined the documentation on file to audit whether grant recipients complied with Chapter 1-4 of the policy regarding service to the public in holding events of national or international scope.

Half of the recipient organizations that applied for grants have files indicating that these organizations have a bilingual structure. The documentation accompanying the application is bilingual, and the budget includes an item for translation and simultaneous interpretation. There are seven other cases, moreover, where the recipient organization also provided budget estimates for translation or simultaneous interpretation. The other two grant files contained no evidence suggesting that the activity or event had been conducted in both official languages.

We talked to about 20 officers or managers of grant or contribution programs. We wanted to know whether they applied a corporate grant or contribution policy, or were familiar with the Treasury Board policy in this regard, particularly the official languages section. They were generally aware of some aspects of language requirements, such as translating documents, providing simultaneous interpretation, and promoting official language minority communities.

About one third of officers were well aware of all the language obligations to be met by recipient organizations that receive public funds to hold activities or events of national scope. Chapter 1-4 of the policy is somewhat unknown. This does not mean, however, that officers do not discuss official languages in their communications with recipient organizations. They discuss them, but this is often restricted to their limited knowledge of the subject. The same is true of monitoring measures.

Several officers indicated that budgets allocated for translation and interpretation were often inadequate. In such cases, they put organizations in contact with spokespersons of the Canadian Heritage Official Languages Promotion Program. However, these spokespersons cannot always meet all requests. Organizations must then bear the cost of translation.

Some officers seemed sceptical about the idea of including specific obligations in memorandums of understanding because they prefer an informal approach in discussions with voluntary organizations. They usually limit themselves to the standard wording of agreements and deem that such agreements are more the responsibility of Legal Services. We found no agreement where officers could write comments on official languages or language obligations in the section on special provisions or characteristics.

We contacted 18 voluntary organizations, including 10 headquartered in the National Capital Region. The other organizations are headquartered in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. Before contacting managers of these organizations, we asked program officers to inform them that we would call to make initial contact and that an audit was being conducted, so that they would not be surprised by our call. Our objective was to find out whether organizations were aware of their official languages obligations, how well they had been informed by their program officers, and whether they could offer service in both official languages.

Most of the organizations consulted had previously applied for funding from a federal institution and some had past experience with other federal institutions. About 70 per cent of these organizations had some knowledge of their language obligations, especially translating documents or providing simultaneous interpretation at conferences or workshops. Most of the time, these organizations had acquired knowledge in this regard as a result of prior experience that was not necessarily related to the information received from their program officers. This is fairly difficult to measure, since organizations certainly do not wish to criticize their funders.

Organizations make an effort when a unilingual Anglophone or Francophone persists, but are generally far from actively offering service and even respecting the language of the person's choice. It must be noted, however, that slightly more than half of the organizations consulted have a structure that allows them to offer service in both official languages, independently of whether or not the memorandum of understanding contains an official languages clause. In a sense, some organizations go beyond the commitments they have made.

Some organizations say that they are fully bilingual in terms of their statutes, by-laws and charter. Among other things, they feel that their documentation, minutes, reception services and Web site are bilingual, their annual general meeting is held in both official languages, and so on.

On the other hand, 30 per cent of recipient organizations are unaware of their language obligations. They feel that they were not informed of these obligations in their discussions with program officers or when signing contribution agreements.

6. Recommendations

For Federal Institutions

The following is a summary of the main recommendations made for the institutions that took part in this audit.

It is recommended:

That responsibility for applying and monitoring Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy be clearly assigned within federal institutions.

That departmental official languages officers take the necessary steps to inform the organization's various sectors of the language obligations of recipient organizations to provide bilingual service in events or activities of national or international scope.

That voluntary organizations be clearly informed of the content of the Policy on Official Languages, so that they consider it in submitting their project proposal.

That funding guidelines published for organizations include a section describing the elements of bilingual service as required by the Treasury Board Policy on Official Languages (Chapter 1-4).

That departmental contribution procedures include a section on examining the language clientele targeted by a project or activity. When the event or activity is of national or international scope, conditions for applying the policy should be included in the letter of understanding with the organization.

That a section of the model analytical grid used by program officers focus on examining the language clientele targeted by the project. When the event or activity is of national or international scope, conditions for applying the policy should be included in the letter of understanding with the organization.

That an item on applying the policy be included in the checklist for controlling the quality of letters of understanding.

That monitoring mechanisms be developed and implemented to ensure that organizations regularly meet their responsibilities to apply the policy.

For the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

It is recommended that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat:

Send an explanatory memorandum to departmental official languages officers defining the scope of Chapter 1-4 of the policy so that it is properly understood.

Issue a reminder to departmental official languages officers, to ensure that they publicize and clearly explain the content of Chapter 1-4 of the Policy on Official Languages to managers of sectors responsible for making grants and contributions.

Make representations to the appropriate authorities, so that members of the legal community, who work in federal institutions and are responsible for drafting standard clauses of contribution agreements, are aware of the importance of including, not only a general clause referring to the Official Languages Act as a whole, but also specific clauses so that the parties clearly know their obligations.

Take the necessary steps to ensure that the Policy on Transfer Payments correctly reflects the requirements of Chapter 1-4 of the Policy on Official Languages.

Consider the appropriateness of amending Chapter 1-4 of the Policy on Official Languages to include a section on Web sites.

Pay special attention to applying Chapter 1-4 of the Policy on Official Languages in analyzing annual management reports.

Follow up on specific recommendations to each of the audited federal institutions.

ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY (ACOA)

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
	$264,309,000	$269,318,000

2. Departmental policies

The Agency is subject to the Treasury Board policy and guidelines on official languages. It uses documents produced by Treasury Board as references for the implementation of the Official Languages Act within the organization. The Agency has not thought it necessary to establish its own departmental official languages policy. As for grants and contributions, the Agency has guidelines, particularly for the Business Development Program. However, these guidelines do not have specific clauses on official languages.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

Responsibility for the implementation of the Official Languages Act is shared between, on one hand, the Official Languages Division in the Human Resources Branch which handles all parts of the policy of concern to employees in the areas of language of service and language of work and, on the other hand, the Programs Division which is responsible for Part VII of the Act dealing with the advancement of both official languages.

There is no area within the organization which is responsible for Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy on grants and contributions to volunteer and municipal organizations: the Official Languages Division, as it sees its mandate, does not completely accept responsibility for that part of the policy which would appear to be closer to the responsibilities of program management, but the Programs Division has focused its efforts on Part VII of the Act. As a result of this situation, there is no direction regarding the implementation of that part of the policy from any area in the organization and, although program officers are aware of its existence, it is not routinely implemented. It should, however, be noted that the Director General, Policy and Programs, issued a memorandum on the implementation of the Treasury Board policy in August 1993.

The situation is essentially the same as regards follow-up mechanisms related to the implementation of the policy; they are not defined and therefore the results as to the meeting of the objectives of that part of the policy are seldom measured.

4. Departmental process

As for grants and contributions, most projects (roughly 80%) handled by ACOA involve the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the improvement of their productivity and competitiveness. Projects initiated by volunteer or municipal organizations (at most 20% of submitted projects) are of local or regional scope and sometimes involve the two linguistic communities.

ACOA awards contributions to small and medium-sized businesses and to volunteer organizations through two mechanisms: cooperative agreements with the provinces on economic development and the Business Development Program. The cooperative agreements were signed with each of the Atlantic provinces and the follow up of the projects is handled by the provinces. ACOA manages the Business Development Program.

From April 1, 1997, to March 4, 1999, some 600 economic development projects were approved through the cooperative agreements with the provinces. None of the projects on that list was examined during the present audit. Responsibility for the implementation of that clause lies with a joint management committee which handles the management of these agreements. Our audit did not deal with the 600 agreements signed between April 1, 1997 and March 4, 1999 which were part of the cooperative agreements with the provinces. It is important to stress that the framework agreement signed with the provinces contains a clause indicating that, "all communication material produced for the public must be produced in both official languages. Translation of these documents could be organized through ACOA. Any possible exception will have to be previously approved by ACOA and the provincial government". It is the responsibility of a joint management committee to follow up on the implementation of this cause.

5. Examination of the agreements

Our audit dealt with the contribution agreements signed as part of the Business Development Program which is ACOA's main support mechanism for economic development. Between April 1, 1997 and March 4, 1999, ACOA approved some 800 projects under this program.

Roughly twenty of these projects were chosen for this review: they were chosen because of their scope (i.e., involved the population of the four provinces) and their impact on official language minority communities. Because of ACOA's particular situation, (the vast majority of projects come from the regional offices) it was decided to examine 10 projects from the headquarters in Moncton and 10 from the various regional offices. The audit was carried out at ACOA's headquarters in Moncton. It should be noted that the files were easy to access despite the fact that they came from the regional offices; ACOA's mail service is very reliable and the offices responded promptly and effectively to the requests we sent.

No item in the analytical grid used by program officers refers to the responsibility of organizations as regards the implementation of Chapter 1-4 of the official languages policy. This aspect of a project is only handled sporadically: the officer responsible for the project will include it in the analysis if he or she thinks it necessary. Because there is no specific item in this regard in the analysis, it can easily be forgotten if the officer is more or less aware of the official languages aspect of his or her duties. There are so many items to consider during the analysis of a project that it is easy to focus only on those described in the analytical grid.

It therefore seems that the conformity of projects with Chapter 1-4 of Treasury Board's official languages policy is not examined routinely during the analysis of projects submitted to ACOA. It must, however, be stressed that references to official languages were found in seven of the 20 files examined. In certain cases, the reference was in the form of a condition specifically mentioned in the letter of agreement, in others, it was an information leaflet in both official languages placed on file, or again an indication of concern expressed in the correspondence between the parties during analysis of the file or an item on translation in the budgetary submission for the project.

It also happened that the file being audited dealt with a project concerning an organization which had already had three or four other similar projects with ACOA and the issue of official languages had already been dealt with and was therefore not mentioned in the later project; the organization nevertheless remained responsible in this regard.

6. Interviews with officials

Interviews with program officers revealed that they routinely examine the contribution application files that are submitted to them. They use a detailed analytical grid containing all the essential information required to decide if a contribution will be approved. They make a detailed financial analysis and prepare agreement letters in which are found overall information on the project, contribution payment methods, the conditions which the recipient must accept, the types of reports to produce and the follow-up mechanisms to establish.

According to the nature of a project, ACOA covers 50% or 75% of the costs of its implementation. Some officers believe that an organization's translation costs should be covered completely. Such a policy would have as an advantage to encourage organizations to comply more willingly with their obligation in this regard since it would not impact on the operational costs of their project.

Although follow-up mechanisms regarding the implementation of the policy are not clearly defined, some officers ensure that the organizations meet the commitments they accepted regarding the policy and require to see the products thus developed. This practice is not, however, standardized.

Each draft of the agreement letter prepared by the program officers is checked before being sent to senior management for approval; this is a quality control step aimed at ensuring that all points required for decision making on the part of management have been covered. Here again, the official languages issue is not included at this stage.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

A review of the files revealed that organizations do not routinely analyze the official languages dimension in the submission of their projects. The target clientele is generally described in some detail along with the objectives and the impact of the project. Some projects do contain a budgetary item related to translation and this would indicate that at some point certain documents were translated into one official language or the other.

Interviews with representatives of the organizations revealed that they were not aware of the official languages obligation linked to the contribution they received. In both cases, there was a discussion of official languages matters related to the implementation of their project with the officer responsible for the review of their file, but no item appears officially on file on the matter. It may be concluded that the fact that files do not reflect the organizations' commitments does not necessarily mean that official languages matters are not considered in some form or another.

It would appear that no information is transmitted to volunteer organizations on a regular basis regarding the official languages responsibilities linked to projects which affect both linguistic communities. Only one of the project proposals submitted by organizations referred to official languages. Some organizations at work in Atlantic Canada for many years are aware of the importance of official languages in their milieu. This is not, however, the case for all organizations. It is therefore important that information on the matter be transmitted on a regular basis to all organizations with projects aimed at a clientele which includes a minority of one official language or the other.

Since implementation of Chapter 1-4 of the policy is not done on a regular basis and since organizations are not fully aware of the existence of the policy, their lack of conformity with the policy is, for all intents and purposes, without consequence. At worst, they receive a warning from the officer responsible for their projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

that volunteer organizations be clearly informed of the content of the official languages policy in order that they might refer to it in the submission of their project proposals to ACOA;

that an item on the implementation of the official languages policy be added to the checklist of quality control items for letters of agreement;

that the responsibility for the application and follow up regarding Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy be clearly assigned within the organization;

that follow-up mechanisms be developed and implemented to ensure that organizations regularly fulfill their responsibilities regarding the implementation of the policy; and

that the Policy and Procedures Manual of the Business Development Program include the main points of Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board policy on official languages.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA (CIC)

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

Budgetary expenditures allotted to contributions:

	1997-1998	1998-1999
	$166,235,000	$166,235,000

2. Departmental policies

The Department does not have its own policy on contributions and grants; it uses the Treasury Board policy on transfer payments, Chapter 2-12. As for official languages, the Department uses the Treasury Board policy except as regards grants and contributions. The Department has its own policy in this area: "Policy on services provided by third parties, grants and contributions" that can be found on the Department's Intranet site.

The policy states, "Agreements by which grants or contributions are awarded to organizations, including non-governmental volunteer organizations for activities, projects or programs which involve service to the two official languages communities must include provisions ensuring that communications with and service to the public be provided in both official languages, in accordance with the spirit of Part IV of the Official Languages Act (OLA)...". This policy has been in force for approximately four months and it will be shown that its implementation is not yet complete.

CIC expects departmental managers to take necessary action to ensure that recipients of public funds respect the spirit of the OLA and the intention of the legislator regarding services to the public and that also applies when grants or contributions are awarded to non-governmental volunteer organizations. The policy also states that CIC must determine at the first review of a project if the public of both communities must be served. The requirement to determine, along with the recipient organization, the linguistic nature of the clientele will provide a basis upon which to establish the official languages obligations or commitments that will have to be met.

If an agreement states that service must be provided to both official languages groups, CIC must establish, when required financing is being examined, the provision of an amount which will allow the recipient organization to ensure the delivery of services in both official languages. The policy even stipulates that payments will be conditional upon observance of the official languages clause. Generally speaking, the departmental policy restates all the obligations spelled out in the Treasury Board policy and in some areas it is more specific since it examines many different types of particularities linked to the different types of agreements.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The departmental Official Languages Division has been very closely involved in the area of grants and contributions; indeed, it developed a policy on the matter. The policy was issued in 1995, brought once more to the attention of departmental managers in January 1996 and again in January 1999. The Official Languages Division receives frequent requests for information from local and regional managers. The Official Languages Division does not, however, ensure regular follow-ups on the implementation of agreements. The program officers are responsible for recommending the awarding of grants and contributions and for monitoring day-to-day operations. They ensure a follow-up which includes linguistic items.

4. Departmental process

The Department is highly decentralized as regards the management of contributions and grants. The regions administer almost all to the point where, to be able to examine a number of agreements for this audit, we had to call a regional office, a process which had not been planned in the methodology. Once examined, grants and contributions are handled within the framework of one of two programs: the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (SAP) and Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC). Organizations wishing to become involved in these programs must fill out a form to that end.

The Department is in a process of transition in that some provinces (Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia) have signed agreements to manage on their own the grants that the Department provides them. The territories or other provinces could be added to the list. Furthermore, the Department is presently reviewing the management of activities, conferences or events with a national scope; the Department intends to have agreements covering that type of event managed from headquarters in the near future.

5. Examination of the agreements

Since there were only two contribution agreements at headquarters which met our selection criteria and that both were linked to language training, we also examined six other agreements managed by the Toronto regional office. Activities linked to these last agreements took place in the National Capital Region. The eight contribution agreements examined (1998-1999) specify that services to the public must be offered in the language chosen by the client, except for agreements related to the teaching of English or French. This is mentioned as follows in the annex of the description of the services: "Services will be offered in the official language of the client's choice".

In the sample agreement used by the Department, there is also a clause referring to copyright; the agreement states that that clause is part and parcel of any agreement unless indicated otherwise. The clause stipulates that the supplier of services keeps his or her copyright; it indicates that if the production of the work is financed in all or in part by the contribution provided by the Department according to the terms of the agreement, the supplier accepts to grant the Department free of charge the non exclusive, unconditional and irrevocable right to use, reproduce, publish, translate, adapt, record in any way possible, distribute or televise this work during the copyright period.

The agreements examined had no official languages clause for contractual and other agreements as described in the departmental policy on official languages. We were told that eventually the Department will use the clause which must be applied at the end of an agreement which refers to services to a public made up of both language communities. In such a context the services provider should:

• produce in both official languages all publicity and announcements aimed at the public regarding the activity, the project or the program;
• make an active offer of services to the public in both official languages;
• make available in both official languages any document referring to the activity, the project or the program aimed at the public;
• encourage members from both official languages communities to participate in the activity, the project or the program;
• ensure that all signage on site is in both official languages.

6. Interviews with officials

We contacted two program officers responsible for contributions and both stressed that, given the nature of the clientele (immigrants, refugees, etc.) and the type of services provided (teaching of English or French, reception of new arrivals, awareness of Canadian life and Canadian multiculturalism, etc.), the Department had to be proactive and in the forefront in the area of official languages. Departmental officers inform non governmental organizations that receive contributions of their official languages obligations and indicate that for them the most important is not only to be capable of offering services in both languages but also to be capable of providing service in many other languages since the Department's clients are of very diverse nationalities. The officers maintained that linguistic aspects are considered in follow-up action with recipient organizations and that they have never received any official languages complaints from clients of these organizations.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

The two Ottawa organizations that we contacted by telephone have received contributions from the Department for many years. They are quite aware of their official languages obligations and are capable of offering their services in both official languages. Reception is bilingual in each organization and it is estimated that the demand for services in French varies from 10% to 20% according to the organization. One of these organizations has its own internal official languages policy, and bilingualism is part and parcel of its mission. Furthermore, it has a completely bilingual Web site and publishes its news releases in both official languages. As for the other organization, although it is not considered as a bilingual organization, it is nevertheless capable of offering all its services in both official languages.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that the Department implement its official languages policy dealing with grants and contributions and that the clauses on the topic become part of the agreements.

STATUS OF WOMEN CANADA (SWC)

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
	$8,165,000	$8,250,000
	(including $250,000 for family violence during the two periods in question)

2. Departmental policies

The institution has a departmental official languages policy. This policy has a section on contracts signed with businesses but nothing on awarding grants and contributions.

There is no internal policy on the awarding of grants and contributions; employees refer to the brochure entitled Guidelines on financing - Women's Program.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The Official Languages Division is not directly involved in the process of awarding grants and contributions. The Division was, however, involved in the wording of the section on official languages on the new funding application form. The Division has no specific role as regards recipients of grants or contributions. Official languages authorities believe that the program officers are responsible for ensuring that grants are used appropriately.

Program officers are responsible for recommending the awarding of grants and contributions and for monitoring day-to-day operations. As part of their follow-up activity, they also examine linguistic aspects.

The institution's legal services are consulted during the drafting of documents which contain an official languages clause. Legal services also reviewed and approved the wording on official languages on Status of Women Canada's new funding application form.

4. Departmental process

A publication destined for the public describes Status of Women Canada's guidelines for the awarding of funding within the framework of the Women's Program. Although these guidelines ask the recipient organization to specify the target public, nothing in the document makes clear the obligations of the recipient regarding official languages when the event or activity involves or should involve both linguistic communities.

The general application form for grants that requestors must use has in Part D (conditions) a paragraph stating that the recipient organization "accepts to respect the spirit and the letter of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Official Languages Act". The form is presently being revised; the new form will have the following in Part C (declaration and commitment): "The organisation accepts to respect the spirit of the Official Languages Act and the intent of the legislator regarding services to the public in the case of activities aimed at a public composed of representatives from both official languages communities".

5. Examination of the agreements

We examined 15 grants and one contribution agreement: eight grants for 1997-1998 and seven for 1998-1999.

The grant files contained seven cases where a recipient organization submitted a budget which included funds allocated for translation or simultaneous interpretation. Documents on file show that SWC officers serve as intermediaries or provide contacts with officials of the Official Languages Program of Canadian Heritage in order that that program either fund or provide technical assistance as regards simultaneous interpretation. If, after negotiations with Canadian Heritage, the latter cannot assist with the funding, Status of Women Canada will include amounts for interpretation and translation in its recommendation.

There were no budgetary items covering translation or interpretation in the other six grant files examined. It is possible that these items were grouped under other headings because documents on file show that recipient organizations had a bilingual structure or that documents drafted or distributed by a given recipient organization were bilingual (e.g., bilingual journals, articles in the press in both official languages, bilingual invitation letters to events). None of this guarantees that all the obligations described in policy 1-4 are known and complied with (e.g., reception, verbal contacts, signage); there nevertheless is an indication of a concern to ensure that at least part of the services are provided in both official languages.

As for the other two grants analyzed, nothing on file indicates that the activity was held in both official languages despite the fact that such should have been the case since the events were national in scope. It should be noted that a monitoring system exists, even for grants; it involves the submission of a report on the use of funds and on how to explain the role of SWC.

Despite the fact that, as is the case with grants, the funding application form has a general clause on official languages, the contribution agreement that we examined for an event with a national scope did not have a clause referring to official languages obligations. Documents on file including the budgetary item for translation suggest that documentation was produced in both official languages. Nothing on file would let us assume that verbal communications could be carried out in the language of choice of the various speakers as the policy requires. As for the participation of both linguistic groups in the event (one of the items of Chapter 1-4 of the policy), an examination of the file suggests that SWC officers discussed with the organization the representation of both linguistic groups on the steering committee of the event. The activity involved the recipient organization's using a Web site to distribute information. Nothing on file suggests any discussion to the effect that the site be bilingual.

6. Interviews with officials

The officials' role is to examine the applications of recipient organizations, establish if the activity for which a grant application is submitted is in line with the objectives of SWC, analyze the budget proposed by the recipient organization and finally make a recommendation to accept or refuse the application and, when applicable, the amount to be granted. When asked if in their view the recipient organizations understood the scope of the reference to the Official Languages Act on the application form, the two officers interviewed believed that recipient organizations are not always aware of the Act and that it is the officers' role to inform them. One of the officers stated that certain aspects of the Official Languages Act are not automatically discussed with the organizations. The officer did not refer to Chapter 1-4 of the policy. It would appear that, when working with recipient organizations, officers insist mainly on simultaneous interpretation and the translation of documents without stressing the other aspects of bilingual service to the public such as reception, various verbal and visual communications and the use of the media to reach the minority official language community.

The analysis stage is not carried out in isolation: the officer and a representative of the recipient organization often communicate either by e-mail, by telephone or in person. It is during these discussions that the SWC officer can refer the recipient organization to the Official Languages Program of Canadian Heritage which can help fund translation or simultaneous interpretation. As for the participation of both linguistic groups, the officer may indicate to the recipient organization that the official language minority population of the provinces involved could be interested in the event; the officer may even serve as an intermediary between the two organizations. In this regard, we were informed that in certain cases the budget of Canadian Heritage was spent and that this was forcing recipient organizations to resort to alternative means such as whispering in the minority official language during conferences or workshops.

It should be noted that officers participate in certain funded activities. This is one way to monitor if the money awarded for translation was actually used for that purpose; another way would be to review the documentation. If part of the grant was to be allocated for translation and was not actually used for that purpose, the recipient organization is compelled to submit a justification to the officers.

Asking whether the same work was being done for an event done in Quebec that would be dealing with the Anglophone minority of the province, we were told that the need was not as strong but could occur on occasion.

SWC officers sometimes assist technically in certain events, but that is not done on a regular basis.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

We contacted two recipient organizations. Both had submitted grant applications to federal organizations before, either to SWC or to other federal organizations. Often representatives of one federal organization have referred them to another federal institution.

The organizations had received SWC's guide but did not appear to have given much attention to the linguistic clause. Language concerns appear during talks with departmental officers, specifically while discussing to what language group the participants to the event belong. Actually, in one case, SWC insisted that documentation to be used by the organization for the subsidized event be bilingual and that, prior to awarding the grant. Language concerns were chiefly centered on documentation. None of the organizations involved had had to discuss the use of the media of both linguistic communities to publicize the subsidized event or any obligation regarding reception and signage.

Both organizations questioned have a certain bilingual capability and in one case even the Web site is bilingual.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that official languages officials in Status of Women Canada inform Women's Program officers of all the linguistic obligations of a subsidized organization to ensure bilingual service during events or activities which are national in scope or impact on both linguistic communities;

that guidelines for the awarding of funds which are published for organizations include a section describing the facets of bilingual service as required by the Treasury Board's Policy on Official Languages (Chapter 1-4).

HUMAN REOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRDC)

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
	$2,096,788,000	$1,875,773,000

2. Departmental policies

In 1995, the Department revised its official languages policy regarding language of work. As for service to the public, the departmental policy has not been revised since 1982. Actually, in this area, the Department uses the Treasury Board policy which has a section on grants and contributions (Chapter 1-4). There is no departmental policy on grants and contributions.

3. Division of roles and responsibilities

The Official Languages Division is not directly involved in the process of awarding grants and contributions nor does it participate in the drafting of guidelines or of the clauses on the forms. It has no specific role as regards recipients of grants or contributions. Official languages authorities are of the opinion that the operational directorates concerned are responsible for ensuring that the grants are used appropriately. Many branches and their regional components are responsible for the awarding of contributions and grants. Departmental financial services receive the agreements only after they have been negotiated and examine only the financial aspect of the issue. During interviews with program officers, we were advised that legal services had been consulted for the drafting of certain standard clauses for the agreements.

4. Departmental process

We audited two branches which use an annual or biennial competitive process for the awarding of grants and contributions. Each one publishes one or more funding application booklets describing the procedures to follow to receive financing, access requirements and the application analysis mechanisms. The content of the publications or forms destined for organizations which intend to apply for funding varies from one branch to another and even from one program to another within the same directorate. We examined three of these publications.

In one case, one of the criteria to have access to funding was that the applying organization be active in all regions of Canada and that, through sections or affiliated organizations. The booklet stipulates that the organization must offer "part of its services or programs in both official languages". The basic funding data form which accompanies the booklet indicates that the national bureau of the organization may include translation costs in its budget.

The call for tenders booklet of another departmental program, focusing mainly on research activities, asks, as in the preceding case, that the target public of the activity for which funding is requested be identified but does not mention the linguistic composition of the target public and that, despite the fact that the aim of subsidized research programs is to broaden knowledge on a national level. The form also asks that the requesting organization submit a detailed plan of the results of the activity to be funded but does not ask for details as to how both linguistic communities are to be reached.

The form used for proposal calls for the third departmental program requires the requesting organization to identify its target public in terms of the number of people who could benefit either directly or indirectly from the project. There is, however, no requirement to indicate the linguistic composition of the target population nor is there a requirement to specify in the distribution plan (workshops, conferences, publication of periodicals) if both linguistic groups will be reached. As for budget preparation, the requesting organization may list the costs for translation along with those for travel under "other costs".

Applications are analyzed by the programs concerned. There is then a pre-screening which is brought to the attention of one or more committees of experts in the areas who make recommendations. Comments are also solicited from regional, sectoral and provincial partners.

5. Examination of the agreements

Our sample contained 28 agreements; we kept 16 which met our audit criteria: 15 contributions (seven in 1997-1998, two in 1998-1999 and six which covered two years, that is from 1997 to 1999) and one grant (1998-1999). The linguistic clauses which appear in the agreements are not all of the same type.

We examined the grant file (1998-1999). The analysis revealed that the recipient organization is completely bilingual and that the subsidized activity was held in both official languages. The analytical grid used by departmental officers to award grants contained an item referring to the target public for the activity in order to establish if the scope of the activity was national or if the organization itself was national in character. On the other hand, there was nothing regarding the linguistic composition of the target public.

As for contributions, five agreements contained a clause stating that "... the recipient of the contribution must consult a departmental officer to establish whether the final report should be translated" (our translation). In such situations, when not in a position to establish at the very beginning if a project interests both linguistic communities, the project manager has considerable latitude as to the decision on whether or not to translate the final report.

Four agreements had clauses on the requirement to produce an executive summary in both official languages. In two of these agreements there was also the requirement to publish a paragraph in both official languages recognizing the department's financial participation in the activity. The other two agreements had a clause stating that although the recipient organization kept the copyright on the publication funded in part by the Department, it accepted to grant "Canada the right to use, publish, translate, adapt... the report produced by the recipient" (our translation).

There is one agreement in which the only reference to official languages was the requirement that the recipient organization publish a bilingual paragraph recognizing the department's financial participation in the activity. Finally, we found five agreements with no linguistic clause at all. In four of these cases, however, an examination of the files revealed that most of the recipient organizations already had in their initial proposals items referring to bilingualism: either that the recipient organization had indicated that it intended to publish its research in both official languages or that the proposal had a budgetary item for translation. Actually, there was only one case where there was no mention of official languages.

6. Interviews with officials

We met three program analysts who work in two different sectors of the Department. In general, officers analyze applications using an analytical grid which contains a section on the national, regional or local scope of the activity to be funded. The officers told us that the forms were examined by two committees (a technical committee and a committee of peers); these committees had representatives from both linguistic groups and they analyzed the scope and impacts of the activities linked to applications for contributions. According to two program officers, since any publications belong to the recipient organization and not to the Department, the latter cannot compel the recipient to publish in both official languages. This interpretation appeared to us to depart from some agreement clauses that we examined in which the recipient organization granted the Department the right to translate and publish the report. On the other hand, our interviews revealed that the Advancement of Minority Official Language Communities Sector was sometimes consulted.

Questioned on the fact that the agreements did not mention linguistic obligations, the officers stated that they believed that the personal contact aspect between them and the recipients was to be promoted to ensure that some aspects of an activity would be bilingual. There is, however, nothing systematic in this approach. If they happen to be present during an activity with a national scope where services should be available in the minority official language, they can provide technical assistance. There is therefore an official languages follow-up when departmental officers participate in the event. As for the translation of documents produced by recipient organizations, an officer explained that the Department handled translation when there was a request primarily to ensure language quality.

7. Interviews in recipient organizations

We contacted two recipient organizations. In one case, since there was no clause stating that events with a national scope should be bilingual, everything depended on the linguistic capacity of the recipient organization. As prescribed in the agreement, the organization, which was setting up a national symposium, had presented a bilingual executive summary of the event so that the Department could put it on its Web site. As for the activity itself, the recipient organization told us that it had consulted the Department and that it had been established that, because of the few minority-language participants and the fact that they had not expressed the need for simultaneous interpretation, could justify holding a national workshop in one language only. When asked if the invitations to the conference were bilingual, they answered no although Francophone as well as Anglophone associations had been contacted. The Association believes that there exists a provincial association in the other official language and that any demand in that language will be referred there, thus ensuring parallel service.

The second organization that we contacted calls itself bilingual and is capable of offering all its services in both official languages. The organization in question estimates that roughly 15% of applications it receives are in the language of the minority. Furthermore, it believes that the Department expects it to offer its services in both official languages and to have all its publications equally available in both official languages (there is, however, nothing in the agreement that we examined which indicates the Department's expectations). The organization has set aside from its own funds a budget for the translation of its publications; we examined a few and they all appeared to have been done correctly. Finally, the organization has its own Web site which is bilingual.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above, it is recommended:

that a section of the analytical grid used by program officers deal with an examination of the linguistic composition of the clientele targeted by the project. In cases were the scope of the event or activity is national or international, requirements related to the application of the Official Languages Policy (Chapter 1-4) should form part of the agreement letter with the organization;

that volunteer organizations be clearly informed of the requirements of the policy in order that they might take them into account when submitting their project proposals to HRDC;

that follow-up mechanisms be developed and implemented to ensure that organizations routinely fulfill their official languages responsibilities; and

that responsibility for the application of and the follow-up to Chapter 1-4 of the Treasury Board Policy be clearly assigned within the organization.

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.