Title: Official Languages Program in Federal Institutions
Author: .
Last saved by: Simonne Lauriault

The Official Languages Program in Organizations Subject to the Act

The Guide

The Official Languages Program in Federal Institutions

Service to the Public

Language of Work

Equitable Participation

Program Management

The Official Languages Program in Organizations Subject to the Act -
Audit Guide - March 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
	Page
THE GUIDE	
Background	
Purpose and scope of the guide	
Organization of the guide	
Acknowledgments	
THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES PROGRAM IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS	
Introduction	
Roles and responsibilities	
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC	
Legal framework	
Audit objectives	
LANGUAGE OF WORK	
Legal framework	
Audit objectives	
EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION	
Legal framework	
Audit objective	
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT	
Linguistic identification of duties or positions	
Staffing of bilingual positions	
Language training	
Producing texts in both official languages	
Bilingualism bonus	
Management information	
Executives	
Audit objectives	

APPENDIX A - Definitions 	
APPENDIX B - Documents to be obtained at the beginning of the audit	
APPENDIX C - Legislation and main policies	
APPENDIX D - Principal obligations of federal institutions	
APPENDIX E - Obligations specific to certain institutions	
APPENDIX F - Guide to Internet Use in the Federal Government	
APPENDIX G - Evaluation questionnaire for managers	
APPENDIX H - Guide on identification of the language requirements of positions	
APPENDIX I - Questionnaire on the use of the two official languages at work	
APPENDIX J - Questionnaire on Client Satisfaction	

THE GUIDE
Background
The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reaffirmed the equality of status of the two official languages, guaranteeing equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions.  The Official Languages Act, which came into force on September 15, 1988, gives effect to the Charter guarantees.  It also establishes the criteria underlying the provision of services to the public in either official language, the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice and the government’s commitment to ensure equitable participation by members of both official language communities in federal institutions.  The Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, adopted on December 16, 1991, define the specific circumstances in which federal institutions are required to provide services to the public in both official languages.  These three instruments constitute the legislative foundation of the official languages program in federal institutions.

The Official Languages Policies and Guidelines, dated June 1, 1993, set out the management framework of the official languages program and supplement the legislation by spelling out the obligations of institutions in detail.  While the provisions of the Act apply to all federal institutions, including departments, agencies and Crown corporations, some official languages policies apply only to federal institutions for which the Treasury Board is the employer.  It is important to point out that while all federal institutions must take the necessary steps to discharge their obligations under the Act, those that do not have the Treasury Board as their employer have the flexibility to choose program management measures appropriate to their organization.  However, Crown corporations and other agencies are encouraged to take these policies and this guide as a model to ensure the implementation and monitoring of their official languages programs.

Purpose and scope of the guide
This guide was produced to assist federal institutions in meeting their obligations to ensure the application of the official languages program in their organization and to report to the Treasury Board on its implementation.  It constitutes a management tool covering the entire official languages program, notably service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and program management.  Its purpose is to provide a framework through which the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch, internal auditors, managers and those responsible for the official languages program in federal departments and agencies can acquire tools for evaluating the effectiveness of the measures taken to give effect to the spirit and the letter of the Act.

Accordingly, the guide is intended to be used not only to measure progress and concrete results in the implementation of the official languages program, but also to ensure compliance with the policies in effect.  Hence, the guide must make it possible to identify deficiencies and the appropriate corrective measures.

Organization of the guide
The guide is divided into modules which can be used independently.  This structure makes it possible to use the guide in various types of audits, such as comprehensive audits of a responsibility centre or theme audits (for example, of one program component in a federal institution, such as service to the public, or of an element of a program component, such as the availability in both official languages of regularly and widely used work instruments).  In these cases, one need use only the relevant section.

The following documents are provided in appendices at the end of the guide:

•	definitions of certain terms used in the context of the official languages program (Appendix A);
•	documents to be obtained from the institution at the beginning of an audit (Appendix B);
•	official languages legislation and main policies (Appendix C);
•	principal obligations of federal institutions regarding official languages (Appendix D)
•	obligations specific to certain types of institutions (Appendix E);
•	Guide to Internet Use in the Federal Government - section on use of the two official languages on the Internet (Appendix F);
•	evaluation questionnaire for managers (Appendix G);
•	guide on identification of the language requirements of positions (Appendix H - to be developed);
•	model questionnaires on the use of the two official languages at work (Appendix I); and
•	model questionnaire on client satisfaction (Appendix J).

The questionnaire on client satisfaction can be used by managers of offices and service points required to serve the public in both official languages and by auditors.  Its purpose is essentially to determine whether the public was satisfied with the official language in which it was served.

The questionnaire on the use of the two official languages at work is intended both for operational managers who want a snapshot of their situation and for auditors who wish to ensure that the work environment of the institution in designated bilingual regions complies with the requirements of the Act and to identify any points to be improved.  It must enable federal institutions to determine whether their work environment is conducive to the use of both official languages and its presentation is such that it can be easily adapted to the particular requirements of the organization concerned.

The evaluation questionnaire for managers is intended as a management tool that should enable the managers concerned to determine the effectiveness of the initiatives they have taken and to ascertain whether their responsibility centre has an environment which supports the basic principles of the Act.  In this sense, it can serve as an adjunct or as a preliminary to an audit.

The Audit Guide for the Official Languages Program in Federal Institutions is the product of collaboration between the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch and the Evaluation, Audit and Review Group of the Treasury Board Secretariat.  Consequently, any questions concerning the “official languages policy” aspect should be referred to the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat.  Questions dealing with the program audit methodology and process should be directed to the Evaluation and Audit Review Group of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Acknowledgments
The Treasury Board Secretariat would like to thank the departments and agencies which agreed to share their experience with audits of the official languages program:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
National Research Council
Human Resources Development Canada
National Transportation Agency of Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
Natural Resources Canada
Revenue Canada
Correctional Service Canada
Canada Post Corporation
Public Works and Government Services Canada

Their cooperation facilitated the development of this guide.

THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES PROGRAM IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS
Introduction
The Canadian approach to legislation on official languages is based on the principle of institutional bilingualism, whereby the duties flowing from the Act are imposed first and foremost on federal institutions, as stipulated by the Charter.  The provisions of the Official Languages Act set out the rights of the public and of the employees of institutions as well as the obligations of federal institutions with respect to official languages, more specifically in terms of service to the public, language of work and equitable participation.  Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act deal respectively with the provision of services to the public in both official languages, language of work and participation by English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.

According to the provisions of sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Act, federal institutions have the duty to ensure that the public can communicate with their offices and obtain available services in either official language from their head or central office and offices in the National Capital Region and from other offices:

	where there is significant demand for those services in that language,
	or where, due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that services and communications be available in both official languages,

Note | For the sake of conciseness, wherever the forms "he/him" and "his" appears, they are to be understood in the generic sense that includes "she" and its related forms.  Whether the service is provided directly by the institution or by third parties acting on its behalf.

According to the provisions of section 35 of the Act, federal institutions have the duty to ensure that, within the National Capital Region and in designated bilingual regions, their work environment is conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodates the use of either official language by their employees and that, in all other parts or regions of Canada, the treatment of both official languages in the work environment is reasonably comparable between regions or sectors where one language or the other predominates.

According to the provisions of section 39, federal institutions have the duty to carry out the government’s commitment to ensure that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions and that the composition of the workforce of federal institutions reflects the presence of both official language communities in Canada, taking into account the individual institutions’ mandates, the public they serve and their location.

According to the provisions of section 77 of the Act, any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7 and 10 to 13 or under Part IV or V, or in respect of section 91 of the Act, can seek legal redress from the Federal Court.

As indicated above, the obligations of the offices required to serve the public in both official languages are defined in the Act.  The Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations outline the specific circumstances in which offices and service points are required, outside the National Capital Region, to provide services in both official languages, i.e. if they meet the criteria of significant demand or nature of the office.

Official languages policies are based on the provisions of the Act.  Their objective is to help federal institutions discharge their official languages obligations.  Official languages policies are set out in the Official Languages volume of the Treasury Board Manual.^1  They provide a broad outline of the policies, define its management framework and specify the obligations of federal institutions for each of the program, namely:

•	service to the public;
•	language of work; and
•	equitable participation.

^1   Most of  the official languages policies are outlined in the Official Languages volume of the Treasury Board Manual.  The others may be found in other volumes of the  Treasury Board Manual,  a list of which is provided in  the appendix.

These three components form a coherent whole aimed at ensuring the equal status of English and French in federal institutions.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has instituted an accountability framework for official languages that allows each institution the necessary flexibility to respect its obligations and implement the official languages program in the way best suited to its situation.  Federal institutions therefore have the choice of means but must be accountable for the results obtained and for meeting the program's objectives and must ensure that they discharge their obligations in conformity with the legislation.

Roles and responsibilities
The implementation of official languages policies in federal institutions is a responsibility shared by a number of players.  However, every federal institution has a vital role to play.  Indeed, each is required to take the necessary steps to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act and pursuant regulations and to apply the policies in the context of its own mandate.

The responsibilities of the various parties concerned with respect to the official languages program are described below.

Treasury Board

The Treasury Board is a Cabinet committee which is responsible for the general direction and coordination of official languages policies and programs of the Government of Canada relating to service to the public, language of work, and participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions other than the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament.  To discharge its responsibilities, it relies on a secretariat, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and more specifically on the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch.

The Treasury Board thus has the authority to establish policies and issue directives concerning the application of Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act, to monitor and audit compliance with the Act by federal institutions, to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs, and to provide information to the public and employees of federal institutions.

In addition, the President of Treasury Board the must submit an annual report to Parliament on the status of official languages programs in federal institutions.  This report is based largely on the information provided by federal institutions and including the findings and conclusions of their audits.

The Treasury Board Secretariat ensures that the official languages program is properly managed by means of:

•	monitoring by either the institution, the Treasury Board Secretariat or both (audits, investigations and follow-up of complaints);
•	official languages agreements between the Treasury Board and individual federal institutions (namely, letters of understanding on official languages in the case of departments and agencies, and agreements on official languages in the case of Crown corporations), and the annual management reports submitted pursuant to these agreements;
•	follow-up of the reports and special studies done by the Commissioner of Official Languages;
•	analysis of data entered periodically in Treasury Board Secretariat information systems by federal institutions; and
•	regular communications with federal institutions, notably through the provision of advice and guidance, and interpretation of policies.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice is officially responsible for the Official Languages Act as a whole, as well as for the application of certain provisions of Part II (Legislative and other Instruments) and Part III (Administration of Justice) of the Act.  It provides legal opinions on the legislation and develops the government’s position in cases involving language rights matters.

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (COL)

The Commissioner of Official Languages protects the language rights of Canadians with respect to official languages, including those of federal employees.  In his capacity as a “linguistic ombudsman”, he conducts investigations on his own initiative or in response to complaints filed by members of the public or federal employees who feel that their language rights have not been respected by federal institutions.  These investigations enable him to ensure that departments and agencies comply with the letter and the spirit of the Official Languages Act.  The Commissioner recommends any necessary improvements.  In addition, he can, in certain cases, refer unresolved complaints to the Federal Court or participate in such proceedings.  The Commissioner also reports to Parliament on the official languages situation both within and outside federal institutions.

Public Service Commission (PSC)

The Public Service Commission (PSC) administers the Public Service Employment Act and is principally involved in the areas of recruitment, staffing (appointments) and training, including language training.  With respect to language training, the PSC determines the potential aptitude of employees eligible for language training and provides testing services and certain language training services.  The PSC receives funding which enables it to provide free language training to the clientele identified by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The PSC is also responsible for developing Second Language Evaluation (SLE) tests and for formulating and implementing policies concerning the application and administration of these tests.

Public Works and Government Services

The Department of Public Works and Government Services awards contracts on behalf of departments and agencies to suppliers of language training services in order to satisfy the needs of the clientele identified by the Treasury Board Secretariat.  It offers, through the Translation Bureau, translation, interpretation and terminology services to federal institutions.  It should be noted that, as of April 1, 1995, the official language and multilingual translation services provided to departments and agencies are optional and federal institutions are no longer required to rely solely on the Translation Bureau, but can also use private sector services.

Department of Canadian Heritage

The Department of Canadian Heritage encourages and promotes, outside federal institutions, the coordination by federal institutions of the implementation of the government’s commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and to support their development.  It takes appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

Federal institutions

All federal institutions must take the necessary steps to discharge their obligations under the Official Languages Act.  Every institution must:

•	ensure that it formulates internal policies and procedures consistent with Treasury Board official languages policies or, in the case of institutions for which the Treasury Board is not the employer,  take the measures necessary to discharge their official languages obligations;
•	have a main responsibility centre for official languages in order to inform and advise senior management on any relevant matter involving official languages and to provide liaison with the central agencies and other parties concerned;
•	keep an up-to-date list of its offices that are required to provide services to the public in both official languages, advise the Treasury Board Secretariat of any change in this list and inform the public of the location of these offices;
•	make official languages policies known to its employees and inform them of their rights and responsibilities;
•	ensure that, in the context of the institution’s overall objectives, managers report on the implementation of policies relating to service to the public, language of work and equitable participation of members of the two official languages communities;
•	manage program support mechanisms such as language training and translation effectively, efficiently and economically and institute appropriate control systems; 
•	submit to the Treasury Board the information it requires to provide general direction and coordination of the official languages program in federal institutions; and
•	report to the Treasury Board on the results of implementation of the official languages program in its organization, notably in order to enable the President of the Treasury Board to report every year on the official languages situation in federal institutions.

SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC
Legal framework
Part IV of the Official Languages Act confirms the public’s right to communicate with and receive available services from all federal institutions in the official language of choice at the following locations:

•	the head or central office of federal institutions as well as their offices located in the National Capital Region;
•	agencies that report directly to Parliament (for example, the Auditor General and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages);
•	offices where there is significant demand *  for communication and services in both official languages;
•	offices whose nature* makes it reasonable to provide communications and services in both official languages; and
•	offices that provide services to the travelling public pursuant to a contract* for which there is significant demand.

* See the definition in Appendix A

With respect to services to the public, the Official Languages Act deals specifically with the National Capital Region (NCR) while the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations define the circumstances under which the public is entitled to receive services in both official languages outside the NCR.  In addition, the Regulations complete and specify the provisions of the Act with respect to:

•	federal offices where there is significant demand in both official languages;
•	offices whose nature makes it reasonable to provide services in both official languages;
•	services provided to the travelling public by another person or organization pursuant to a contract with the federal institution.

The Regulations therefore have the effect of designating the offices and service points required to provide services in both official languages and to communicate with the public in the official language of choice.

Treasury Board policies stipulate that, at designated offices or service points, federal institutions must:

(i)	make it clear to all members of the public that they can communicate and be served in the official language of their choice at all times; and
(ii)	provide services of comparable quality at all times in both official languages.

In order to meet these requirements, an active offer of services in both official languages must be made at all times, that is, the public must be spontaneously and clearly informed that they are entitled to receive at all times services of comparable quality in the official language of their choice.  It goes without saying that the office or service point must be able to provide these services effectively in either language.

Audit objectives
In order to verify service to the public, the auditors must first obtain the list of their institution’s offices that are subject to the Act and Regulations either from the institution’s head or central office or from the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat.  The following pages outline the audit objectives of the “service to the public” component.  Evaluation criteria and methods have been identified whenever possible for each of the objectives.  As a general rule, designated bilingual offices are required to actively offer their services to the public in both official languages and to ensure that they are available at all times and are of comparable quality.

The audit objectives of the “service to the public” component are as follows:

1.	To determine whether the delivery of services to the public in both official languages complies with the Official Languages Act and Regulations and with the policies made thereunder.

2.	To determine whether an active offer of services in both official languages is made and that the services concerned are available at all times, are of comparable quality in both official languages and are provided in an effective manner.  .

3.	To determine whether the public is satisfied with the official language in which federal services are provided (language of service).

4.	To determine whether prescribed commercial services provided to the travelling public by third parties pursuant to a contract in certain airports, train stations and other facilities under federal jurisdiction, comply with Part IV of the Official Languages Act and with the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.

5.	To determine whether services provided to the public by contractors on behalf of federal institutions are provided in compliance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act and the Official Languages (Communications with and Service to the Public) Regulations, as if they were provided by the federal institution itself.

Objective no. 1

To determine whether the delivery of services to the public in both official languages complies with the Official Languages Act  and Regulations and with the policies made thereunder.

Criterion 1.1
In the National Capital Region (NCR) and elsewhere in Canada and abroad, designated offices and service points are able to offer to the public at all times services of comparable quality in both official languages.

(Reference: Chapters 1-0 to 1-5, Part IV, Official Languages volume; Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume; and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.1.1 | Analyse the mandate and workforce of the offices or offices being audited, the organization chart and the work descriptions.  Examine the linguistic profiles of the positions and determine if they are adequate and the extent to which the incumbents meet the language requirements of their position.  Determine how many positions are assigned to service to the public and how many of these are designated to provide services in either official language and determine whether or not their number is sufficient in view of the preceding analysis.
1.1.2 | Identify the steps taken or the temporary arrangements made to ensure that services are provided to the public in both official languages on a continuous basis (for example, bilingual positions, agreements with another office on request, language training plans, use of translation, agency personnel, etc.).

1.1.3

Interview employees and managers in order to determine the extent of their knowledge of:
•	the official languages obligations of their office;
•	service quality standards, for example, for deadlines and waiting time;
•	arrangements to ensure uninterrupted service, for example, at lunch time and during coffee breaks, annual vacations and sick leave.

1.1.4

Determine, through observation and tests^5 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether bilingual staff or staff able to function in one or the other of the official languages is available to provide services in both official languages, whether they are offered, in person or by telephone.  Determine the availability of this personnel.  The tests should be done in both official languages in order to compare the quality of services provided in each official language.
 ^5 Tests should take place at different time of the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and near the end of day and, where needed on different days.

1.1.5

Determine, through observation and tests^6 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether service is available and accessible in both official languages at designated service points such as automated terminals, answering machines, computers and telephone information lines (1‑800, etc.) and on the Internet^7.

^6 Tests should be carried out throughout the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and towards the end of day, and, if needed, on different days.

^7 The section of the Guide to Internet Use in the Federal Government that deals with the official languages can be used for this purpose.  Treasury Board Secretariat, July 1995.

1.1.6 | Review correspondence files in order to determine whether the office communicates with the client in writing and whether replies are sent in the client’s official language of choice.
1.1.7 | Compare the correspondence files in both official languages and determine whether the turnaround times for replying to clients in their official language are reasonable.  Determine whether there are differences in the handling of the two languages and identify the causes.  Examine the extent to which translation services are or should be used to respond to clients.  Verify the quality of the language in correspondence and identify any deficiencies which the office should rectify.
1.1.8 | Examine, where applicable, any complaints from the public and the steps planned/taken to correct the situation.
1.1.9 | Analyse previous audit reports and recommendations and the follow-up action taken.
1.1.10 | Verify the comparability of services in each official language (delays, waiting period, level of service, knowledge of attendants) by examining the work history, level and classification of the incumbents of positions assigned to provide service to the public in both official languages.  Examine the number and nature of complaints and conduct a client survey in order to obtain their views of the quality or comparability of service in both official languages.

Criterion 1.2
Service is offered to the public in both official languages in accordance with the Official Languages Act and Regulations.

(Reference: Chapters 1-0 to 1-5, Part IV, Official Languages volume; Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume; and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.2.1 | Examine the organization’s official languages plan(s) and all other relevant documentation, including the letter of understanding or agreement on official languages or internal policies and directives, in order to evaluate its approach to providing services to the public in both official languages.

1.2.2
•

By means of interviews, observation and the examination of documents, including the language requirements and linguistic profiles of positions, determine:
•	whether the language requirements of positions and the linguistic profiles of the incumbents of positions enable the institution or a given office to provide services to the public in both official languages at all times;
•	whether the ratios of bilingual positions and of unilingual English and French positions are sufficient to provide services at all times in both official languages; and
•	whether arrangements have been made to provide services in the event of temporary or prolonged inability to provide services (for example, at lunch time and during sick leave and annual vacations).

1.2.3 | Determine whether the office uses private sector services to provide services to the public on its behalf and examine the contracts to ensure that they contain a clause concerning service to the public in both official languages.

1.2.4

Determine, through observation and tests^8 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether bilingual staff or staff able to function in either official language is available to provide services in both official languages, in person or by telephone.  Determine the availability of this personnel.  The tests should be done in both official languages in order to compare the quality of services provided in each official language.

^8 Tests should be carried out throughout the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and towards the end of day, and, if needed, on different days.

1.2.5

Determine, through observation and tests^9 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether service is available in both official languages at other service points such as automated terminals, answering machines, computers and telephone information lines (1‑800, etc.).

^9  Tests should be carried out throughout the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and towards the end of day, and, if needed, on different days

1.2.6 | When the institution does not have sufficient capability to provide services in both official languages as required by the legislation, determine whether it has made temporary or short-term alternative arrangements to remedy the situation (translation, interpretation, personnel agency, schedule of bilingual personnel, vacation periods, service and other contracts, etc.).

Criterion 1.3
The public has been informed of the location of the offices required to provide services in both official languages.

(Reference: Chapters 1-0 to 1-5, Part IV, Official Languages volume; Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

1.3.1

Examine the means used to inform the public of the location of the offices and service points required to provide services in both official languages, and particularly to the minority language population, and evaluate their effectiveness:
•	advertising and media;
•	posters, telephone directories;
•	official languages symbols; 
•	communications with the linguistic minorities; and
•	others.

1.3.2 | Interview managers and employees to determine the nature, frequency and extent of their communications aimed at informing the public of office locations and address changes.
1.3.3 | Conduct surveys of the clients concerned to evaluate the effectiveness of the means of information used by the federal institution or its offices.
1.3.4 | Interview representatives of linguistic minorities to evaluate the effectiveness of the means of information used by the institution and to measure the satisfaction of members of minority groups with this information.

Objective no. 2

To determine whether an active offer of service in both official languages is made and that the services concerned are available at all times, are of comparable quality in both official languages and are provided in an effective manner.

Criterion 2.1
Members of the public are greeted in both official languages (by telephone, in person, by signs, written and automated information, official languages symbol).

(Reference: Chapters 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

2.1.1

Observe whether:
•	the official languages symbol is clearly visible at service points;
•	numbers in telephone directories are equally visible and accessible in each official languages;
•	federal publications produced locally and from the head or central office are available and visible in both official languages (including pamphlets, electronic displays, forms, brochures, etc.); and
•	clients are greeted in both official languages, whether in person or on the telephone, and service is provided in both official languages or in the client’s language of choice.

2.1.2 | Verify whether notices and signs are bilingual and whether they are the same size and equally visible in both official languages in the designated bilingual office or offices and service points.

2.1.3

Examine, where appropriate, any client surveys conducted on the level of satisfaction and analyse the results.  If necessary (for example, if no survey^10 was ever conducted, if surveys do not take  into consideration official languages with respect to service to the public or if the results are out of date or irrelevant), conduct a survey of clients (either by telephone, by mail or by approaching clients directly on the premises) in order to solicit their opinions concerning the active offer of services in both official languages.

^10The User's Guide for the Questionnaire on Client Satisfaction With the Offer and Delivery of Services in either Official  Language,  Treasury Board Secretariat, could be used (Appendix-J)

2.1.4

Determine, by means of interviews, how management monitors and promotes the practice of the active offer of service (whether by its own organization or by a third party acting on behalf of the institution/office):
•	complaint files and follow-up in response to complaints;
•	client surveys;
•	inclusion of official languages in management planning (official languages plan, language training plan, service standards, strategic planning, service objectives, management objectives, performance appraisals of employees and supervisors, etc.);
•	quality control measures.

Criterion 2.2
The public is served at all times in their official language of choice.

(Reference: Chapters 1-0 to 1-5, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
2.2.1 | Determine whether complaints have been made either to the institution, to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or to another organization (for example, minority associations) concerning the availability of services in either official language.
2.2.2 | Examine the complaints received, the corrective action planned or taken in response to these complaints and determine how management plans to prevent complaints in the future, that is, what steps it plans to take (planning).

2.2.3

Determine whether and how the public is informed of the ongoing availability of services in both official languages, for example:
•	by informing the public of the location of bilingual offices and service points (publications, signs/notices);
•	by systematically advising the public of changes of address and telephone number, FAX, etc.; and/or
•	by periodically advising members of linguistic minorities of the bilingual services available (for example, through minority associations).

2.2.4 | Determine whether unilingual employees can, by using a few simple phrases in the other official language, refer clients to a colleague/employee who can promptly and effectively provide service in the desired language.

2.2.5

Determine, through observation and tests in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether the service provided (automated, verbal, written and recorded communications) is of comparable quality in the two official languages:

•	review the files of correspondence with clients;
•	call the office at different times during the day;
•	conduct client surveys, notably to solicit feedback on their degree of satisfaction;
•	examine the publications and communications produced locally by the office; 
•	conduct tests at other service points such as 1‑800 lines, answering machines and automated terminals/systems; and 
•	analyse the complaints received.

2.2.6 | Interview employees in order to determine the extent of their knowledge of the office’s linguistic obligations, internal policies and guidelines, and steps to be taken.

Criterion 2.3
Services provided to the public are of comparable quality in both languages.

(Reference: Chapters 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-5, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1, Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
2.3.1 | Determine whether complaints have been made to the institution, to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or to another organization (for example, minority associations) concerning the quality of services provided in either official language.
2.3.2 | Examine the complaints received, the corrective action planned or taken in response to these complaints and determine how management plans to prevent complaints in the future, that is, what steps it plans to take (planning).
2.3.3 | Examine correspondence with the public (date of receipt and date of reply), advertising campaigns, publications, posters, etc. to determine whether the turnaround times and quality (spelling, style, level of language, syntax, etc.) of communications are comparable in both official languages.
2.3.4 | Determine, through observation, tests and surveys, whether the services provided in person and by means of computerized, automated and telephone systems are of comparable quality in both official languages, that is, in terms of the quality of the content of the services themselves, of the communication of services, of the waiting and turnaround times and of the accessibility of services.
2.3.5 | Determine whether alternative arrangements have been made and evaluate their effectiveness, for example, whether unilingual employees can refer clients to employees who can serve them in the language of their choice, whether service provided at separate windows for each language is equally prompt and whether any variances observed can be eliminated through or other means of providing services (e.g. contracts with third parties).

Criterion 2.4
Services are provided to the public in both official languages effectively, efficiently and economically.

(Reference: Chapters 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-5, Part I, Official Languages volume; Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume; and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
2.4.1 | Determine whether the organization of the resources allocated to service to the public, notably in terms of bilingual positions, their number and their language requirements, and the ratio of  bilingual and unilingual positions, is optimal and meets the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and economy, given the mission, mandate, clients, location and specific characteristics of the office.
2.4.2 | Determine whether the organization and allocation of the other resources designated to provide services to the public, for example, automated and computerized systems and 1‑800 lines, meet the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
2.4.3 | Determine whether written communications and alternative arrangements meet the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and economy.

Objective no. 3

To determine whether the public is satisfied with the official language in which federal services are provided (language of service).

Criterion 3.1
The public is satisfied with the services provided in both official languages.

(Reference: Chapters 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
3.1.1 | Verify the complaint files, complaint resolution procedures, follow-up and the measures taken/planned to prevent a problem situation from recurring.
3.1.2 | Meet with representatives of linguistic minority associations in order to determine the level of satisfaction of their members with the availability of services in the minority language and any deficiencies/difficulties that have been brought to their attention.
3.1.3 | Conduct a survey of the public using a sample of the clients at a given office or service point or of the population in the area served.  The questionnaire on client satisfaction provided in the appendix can be used for this purpose.  The survey could be conducted by telephone, by mail or in person.
3.1.4 | Determine whether the institution or the unit conducts surveys of the public and, if so, analyse them to determine their relevance, scope, frequency, etc.

Objective no. 4

To determine whether prescribed commercial services provided to the travelling public by third parties pursuant to a contract in certain airports, train stations and other facilities under federal jurisdiction comply with Part IV of the Official Languages Act and with the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.

Criterion 4.1
The institution has the necessary means to ensure that prescribed commercial services provided to the travelling public by third parties pursuant to a contract in some airports, train stations and other facilities under federal jurisdiction comply with the Official Languages Act and Regulations.

(Reference: Chapters 1-1 and 1-2, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
4.1.1 | Examine agreements, contracts and/or leases in order to determine whether the obligations pertaining to service to the public are incorporated.
4.1.2 | Review the mechanisms available to the institution in order to ensure that the services provided comply with the legislation.

4.1.3

Determine, through observation and tests^11 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether service is in fact available, and of comparable quality, in both official languages.

^11  Tests should be carried out throughout the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and towards the end of day, and, if needed, on different days.

N.B.	It is important to note that you must not interview employees working for the contractor.  Instead, it is suggested that you use tests, observation and reviews of relevant documents.

Objective no. 5

To determine whether services provided to the public by contractors on behalf of federal institutions are provided in compliance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act and the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, as if they were provided by the federal institution itself.

Criterion 5.1
The institution has the necessary means to ensure that services provided to the public by contractors acting on behalf of the institution comply with the Official Languages Act, Regulations and policies.

(Reference: Chapters 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Part I, Official Languages volume; and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treaury Board Manual).

Methodology
5.1.1 | Examine agreements, contracts and/or leases in order to determine whether the obligations pertaining to service to the public are incorporated.
5.1.2 | Review the mechanisms available to the institution in order to ensure that the services provided comply with the legislation.

5.1.3

Determine, through observation and tests ^12 in which the auditor(s) play(s) the role of clients, whether service is in fact available, and of comparable quality, in both official languages.
^12 Tests should be carried out throughout the day, in the morning, during the noon hour and towards the end of day, and, if needed, on different days.

N.B.	It is important to note that you must not interview employees working for the contractor.  Instead, it is suggested that you use tests, observation and reviews of relevant documents.

LANGUAGE OF WORK
Legal framework
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates that: "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada."  This subsection provides the basis for the principle that federal institutions are responsible for ensuring that their work environment is conducive to the effective use of both official languages while accommodating the use of either official language by employees.  Part V of the Official Languages Act, which deals specifically with language of work, defines this principle in greater detail and sets out the specific obligations of federal institutions in this area.

While the approach to language of service is based on the concept of offices, the approach to language of work is based on the concept of designated regions, although both approaches derive from the principle of institutional bilingualism.^13 For instance, the Act defines a certain number of regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes^14 in addition to the National Capital Region.  For example, an office may be required to serve the public in both official languages because there is a significant demand for services in the minority language, although it may not be located in a “designated” region and therefore not subject to any obligations regarding language of work.  It should be pointed out that, outside the regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, federal institutions must ensure that both official languages receive comparable treatment in different unilingual regions in which one or the other is a minority situation.  This means, for example, that if an institution makes work instruments in French available to its Francophone employees working in a region where English predominates, it must do the same for its Anglophone employees working in a region where French predominates, i.e. provide them with work instruments in English.

^13 Institutional bilingualism means that the obligation of bilingualism must be  met by federal institutions and not  by individuals.

^14 The bilingual regions prescribed for language-of-work purposes include parts of northern and eastern Ontario, the Montreal region, parts of the  Eastern Townships, the  Gaspé and West Quebec, as well as New  Brunswick.  The auditors are encouraged to contact those responsible for official languages in  their institution to obtain the exact boundaries of these regions .

Audit objectives
The following pages outline, in the form of audit objectives, the elements of the “language of work” component of the official languages program and the minimum obligations that federal institutions must meet with respect to language of work.  In addition, evaluation criteria and methods have been identified wherever possible for each objective.  As a general rule, and for the purposes of applying the legislation and policies on language of work, federal institutions located in the National Capital Region (NCR) and in regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, must:

•	provide employees in these regions with personal and central services, as well as with regularly and widely used work instruments produced by or on behalf of the institution, in both official languages;^15

^15 It should be added that if these services are provided from a unilingual region they must then be available in both official languages.

•	provide employees with supervision in both official languages, as stipulated by the policies, where it is appropriate to do so, to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages;^16

^16 Outside designated bilingual regions for language of work, supervisors are not required to be bilingual to communicate with the employees they supervise, whether the latter are unilingual or bilingual, or whether they occupy bilingual positions or not.  Nevertheless, supervisors must be bilingual if required to supervise employees working in designated bilingual regions for language of work, or if they have to supervise employees in a unilingual regional where the language of the majority differs from that of the regions where the supervisor works (as, for example, a supervisor working in Halifax and supervising employees located in Rimouski).

•	ensure that the senior management of the organization is able to function in both official languages;^17

^17 By March 31, 1998, members of the Executive Group (EX) in bilingual positions in designated bilingual regions will have to have attained the CBC level of competence in their second language.

•	ensure that regularly and widely used information technology systems and related services are acquired in both official languages;
•	ensure that meetings are held in both official languages when employees from both linguistic groups participate and that the person chairing the meeting ensures that all participants are able to follow the proceedings and to speak in the language of their choice;
•	offer training and development courses in the employee’s language of choice; and
•	ensure that grievances are handled in the official language chosen by the employee, regardless of the employee's place of work (designated bilingual region or not) or the language requirements of the position or duties.

The audit objectives of the “language of work” component are as follows:

1.	To determine whether the work environment is conducive to the use of both official languages in offices located in the NCR and in designated bilingual regions and that employees can use either official language in performing their duties.

2.	To determine whether both official languages receive comparable treatment in different unilingual regions.

3.	To determine whether written and verbal communications originating in offices which serve other offices or which have authority to direct them respect the latter’s language of work.  (This applies particularly to communications originating in the NCR which are intended for offices located in unilingual regions.)

4.	To ensure that employees are satisfied with the use of the two official languages at work.

5.	To determine whether personal and central services and training and development services for employees that are provided by contractors are available in both official languages in the circumstances prescribed in the Official Languages Act and Treasury Board policies, and whether the activities carried out by contractors respect the employees' choice of language of work in the circumstances prescribed by the Official Languages Act and Treasury Board policies.

Objective no. 1
To determine whether the work environment is conducive to the use of both official languages in offices located in the NCR and in designated bilingual regions and that employees can use either official language in performing their duties.^18

^18 It should be pointed out that the right of employees to use either official language in the performance of their duties is delimited by the institution‘s obligations with respect to service to the public.  Thus, if the employee’s duties involve serving the public  and the duties of the position  must be performed in French, he does not have the choice of using English in the performance of his duties related to service to the public.  It is also delimited by the institution's obligations regarding language of work.

Criterion 1.1
Employees are informed of and know their official languages rights and responsibilities.

(Reference: Chapters 2-0 and 2-1, Part II and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

1.1.1

Interview employees ^19 in order to determine whether they are informed of and know their official languages rights and responsibilities. 

^19 The questionnaire on the use of the two official languages provided in appendix I can be used for this purpose.

1.1.2 | Interview managers to determine whether they have properly informed their employees of their rights and responsibilities and identify the means used to communicate this information.
1.1.3 | Review all relevant documentation made available to employees.
Criterion 1.2
Personal services (pay and benefits, health services, career counselling) and central services (administration, finance, data processing) are offered to employees in the official language of their choice, regardless of the language requirements of their position or duties.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.2.1 | Verify the linguistic identification of the positions assigned to these services.
1.2.2 | Interview employees of the institution to determine whether personal and central services are available and are in fact provided in both official languages without their having to insist on being served in their language of choice.
1.2.3 | Examine documentation and correspondence originating in units responsible for personal and central services (publications, memorandums, guidelines, letters, etc.) in order to determine whether they are drafted and available in both official languages and/or in the employee’s language of choice (for example, review correspondence between headquarters and the Quebec City regional office, or between the regional office in Montreal and a district office in a bilingual region).
1.2.4 | Analyse the organization of resources, notably the number of positions assigned to personal and central services, their linguistic designation and the extent to which the incumbents meet the language requirements of their position, and the ratio of bilingual and unilingual positions, in order to determine whether the unit is capable of providing these services in both official languages.
1.2.5 | Verify, through tests, surveys and observation, whether personal and central services are offered and actually available in both official languages, as well as their quality and accuracy in each language, particularly regarding assistance services for computer users.
1.2.6 | Determine, by observation and examination, whether the quality of documents originating in the units responsible for the delivery of personal and central services is comparable in both official languages (level of language, syntax, spelling, accuracy of terminology, clarity of the message, etc.).
Criterion 1.3
Regularly and widely used work instruments ^20 and computer systems provided to employees are available in both official languages at the same time and are of comparable quality.

^20 It is important to remember that drafts of working documents must be available in both official languages if they have a greater than average life span, for example, more than six months.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume; and Appendices A and C, Chapter 2-1 and Standard number 5, Appendix A to Guidelines, Information Management volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.3.1 | Conduct interviews with a sample of employees in order to determine whether the English and French versions of regularly and widely used work instruments and computer systems (including software) are available at the same time and are of satisfactory quality.
1.3.2 | Examine the work instruments and use the computer systems in order to determine whether they are available in both official languages (bilingual keyboards, policy manuals, financial coding manuals, software, etc.) and whether the distribution and installation times are different for one or the other of the two languages, and evaluate their quality in terms of the comparability of the English and French versions.
1.3.3 | Analyse service contracts, internal communication/publications plans, procurement plans for technological equipment, etc. in order to ensure that language requirements are properly taken into account, notably that the English and French versions are available simultaneously.
1.3.4 | Verify whether internal policies/guidelines governing the acquisition of regularly and widely used information systems contain provision regarding official languages.

Criterion 1.4
For the incumbents of unilingual positions, supervision is provided in the official language in which the duties of the position must be performed.  When the employee’s position or duties require the use of both official languages (bilingual position), the employee has the choice of the language in which he wishes to be supervised and evaluated.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.4.1 | Interview employees to determine whether supervision is provided in the language in which the duties of the position must be performed or in the language chosen by the employee when he occupies a bilingual position or performs his duties in both official languages.
1.4.2 | Determine whether the language in which performance appraisals are conducted respects the choice of employees who occupy bilingual positions or the language in which the duties must be performed.
1.4.3 | Review the linguistic profiles of supervisory positions in order to determine whether they permit the language choices of employees to be respected and, where applicable, review the arrangements made by the institution to meet its obligations toward employees with respect to language of supervision and evaluation and determine whether these arrangements are satisfactory.
1.4.4 | Evaluate the supervisor's actual linguistic ability by determining the extent to which they meet the linguistic requirements of their positions.
1.4.5 | Interview supervisors and managers in order to determine how they organize matters to respect the language rights of employees.  Evaluate whether the situation is satisfactory and, where applicable, examine the measures that will or should be taken to correct the situation.

Criterion 1.5
Communications with employees take place in the employee’s language of choice, notably during meetings and in the minutes of meetings.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1, Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.5.1 | Interview employees to determine the extent to which communications (verbal, written and electronic) take place in both official languages.
1.5.2 | Review the documents of the unit and/or the institution intended for employees, for example, the work plan, agendas and minutes of meetings and memorandums, in order to determine how often each official language is used.
1.5.3 | Choose and analyse a sample of internal communications (written and electronic) intended  for groups of employees in order to evaluate the relative portion of each official language.
1.5.4 | Determine the extent to which employees are encouraged to express themselves in the language of their choice during staff meetings (for example, the manager sets the example by inviting employees to express themselves in the language of their choice and he uses his second official language when addressing employees whose first official language it is).

1.5.5

Determine the linguistic capacity of members of selection committees in order to determine whether it allows employees to express themselves in the official language of their choice as well as being able to assess the applicants' capacity to express themselves in their second language.^21

^21 Now that SLE results are valid for five years for staffing purposes, this represents one of the methods available to selection boards to ensure that candidates for a position meet the language requirements of the position for which they are applying.  In case of doubt, the committee can recommend to a manager to have applicants whose most recent results are less than five years old tested.  As regards selection boards, refer to Objective 1,  Criterion 1.1 in the part on equitable participation.

Criterion 1.6
Grievances are handled in the official language chosen by the employee.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.6.1 | Interview employees in order to determine the extent to which they are informed of their rights in this area and to determine their satisfaction in this regard.
1.6.2 | Review the grievance files and the linguistic profiles of employees who have filed a grievance in order to determine the extent to which these employees file their grievances in their first official language and, where applicable, determine why they decided to file their grievance in their second official language.
1.6.3 | Determine whether grievances are handled in the language in which they were filed (written by grievors or their representatives).
1.6.4 | Assess the number of complaints concerning the language in which grievances are handled.

Criterion 1.7
Training and development courses are offered in both official languages.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.7.1 | Verify through course calendars whether all mandatory training and career development courses, for example, those required for professional certification, are available in both official languages.
1.7.2 | Examine requests for training, training plans, performance appraisals (training portion), course publications/offerings, course documentation, etc. to determine the extent to which courses are offered and provided in the employee’s language of choice.
1.7.3 | Interview employees and supervisors who have taken courses in order to determine the extent to which their linguistic preferences have been taken into consideration and, where applicable, the reasons why, in their opinion, they were not taken into account.
1.7.4 | Review reports on training courses (title, number, participants, language of the course) and determine the extent to which the ratios of courses in English/courses in French to the total number of courses offered and given are satisfactory, in view of the linguistic composition of the clients served.
1.7.5 | Review training and development service contracts to determine whether services are available in both official languages.
1.7.6 | In the units responsible for training and development, analyse the ratios of bilingual and unilingual positions, their language requirements, the extent to which the incumbents of bilingual positions meet the language requirements of their position and the organization of the resources allocated to the administration and delivery of training and development activities.
1.7.7 | Determine whether courses are developed simultaneously in both official languages so that courses are available in either official language when they are offered.

Criterion 1.8
Members of the executive group (EX) in designated bilingual regions are able to function in both official languages.

(Reference: Chapter 2-1, Part II, Chapter 4-3, Part  IV, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
1.8.1 | Through interviews with employees, determine the extent to which senior management is perceived as encouraging the use of both official languages in the institution and evaluate its commitment to official languages.
1.8.2 | Review the agendas and minutes of senior management meetings as well as written and verbal communications (electronic messages) originated by senior management to determine whether the use of both official languages is encouraged at all times and in an equitable manner.  (NB: A report or follow-up document which is a regularly and widely used work instrument must be written in both official languages.)

1.8.3

Examine the linguistic profiles of the positions in the EX group ^22 to determine whether they have been identified as bilingual and, where applicable, review the justification of the exemption.  Pay particular attention:

•	to the date on which EXs must meet the language requirements of their position.  If the date is past, review the measures taken to correct the situation and evaluate their effectiveness.
^22 By March 31, 1998, all EXs in bilingual positions in bilingual regions for language of work must reach the CBC level of competence in their second language.

1.8.4. | Determine whether meetings which EXs chair or participate in are held in both official languages, verify the languages in which presentations are done and analyze the measures taken by senior management to encourage employees to use their language of choice.
1.8.5 | Determine the percentage of EXs who meet the language requirements of their position and the percentage of those who have attained level CBC.  Also examine what plans have been made to attain the CBC objective, how realistic this plan is and its effectiveness and any alternative/transitional measures planned.

Criterion 1.9
Employees have the possibility and the opportunity to use either official language provided that, where stipulated by legislation, the rights of the public to communicate with federal institutions and to receive services in the official language of choice are respected, and provided that the institution's obligations regarding language of work are respected.

(Reference: Chapter 2-0, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

1.9.1

Conduct a survey,^23 by means of a questionnaire or interviews, of a sample of employees in order to determine the extent to which employees know their rights in this area and the extent to which they genuinely have the possibility of using either official language in performing their duties, within the prescribed limits.  Ensure, in particular, that:

^23 The questionnaire on the use of the two official languages at work provided in  appendix I can be  used for this purpose.

•	the linguistic preferences of employees are respected;
•	employees have the possibility and the opportunity to work in the official language of their choice;
•	second language training and development opportunities are offered to employees;
•	both official languages are used during meetings; and
•	employees have the opportunity to work together and individually in English and in French.

Objective no. 2

To determine whether both official languages receive comparable treatment in different unilingual regions.

Criterion 2.1
Federal institutions ensure that both official languages receive comparable treatment in different unilingual regions.  For example, if an institution has offices in two regions where the predominant language is different, treatment of English in a region where French predominates must be similar to the treatment of French in regions where English predominates.

(Reference: Chapter 2-2, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

2.1.1

Compare the language of work situation in different regions and sectors in terms of:
•	the availability of regularly and widely used work instruments in the minority language in the case of employees who must work in both official languages;
•	the quality of these work instruments;
•	the possibility for employees to express themselves and to be supervised in the minority language if occupying bilingual positions;
•	the availability of personal and central services in the employee’s official language of choice;
•	the filing and handling of grievances in the employee’s language of choice;
•	observed differences between regions and their justification; and
•	previous audits and follow-up action.

2.1.2 | Verify whether there have been any complaints or grievances about the treatment of the minority language. Follow up the measures taken to correct the situation on an ad hoc basis and in the future.

Objective no. 3

To determine whether written and verbal communications originating in offices which serve other offices or which have authority to direct them respect the latter’s language of work.  (This applies particularly to communications originating in the NCR which are intended for offices located in unilingual regions.)

Criterion 3.1
Communications^24 between the offices of the institution comply with the Act and with Treasury Board policy on communications between regions.

(Reference: Chapter 2-3, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (Federal Identity Program), Treasury Board Manual)

^24 These may be communications between the NCR and the other regions, or communications from offices that are required to provide personal or central services to other offices or supervise them.

Methodology 

3.1.1

Review the relevant correspondence and interview employees in the regional offices in order to:
•	determine whether written and verbal communications (including voice mail) from headquarters to the other regions are bilingual or in the language of work of the other party;
•	determine whether written communications originating from headquarters or from other offices which have authority to direct or which serve other offices that are sent to unilingual regions in Quebec are in French and those sent to unilingual regions in the other provinces are in English, and ensure that communications are in the official language chosen by the other party when he works in a bilingual region;
•	review the use of translation and the quality of translations by sampling files/correspondence by region;
•	determine whether the English and French versions of documents are available and distributed simultaneously; and
•	determine whether opportunities are provided to prepare consultation drafts in their official language of choice, so that they do not always circulate in the same language.

Objective no. 4

To ensure that employees are satisfied with the use of the two official languages at work.

Criterion 4.1
The employees of the institution are satisfied with the use of the two official languages within their work unit.

(Reference: Chapters 2-0, 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1, Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology 
4.1.1 | Determine whether the institution or the work unit conducts surveys or interviews with employees to measure or evaluate their satisfaction regarding the use of the two official languages at work.  Evaluate, as required, the nature and frequency of these surveys and the degree of employee satisfaction.
4.1.2 | Determine whether employees are filing complaints about the use of the two official languages at work and, if so, examine the corrective measures taken and their effectiveness.

4.1.3

By means of interviews or surveys^25, evaluate employee satisfaction regarding the use of the two official languages at work.

^25 The questionnaire on the use of the two official languages at work appearing in Appendix I can be used for this purpose.

Objective no. 5

To determine whether the personal and central services and the training and development services intended for employees that are provided by contractors are available in both official languages in the circumstances prescribed in the Official Languages Act and Treasury Board policies, and whether the activities carried out by contractors respect the employees' choice of language of work in the circumstances prescribed in the Official Languages Act and Treasury Board policies.

Criterion 5.1
Services intended for employees that are provided by contractors on behalf of the institution or the unit are available in both official languages under the circumstances stipulated by the Act and the relevant Treasury Board policies.

(Reference: Chapters 2-0, 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology 
5.1.1 | Ensure that contracts and agreements signed with contractors for the provision of personal or central services or training and development services on behalf of the institution or the unit contain official languages provisions which enable the institution to discharge its linguistic obligations regarding language of work in the circumstances prescribed by the Act and Treasury Board policies.
5.1.2 | Determine whether the institution or the unit has put in place the control measures required to ensure that the official languages provisions of contracts and agreements are respected.

Criterion 5.2
The activities carried out by contractors on behalf of the institution or the unit respect the employees' choice of language of work under the circumstances stipulated by the Official Languages Act and Treasury Board policies.

(Reference: Chapters 2-0, 2-1 and 2-2, Part II, and Chapter 5-1, Part V, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
5.2.1 | Ensure that contracts or agreements on the carrying out of activities by contractors on behalf of the institution, such as audits, speech writing, surveys or maintenance of computer equipment, contain provisions and requirements regarding official languages that enable the institution to discharge its linguistic obligations regarding language of work.
5.2.2 | Determine whether the institution has put in place the control measures required to ensure that the official languages provisions of contracts and agreements are respected.

EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION
Legal framework
Part VI of the Official Languages Act, which deals with equitable participation, clearly states the commitment of the Government of Canada to ensuring full and equitable participation by members of both official languages communities in federal institutions.  Under the terms of this commitment, Canadians of both official languages communities should have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions and, the composition of the workforce of federal institutions should reflect the presence of both official language communities in the population of Canada as a whole, taking into account the nature, mandates and location of the offices of each institution, as well as the public they serve.

As subsection 39(3) of the Act states, the selection and promotion of personnel in the federal public service continue to be based on the merit principle.  Part VI of the Act does not create any obligations or confer any rights.  Nor does the federal government’s commitment to equitable participation permit the use of hiring quotas for each official language community or of reserving positions or duties for either linguistic group.

Audit objective
The following page sets out an audit objective and criterion as well as the audit methodology for equitable participation.  The objective is:

1.	To determine equitable participation by members of both official languages groups and to determine whether the composition of the organization's workforce reflects the presence of both communities, taking into account the nature of the institution, its mandate, the public it serves and the location of its offices.

Objective no. 1

To determine equitable participation by members of both official languages groups and to determine whether the composition of the organization’s workforce reflects the presence of both communities, taking into account the nature of the institution, its mandate, the public it serves and the location of its offices.

Criterion 1.1
Actions taken enable both linguistic groups to have equitable access to employment and advancement in the public service.

(Reference: Chapters 3-0 and 3-1, Part III, and Chapter 4-1, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual; and Public Service Employment Act and Regulations)

Methodology
1.1.1 | Verify the language requirements of positions and duties in order to determine whether the profiles are based on the organization’s real needs, taking into account its mandate/nature and its clients.

1.1.2

Substantiate, by means of a review of relevant documents, the mechanisms in place to monitor the composition of the workforce and the measures taken to improve the participation of the two official groups where appropriate:
•	official languages plan;
•	analysis of the linguistic composition of the workforce to determine its appropriateness;
•	analysis of participation trends;
•	analysis of staffing actions in order to ensure that both groups are reached;
•	analysis of personnel movements; 
•	study of the linguistic composition of employees in the office, the institution, the region and the province;
•	short- and long-term human resources planning;
•	use of unilingual positions; and
•	use of language training.

1.1.3 | Analyse competition notices in order to determine whether they provide equitable access to members of both linguistic groups.
1.1.4 | Examine the measures taken to attract applicants from both linguistic groups (e.g. when competitions are open to applicants from outside federal institutions; meetings with minority groups, contacts with minority official language associations or educational institutions, advertising in the minority media, etc.).
1.1.5 | Verify the linguistic ability of selection boards in order to determine whether they are taking  into account the presence of both official language communities, given the nature, the service,  the public and the location of the unit subject to the audit.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Although the deputy head or chief executive officer of each federal institution is ultimately responsible for the successful implementation of the institution’s official languages program, it is the responsibility of the senior management  of each institution to ensure compliance with policies and the effective implementation of the official languages program in its area of responsibility.  When planning their annual objectives, managers must include the institution’s official languages obligations in their operational objectives and in the institution’s more general objectives.

Management of the official languages program includes management of the means used to attain official languages objectives. These means include identification of the language requirements of positions, staffing of bilingual positions, language training, producing texts in both official languages, the bilingualism bonus and the language requirements to which members of the executive group who occupy bilingual positions in bilingual regions are subject.  In addition, senior management must ensure that it has accurate and complete data to support the decision-making process and to meet Treasury Board’s information needs.

Linguistic identification of duties or positions
Identification of the language requirements of duties or positions in federal institutions must reflect operational responsibilities.  Managers must adhere to the principles of efficiency and economy and must consider the entire workforce and the organization of their resources for the purposes of identifying the language requirements of the positions placed under their responsibility.  In all cases, the language requirements of the position must be identified as being objectively necessary to car ry out the duties of the position.

Staffing of bilingual positions
When a position requires the immediate use of both official languages, it must be staffed by a candidate who meets the language requirements of the position at the time of the appointment or transfer (imperative staffing).  When other means of temporarily providing bilingual service are possible, the position can be staffed by a candidate who is eligible for language training at government expense to meet the language requirements or who is exempted from meeting them (non-imperative staffing).

Language training
It is government policy to ensure that employees continue to have access to language training in order to fulfil the language requirements of bilingual positions so as to meet both the needs of the government and the career objectives of employees.

Producing texts in both official languages
When it is necessary to produce a text in both official languages, institutions must choose the most effective and most efficient means for its production, including translation, taking into account the purpose and the audience for which each version is intended.  Institutions should have an internal policy on producing texts in both official languages which includes:

(i)	measures to ensure that the text is really required in both official languages;
(ii)	cost control measures in order to avoid unnecessary translations; and
(iii)	measures to ensure comparable quality of texts in each language.

Since April 1, 1995 institutions have had the option of whether to use the services of the Translation Bureau, allowing greater latitude in the choice of suppliers of translation services.

Means other than professional translation include parallel writing, translation within the unit of short, simple, administrative texts, and acquisition of the document in both official languages.

Bilingualism bonus
An employee becomes eligible for the bilingualism bonus from the time he occupies a bilingual position or performs duties identified as bilingual for an indeterminate period or for a determinate period of more than three months, provided he meets the language requirements of the position.  Before authorizing payment of the bonus, the deputy head must obtain certification that the employee does in fact occupy a position identified as bilingual or performs duties identified as bilingual and that the results obtained by the employee on the Second Language Evaluation (SLE) test confirm that he meets the language requirements of the position.  Since 1993, SLE results have been valid for an indeterminate period and for as long as the employee occupies the same position.^26  Hence, it is the responsibility of the deputy head to ensure that the employee continues to meet the language requirements of the position and, in case of doubt, the deputy head may, at his discretion, request that the employee take another SLE test.

^26 However, they are valid only for five years for staffing purposes.  In other words, an employee remaining in the same position, for examples for seven years, has to take the SLE if he or she enters a competition.

Management information
The Treasury Board President must submit an annual report to Parliament on the status of the official languages programs in federal institutions.  These institutions must therefore report to the Treasury Board Secretariat every year.  The President’s annual report must present the desired results and the current situation in federal institutions.  It is the responsibility of the departments and agencies to forward to the Treasury Board Secretariat data on participation, service to the public, language of work and the cost of the program.  It is therefore important that federal institutions ensure that their data are up-to-date and accurate.

Executives
Members of the executive group who work in the NCR and in regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes must be able to function in both official languages.  However, it is the responsibility of all executives, regardless of their place of work, to ensure that the obligations of their institution with respect to official languages are met and that the corresponding policies are implemented.  In this regard, it must be stressed that the successful implementation of the official languages program depends on the commitment and leadership shown by senior management.

Audit objectives
Program management has the following objectives:

1.	To determine whether the process of identifying the language requirements of positions and/or duties and the level of proficiency required is based on actual needs directly related to the performance of the duties.
2.	To determine whether the staffing process is based on the criteria outlined in the Treasury Board policy.
3.	To verify the continuity of services in both official languages, where the Act so requires, when an employee is on language training, is exempted from the obligation to meet the language requirements of the position or has incumbent's rights.
4.	To determine whether eligibility for language training complies with the policy and with the administrative rules governing language training services.
5.	To determine whether senior management has the necessary mechanisms to plan, coordinate and control the costs of language training, translation and the bilingualism bonus and to measure, where applicable, the effectiveness of suppliers.
6.	To determine whether there is an internal policy on producing texts in both official languages and that this policy supports the principles of effectiveness, efficiency and economy taking into account the purpose and the audience for which each text is intended.
7.	To determine whether the eligibility conditions for the bilingualism bonus are met and that there is a mechanism for confirming this or for requesting a SLE in order to justify it.
8.	To verify that data on official languages are accurate, complete and up-to-date and that they make it possible to monitor the implementation of the official languages program and to measure and verify the results.
9.	To determine whether the institution has an appropriate infrastructure for managing and monitoring the implementation of the official languages program.
10.	To determine whether senior management's commitment to the program is real and that senior management shows leadership.

Objective no. 1

To determine whether the process of identifying the language requirements of positions and/or duties and the level of proficiency required is based on actual needs directly related to the performance of the duties.

(Profile for Bilingual Positions, PSC)

Criterion 1.1
The linguistic identification of duties or positions is based on the need to communicate with the public and to create a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages.

(Reference: Chapters 4-1, 4-2 and 4-4, Part IV, Chapter 1-1, Part I, and Chapters 2-0 to 2-3, Part II, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual; and Determining the Linguistic 

Methodology
1.1.1 | Examine work descriptions and Official Languages Input Forms (OLIF) in order to determine whether the language requirements have been identified on the basis of actual duties and not by reference to the level of language proficiency of the incumbents.

1.1.2

Determine, using a sample of a few positions recently established or reviewed, whether identification of language requirements is based on actual needs (service to the public, personal and central services, etc.) ^27

^27 The guide for the identification of the language requirements of positions (Appendix H) can be used for this purpose.

1.1.3 | Examine the linguistic profiles of all employees and positions or of a sample of employees and positions and determine the extent to which they meet needs.
1.1.4 | Interview managers and employees in the units in order to determine whether the positions or the duties are identified on the basis of operational needs and not by reference to the level of language proficiency of the incumbents.
1.1.5 | Interview employees occupying bilingual positions to determine whether they have the opportunity to use the other official language and to determine the frequency of use of the second language.
1.1.6 | Verify whether language training is offered to employees whose positions are identified as bilingual and determine whether employees have the opportunity to practice and use their second language when they return from language training.
1.1.7 | Examine the criteria which managers use to identify the language requirements of positions/duties.
1.1.8 | Examine procedures and guidelines for identifying the language requirements of positions/duties in order to determine whether they are relevant and comply with the policies of the institution and of the Treasury Board.
1.1.9 | Analyze the ratios of bilingual positions to unilingual English positions and unilingual French positions in the work unit and determine whether they are appropriate.

Criterion 1.2
The level of language proficiency required must reflect the duties of the position and respect the principle of equality of status of both official languages.^28

^28 See Determining the Linguistic Profile for Bilingual Positions , Public Service Commission, January 1993

(Reference: Chapters 4-1, 4-2 and 4-4, Part IV, Chapter 1-1, Part I, and Chapters 2-0 to 2-3, Part II, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual; and Determining the Linguistic Profile of Bilingual Positions, PSC)

Methodology
1.2.1 | Conduct interviews with managers and employees in the work units or use some other means to determine whether the level of proficiency required is based on the actual duties of the position and not on the level of language proficiency of the incumbent.
1.2.2 | Based on a sample of a few positions recently established or reviewed, evaluate whether the level of language proficiency is based on actual needs and makes it possible to effectively perform the duties of the position in the official language or languages required (was an expert contacted to ensure that the linguistic profile of the position was properly identified and is realistic?).

Objective no. 2

To determine whether the staffing process^29 is based on the criteria outlined in the Treasury Board policy.

^29 With regards to selection boards in particular, and their linguistic capacity refer Language of Work, Objective no. 1, criterion 1.5, and to Equitable Participation, Objective no. 1, criterion 1.1.

Criterion 2.1
Imperative staffing is used when it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act and when it is necessary for the incumbent of the position to be able immediately to use both official languages in the performance of his duties (service to the public, personal and central services, etc.).

(Reference: Chapter 4-2, Part IV, Official Languages volume, and Directives for Deployment, Human Resources volume, Treasury Board Manual; Public Service Employment Act and Regulations; Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order; Public Service Official Languages Appointment Regulations; Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act; Staffing Manual, PSC)

Methodology
2.1.1 | Review imperative staffing files in order to determine whether the criteria for using imperative staffing are followed and whether the nature of the duties of each position, the degree of operational impact of the duties and the type of position justify using imperative staffing.
2.1.2 | Interview managers and staffing advisors in order to determine whether there are alternatives to imperative staffing to provide services (language training, reorganization of resources, temporary hiring, etc.).  Review the organization’s plans to rectify the situation, where applicable.  Identify the measures taken to endeavor to resolve the situation before using imperative staffing.

Objective no. 3

To verify the continuity of services in both official languages, where the Act so requires, when an employee is on language training, is exempted from the obligation to meet the language requirements of the position or has incumbent's rights.

Criterion 3.1
Services are provided in both official languages and are of comparable quality.

(Reference: Chapter 1-0, Part I, Chapters 2-0 to 2-3, Part II, Chapter 4-4, Part IV, Official Languages volume; and Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume, Treasury Board Manual; Public Service Employment Act and Regulations; Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order; and Determining the Linguistic Profile for Bilingual Positions, PSC)

Methodology 
3.1.1 | Determine whether and how services are provided in both official languages on a continuous basis.  If they are not, review the steps, such as administrative arrangements, management plans to take to rectify the situation (part-time staff, temporary transfer, agency personnel, automated services, translation services, etc.).
3.1.2 | Determine whether the services provided (verbal, written and automated communications, voice mail) in the other official language are of comparable quality by playing the role of client, by conducting a survey of clients, by examining the correspondence and forms faxed, by studying the measures taken while the incumbent is on language training, by reviewing work planning, etc.

Objective no. 4

To determine whether eligibility for language training complies with the policy and with the administrative rules governing language training services.

Criterion 4.1
Management plans its language training needs.

(Reference: Chapter 4-4, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

4.1.1

Determine, by examining performance appraisals and language training plans and through interviews, whether the language training needs have been identified:
•	linguistic identification of all positions (date applicants were referred for screening, date of request for training, estimated duration of training, date of departure and date of return from training, measures taken to provide services during training); and
•	level of language proficiency attained and to be attained.

4.1.2 | Examine non-imperative staffing files in order to determine whether a language training plan was formulated within three months following the appointment (according to the new rules, effective on April 14, 1996, the incumbent must meet the linguistic profile of the position within 24 months following each  appointment).
4.1.3 | Determine whether the language training plan is followed.
4.1.4 | Verify whether the number of requests for extension of the exemption period in the case of non-imperative staffing is not excessive and unjustifiable.
4.1.5 | If there has been a change in level (A, B, C), review the criteria which justified the change (such as service needs) and determine their rationale.

Objective no. 5

To determine whether senior management has the necessary mechanisms to plan, coordinate and control the costs of language training, translation and the bilingualism bonus and to measure, where applicable, the effectiveness of suppliers.

Criterion 5.1
Management has mechanisms which enable it to ensure that language training is geared to meeting the objectives of the organization.

(Reference: Chapters 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

5.1.1

Interview managers and employees in order to evaluate the application of the internal policy on language training and the extent to which it enables the organization to meet its objectives:
•	language training priorities for staffing purposes;
•	human resources planning;
•	screening to determine the duration of training and the learning capability; and
•	return from language training (familiarization period, interim measures).

Criterion 5.2
Management has mechanisms which enable it to ensure that language training is effective, efficient and economical.

(Reference: Chapters 4-4 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
5.2.1 | Examine the mechanisms in place to enable the employee to put the training received into practice and the particular measures which management is taking or plans to take when the employee returns from language training to enable him to obtain maximum benefit from this training.
5.2.2 | Identify and evaluate mechanisms for selecting suppliers (for non-statutory language training) and the follow-up measures for evaluating the quality of the training received, for achieving economies of scale, etc., through interviews with managers and those responsible for official languages.

Objective no. 6

To determine whether there is an internal policy on producing texts in both official languages and that this policy supports the principles of effectiveness, efficiency and economy, taking into account the purpose and the audience for which each text is intended.

Criterion 6.1
The means used to produce texts in both official languages are effective and efficient, taking into account the purpose and intended user of each text.

(Reference: Chapter 4-5, Part IV, and Parts I and II, Official Languages volume, Contracting Policy, sections 6.(a), 8.5.1 and Appendix F, Contracting volume; Appendix A, Appendix C, Chapter 1, Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

6.1.1

Review the internal policy on producing texts in both official languages, including translation, in order to determine whether it includes:
measures that will ensure, before production starts, that the text is really required in both official languages;
measures that ensure comparable quality of texts in each language; and
cost control measures in order to avoid unnecessary translations.

By means of interviews with managers and persons responsible for official languages:
6.1.2 | Identify the mechanisms in place to enable management to procure translation services as effectively and economically as possible (Translation Bureau vs. private sector, quality control and assessment of translations, identification of opportunities to take advantage of economies of scale, etc.).
6.1.3 | Determine whether, where applicable, the unit is using its bilingual capability for the translation of short, simple, administrative texts, whether this workload is distributed fairly and whether the associated costs are calculated and reasonable (i.e. more economical than suppliers of translation services).
6.1.4 | Determine all the means other than translation used to produce documents in both official languages and determine whether the most effective and most efficient means are chosen in each case.
6.1.5 | Examine the contracts for goods and services to determine whether the institution or the unit also uses them to acquire documents requested in the other official language.

Criterion 6.2
The quality of the texts produced in both official languages is comparable.

(Reference: Chapter 4-5 (including Appendix A), Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
6.2.1 | Review the texts produced in both official languages in order to evaluate and compare their quality.
6.2.2 | Examine and evaluate the measures in place for ensuring the quality of texts.
6.2.3 | Evaluate the level of language proficiency of the persons assigned to conduct quality control of texts, notably by examining their career history, their training and the quality of the final version of the texts produced.
6.2.4 | Review the linguistic quality, technical terminology and terminological uniformity of documents produced in both official languages.

Criterion 6.3
Cost control measures are in place.

(Reference: Chapter 4-5 (including Appendix A) and Chapter 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
6.3.1 | Verify whether translation needs are planned, notably whether translation is included in the various stages of document production.
6.3.2 | Review existing cost control mechanisms, for example, budgetary follow-up, translation guidelines (when is it necessary to translate, what alternatives are available, how to use them, etc.).
6.3.3 | Determine whether the decisions taken are the most economical and, where applicable, evaluate their rationale, for example, by comparing and calculating the real cost of using a particular supplier.
6.3.4 | Identify the criteria used by managers to decide to use a particular supplier rather than another and determine whether this is the most effective, efficient and economical use of resources.

Objective no. 7

To determine whether the eligibility conditions for the bilingualism bonus are met and that there is a mechanism for confirming this or for requesting a SLE in order to justify it.

Criterion 7.1
The eligibility conditions outlined in the Treasury Board policy are met.
(Reference: Chapter 4-6, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
7.1.1 | Review the organization’s internal policy in order to determine whether it complies with the Treasury Board policy.

7.1.2

Review the language requirements of the positions in the organization and verify whether the incumbents of bilingual positions who receive the bonus meet the language requirements of their positions (date of last SLE, date of confirmation, observations, interviews):
•	obtain a list of employees who receive the bilingualism bonus; and
•	examine the measures planned in cases where employees are receiving the bonus but are no longer entitled to it.

Criterion 7.2
The institution is able to verify/confirm the second language proficiency of incumbents of bilingual positions.
(Reference: Chapter 4-6, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

7.2.1

Interview managers and those responsible for official languages to identify the method used for confirming the bilingualism bonus (the SLE results are valid for an indeterminate period, as long as the employee continues to occupy the same position^31; however, the manager can require the employee to take another test in case of doubt; if the position was properly identified, the incumbent should normally use the second language on a regular basis).

^31 However, they are valid only for 5 years for staffing purposes.  In other words an incumbent of the same position for a period of seven years, as an example, must undergo a new SLE if he enters a competition.  According to the new regulations effective April 1st, 1996, in a non‑imperative staffing action, an incumbent has a 24‑month exemption period to meet the linguistic requirements of the position.

Objective no. 8

To verify that data on official languages are accurate, complete and up-to-date and that they make it possible to monitor the implementation of the official languages program and to measure and verify the results.

Criterion 8.1
Data entered in the institution’s Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) are accurate and reliable.

(Reference: Chapter 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

8.1.1

Interview the persons responsible for entering official languages data in order to determine what means exist to ensure the integrity of the information (list of errors, reconciliations with PCIS, pay system, data provided to the TBS, hours of reported language training^31 etc.)

^31 It should be noted that effective April 1st, 1996, organizations no longer have to record data pertaining to language training in the Language Training Module (LTM).  However they must ensure that candidates do not exceed the maximum number of hours of language training deemed necessary to meet the required competency level.

8.1.2 | Compare data sources and reports produced by the systems.
8.1.3 | Determine whether data verification mechanisms exist.
8.1.4 | Determine what measures are taken to quickly correct any deficiencies in official languages information systems.

Criterion 8.2
The information on official languages enables departmental management and the Treasury Board to determine the effectiveness of the official languages program and to take any necessary corrective measures.

(Reference: Chapter 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology

8.2.1

Review management reports on official languages and previous audit reports and interview managers in order to determine whether the reports are useful for the decision-making process:
•	does the information make it possible to identify any deficiencies and points to be improved?
•	does the information cover all aspects of the program?
•	can managers make decisions and plan based on this information?
•	are the data reliable?  If not, what is being done to improve the situation?
•	review the organization and the nature of the data.

8.2.2 | Review official languages letters of understanding or agreement between the Treasury Board and the institution, the multi-year plan and annual management reports in order to determine whether accountability, objectives and attainment of the objectives are clearly reported, whether the official languages program is a part of the overall objectives of the organization and of the performance appraisals of managers, etc.
8.2.3 | Verify whether corrective measures have been taken to correct deficiencies in the official languages information systems and whether follow-up has been done.
8.2.4 | Analyze previous audit reports and any follow-up action taken.

Objective no. 9

To determine whether the institution has an appropriate infrastructure for managing and monitoring the implementation of the official languages program.

Criterion 9.1
The organization has clearly established who is responsible and accountable for the management of the official languages program at the corporate level.

(Reference: Chapters 4-0 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
9.1.1 | Interview the persons responsible for official languages in order to determine whether someone in the institution has been designated to be responsible for program management, notably with respect to planning, formulation of policies, coordination, communications and information, control, follow-up and management reports.
9.1.2 | Review the mandate, roles and responsibilities of those responsible for official languages and line managers and determine the extent to which the infrastructure facilitates good program management.
9.1.3 | Determine whether those responsible for program management have the power and authority necessary to effectively perform their duties.
9.1.4 | Examine the institution’s official languages accountability process and framework and evaluate its effectiveness.
9.1.5 | Determine whether those responsible for official languages are informed of the official languages situation in all regions and sectors of the institution and that they have the means and the authority to recommend corrective measures.
9.1.6 | Interview a sample of managers in order to determine if they know to whom to turn to obtain an opinion or advice.

Criterion 9.2
The official languages program is a part of the institution’s overall planning process.

(Reference: Chapters 4-0 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
By means of interviews with managers and those responsible for official languages:

9.2.1 | Review the organization’s operational planning process and determine whether and how the official languages planning process is a part of it.

9.2.2

Determine whether and in what manner line managers participate in the preparation of the corporate plan.  Review the official languages activities included in the operational plan:
•	language training;
•	identification of the language requirements of positions;
•	follow-up of language training;
•	work standards with respect to service to the public, equitable participation;
•	action to be taken to solve problems;
•	use of translation; and
•	program budget.

9.2.3 | Determine the accountability of managers with respect to official languages in terms of the attainment of the objectives set out in the operational plan.

Criterion 9.3
Internal and external communications involving official languages as well as liaison with the central agencies are effective.

(Reference: Chapter 2-3, Part II, and Chapters 4-0 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume; and Chapter 1, Communications volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
9.3.1 | By means of interviews with those responsible for official languages in the institution,  determine the processes for handling complaints involving official languages, for coordination with the central agencies (committees, working groups, formal and informal networks) and for internal communications (policies, advice and guidance, preparation and review of plans, etc.) and determine whether they function in a satisfactory manner (for example, fast and accurate information).
9.3.2 | Review the files on official languages complaints and determine whether there is an information and feedback mechanism which makes it possible to follow up the corrective action taken.
9.3.3 | Determine whether mechanisms exist for exchanging information and sharing sound management practices and for fostering the pursuit of excellence in the area of official languages.

Criterion 9.4
Official languages policies and objectives are included in the planning process and are followed up.

(Reference: Chapters 4-0 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
9.4.1 | Interview line managers and those responsible for official languages in the organization in order to identify the corporate objectives to be attained and the official languages activities.
9.4.2 | Review official languages plans and reports to determine whether there is a link between the institution’s overall objectives and the objectives of the official languages program, notably with respect to the management of support mechanisms such as translation and language training, etc.
9.4.3 | Determine whether variances relative to the budget and to objectives are identified and analyzed.  Following this analysis, determine whether the measures/actions deemed necessary are identified and followed up.

Objective no. 10

To determine whether senior management's commitment to the program is real and that senior management shows leadership.

Criterion 10.1
Senior management demonstrates, through its communications and its dealings with employees, leadership and commitment to the program.

(Reference: Chapters 4-0 and 4-7, Part IV, Official Languages volume, Treasury Board Manual)

Methodology
10.1.1 | Examine communications from senior management to determine if they are in both official languages.
10.1.2 | Examine minutes of meetings held by senior management to determine if they are available in both official languages.
10.1.3 | Interview a sample of managers in order to determine the nature and extent of their commitment to official languages.
10.1.4 | Examine directives and instructions issued by senior management to determine the importance given therein to official languages matters.
10.1.5 | Review the performance criteria of a sample of executives and employees in order to determine to what extent the official languages are taken into account.
10.1.6 | Analyze the official languages accountability framework and its related means and instruments, as well as their follow-up in order to measure senior management's commitment.
10.1.7 | Examine the program's management infrastructure to determine whether it allows senior management to keep informed of the situation regarding official languages and to take necessary measures.
10.1.8 | Carry out a survey among a sample of employees to evaluate employees' perception as to senior management's commitment in respect of official languages.

54

53