Audit of the Delivery of Bilingual Services to Travellers by the Canada Border Services Agency at Airport and Land-Border Crossings

a) Verify that the CBSA has created and implemented a corporate strategy to ensure services of equal quality in both official languages at designated bilingual service points. This strategy should include an official languages accountability framework and action plan, as well as policies and/or guidelines that have been approved by senior management.

Official languages accountability framework, policies and guidelines

The CBSA Policy on Communications with and Services to the Public provides information on official languages program accountability. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the Official Languages Division, regional and branch official languages coordinators and designated bilingual offices that are required to provide services of equal quality in both official languages. The policy came into effect in 2007 and continues to be pertinent, with clear and succinct information. However, the policy does not include any reference to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada’s DesRochers decision, which established that services rendered to the minority should be substantively equal to those of the majority. The CBSA needs to review its policy to ensure that its service delivery reflects the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. These principles are discussed in greater detail under Objective 3 in this report.

In May 2007, the CBSA implemented the Directive on the Resolution of Official Languages Complaints. During site visits we found that employees were well aware of senior management’s strong stance on official languages complaints and that they fully understood the steps that needed to be taken to implement this directive.

Official languages networks

The CBSA has a clear structure in place for supporting and implementing its official languages program. This includes the Official Languages Division, regional official languages coordinators, official languages ambassadors and champions, and ad hoc working groups and committees. The official languages coordinators have a solid understanding of their portfolio and initiate many of the creative and innovative official languages activities that take place at the CBSA in the various regions. Meetings are held throughout the year between all regional coordinators; however, these meetings appear to be sporadic at times. One of the performance indicators in the 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan is a monthly meeting of the Official Languages Coordinators Network. We believe that regular, formal meetings will allow coordinators to benefit from the expertise and enthusiasm of their colleagues. The roles and responsibilities of the official languages coordinators and the Official Languages Division are detailed in the CBSA’s Policy on Communications with and Services to the Public.

The coordinators noted that management was very open to suggestions and supportive of their role in the regions; however, the time dedicated to official languages tasks varied from region to region. Some coordinators dedicated as little as 10% of their time to official languages, because their position was often coupled with another position or duties, such as human resources staffing. Other official languages coordinators were able to dedicate 100% of their time to the official languages program. We noted that, in cases where coordinators either were in transition or could not dedicate their full effort to the task, employees were often unaware that there was a coordinator in the regions. We also found that coordinators whose sole responsibility was official languages were able to accomplish far more for this portfolio. For these reasons, we encourage the CBSA to create a fully dedicated Official Languages Coordinator position in each region.

As one of the initiatives in the national 2011–2014 Official Languages Action Plan, the CBSA created a network of official languages ambassadors (referred to as “champions” in some regions) across all regions and branches that appeared to be quite active and beneficial. For instance, at the time of this audit, the Director at the point of entry in Emerson, Manitoba, was an official languages champion and we noted during our on-site visit that she was very involved in making official languages a priority in her district. Promoting the official languages program was not limited to official languages ambassadors, however, as many senior executives were actively working to promote official languages. Some regions, notably the Atlantic and Prairie regions, developed official languages networks, with representatives from various areas of the region. Another example of regional involvement in official languages involves the point of entry at the Peace Arch in Douglas, British Columbia, where an official languages network representative had taken the initiative to keep her point of entry informed about official languages obligations. These types of initiatives are particularly beneficial, because representation at a local level helps to speed communication between regional coordinators and individual points of entry.

Action plan

In July 2014, the CBSA provided us with a draft of its 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan. The plan includes measures for improving the CBSA’s performance with respect to Parts IV, V and VII of the Act. For Part IV of the Act, the plan highlights several priorities, including providing quality services to the public in both official languages and increasing bilingual capacity among BSOs and positions with supervisory duties. The plan also includes strategies to strengthen supervision and track official languages performance. We were also presented with CBSA’s 2011–2014 Official Languages Action Plan. Analysis of this plan revealed that many of the positive measures observed during the audit and outlined in this report can be linked back to initiatives implemented in the context of this action plan.

In addition to the national action plan, all regions had developed and implemented their regional 2011–2013 (or 2014, in some cases) official languages action plans and reported on progress. These action plans also contained targeted measures, appropriate timelines and responsible parties. Both the regional and the national action plans are updated annually, and regions report on progress to the Official Languages Division, which then submits an annual progress report to the Executive Committee.

Our analysis of the action plans proved to be very positive. The action plans include specific performance indicators that will help the CBSA to measure the success of its activities. The action plans also include timelines and areas of responsibility, although for the national 2014–2017 action plan we suggest that the CBSA task specific individuals or units accountable for the performance measures rather than leaving this responsibility to an entire branch. At the time of this audit, the regional coordinators were in the process of developing their new regional action plans. We encourage the CBSA to update its national and regional official languages plans to include appropriate and concrete measures in response to the recommendations presented in this audit report.

b) Verify that the CBSA effectively trains, and keeps informed, front-line service employees on their requirements for services to the public in both official languages

c) Verify that the CBSA includes official languages issues in its performance appraisals of senior managers and managers, as well as border services officers and team leaders responsible for services to the public.

The audit found that official languages are consistently included in CBSA performance agreements. The 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 agreements were examined for vice presidents, regional director generals, director generals, directors, chiefs, superintendents and BSOs. All contained specific performance measures regarding official languages. This practice is further evidence of senior management’s commitment to implementing Part IV of the Act.

a) Verify that an active offer is provided at bilingual CBSA points of entry. Verify that services at these points of entry are also provided to travellers in the official language of their choice and that these services are of equal quality in both official languages. Services include:

• visual active offer
• publications and documentation
• communication in person
• communication through automated self-service kiosks.

Visual active offer

Visual active offer includes signage, displays, the English/Français pictogram and all other notices that indicate that services are available in either English or French. At all border and airport points of entry, bilingual signs were prominently displayed in all areas where service is provided and these signs were of equal quality in both official languages. The English/Français pictograms were found at most of the points of entry visited; however, unlike the bilingual signs, they were not always prominently displayed and, in many instances, were not consistently displayed at all CBSA service counters or booths. For example, in many airport secondary inspection lines and NEXUS offices, pictograms were not displayed consistently. At many land-border points of entry, the pictogram was not displayed at all the primary inspection booths and was not consistently displayed at inside counters, pedestrian walkway entrances, bus offloading areas and secondary inspection areas.

The most successful displays of visual active offer through pictograms were those that were permanently affixed to the wall or service counters. At the Niagara Falls Rainbow Bridge border crossing in Ontario, a large pictogram was affixed to the wall behind the service counter that was visible upon entering the CBSA building. At other locations, notably the Montréal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Quebec, small pictogram stickers were attached to the outside of all immigration offices. These types of permanent displays of visual active offer advise travellers of the availability of services in both official languages and pose little risk of being inadvertently moved or lost and we suggest other points of entry follow these good practices and affix pictograms to every service counter or booth in designated bilingual points of entry.

Communication through automated self-service kiosks

The CBSA has announced that its priorities include a focus on modernization. Part of this modernization involves building on the two existing automated pre-approval programs that are designed to expedite border crossing: NEXUS and CANPASS. The CBSA is also building on its recently implemented Automated Border Clearance (ABC) Program, a real-time self-serve electronic kiosk system that is available at three international airports in Canada.

Our review of the automated kiosks at airports showed that high-quality communication is readily provided and easily accessible in both official languages. Although this new model of service delivery means limited personal interaction between BSOs and travellers, those who choose to use it receive services in the official (or other) language of their choice at a touch of a button. We congratulate the CBSA on this excellent initiative, which allows travellers to be served quickly and efficiently in the official language of their choice.

Publications and documentation

A review of documents, publications and forms available to the public revealed that the CBSA has put a great amount of effort into ensuring quality translations of documents. Printed documents, publications and forms were readily available in both official languages at all of the land-border crossings and airport points of entry visited during the audit.

Active offer of bilingual service in person

Results from the Office of the Commissioner’s 2005 audit of CBSA land-border crossings as well as its 2009–2010 report card on the CBSA revealed that the institution provided an active offer of service in less than 50% of the observed interactions. Since then, the CBSA has instituted a number of measures in order to emphasize the importance of active offer and ensure that front-line employees fully understand their obligation to provide an active offer of service. CBSA management has noted improvement, and it is important to mention that the CBSA was congratulated by the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, an official language minority community (OLMC) organization in the Atlantic region, for providing impeccable service in French in its area, following its observations of several federal institutions in the summer of 2013.

As noted earlier in this report, BSOs receive training and communication on their obligation to provide an active offer of service, and interviews revealed that they are aware of this obligation. Despite this awareness—and the improvements noted in the preceding paragraph—on-site visits and interviews with BSOs during the audit revealed that the active offer of service is not consistently provided across all points of entry and across all lines of inspection. The statements below highlight some of the reasons BSOs gave for not providing an active offer of service at all times. We believe these testimonials are important, as they highlight an issue with compliance to the Act that has been observed across all of the CBSA’s regions. These examples may help the CBSA, or institutions with similar challenges, pinpoint the reason why an active offer of service may not be consistently provided.

“Personally, I don’t feel the need to give an active offer since I am fine to speak in both languages if the client asks.” – Border services officer

“I found that the ‘bonjour’ confused most American travellers, and I had to spend more time explaining that I was saying ‘hello’ in French. So sometimes for the sake of expediency, we don’t say the ‘bonjour.’” – Border services officer

“It’s not about not wanting to [provide the active offer], it’s about not feeling comfortable and not being able to continue in that language.” – Border services officer

“It’s really not a priority here. We are overworked and understaffed and really have other priorities . . . . There are a lot of competing priorities.” – Border services officer

“You notice [active offer] a lot with the new officers—they make [active offer] much more of a priority. Those here longer get complacent and a lot of people just think it sounds stupid.” – Border services officer

The audit also revealed that the active offer was provided more often in some cases than others. For instance, the Pacific region conducts spot checks over the telephone, and the monitoring data from these checks, as well as the interviews conducted during the audit, indicated that the active offer was consistently provided over the telephone. However, it was noted that the same consistency does not exist for service in person. Across Canada, BSOs admitted in interviews that they were less likely to provide an active offer outside of the primary inspection area. Given the challenges surrounding the consistent provision of the active offer, the CBSA should continue with its positive reinforcement of the importance of the active offer at all levels of inspection and for all services provided. Formal monitoring would also help to highlight the importance of the active offer. This is discussed in greater detail under Objective 4 in this report.

Provision of bilingual services in person

Even though the active offer of service is not consistently provided, there is a strong commitment across the CBSA to provide services in the language of the traveller’s choice. At the direction of headquarters, all the points of entry visited during the audit developed individual point-of-entry procedures to ensure that services are provided in a timely fashion in the official language of the traveller’s choice. All BSOs were well aware of the procedures at their particular point of entry. Whether these procedures also ensure services of equal quality is discussed in the following section.

b) Verify that the CBSA ensures that designated bilingual points of entry have sufficient bilingual capacity and that it has effectively planned for the provision of bilingual services in order to provide services of equal quality in the official language of the traveller’s choice at all times.

Recruitment

Considering the efforts it has taken to identify the need for bilingual BSOs, the CBSA is very aware that it lacks bilingual capacity at designated bilingual points of entry. The CBSA has developed a two-fold strategy to bridge the current gap: recruit bilingual BSOs and train existing BSOs.

In 2012, the CBSA implemented its National Recruitment Strategy. Prior to this strategy, recruitment was done by individual regions. Centralizing recruitment has enabled the CBSA to increase the number of bilingual BSOs admitted to its OTIP and to place bilingual BSOs at points of entry with the greatest need. Our audit revealed that, despite these changes, the CBSA continues to find it difficult to hire a sufficient number of bilingual employees due to a shortage in recent years of qualified bilingual applicants for BSO positions.

Despite the evident need for bilingual BSOs, promotional activities for the specific recruitment of bilingual BSOs are virtually non-existent. The audit revealed that, as a result of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, the CBSA imposed a moratorium on all outreach activities. Regions have therefore not been permitted to organize targeted recruitment activities with OLMCs in the past few years. However, the CBSA said that it is currently developing communication strategies to target bilingual candidates and has included performance indicators to this end in the 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan. To increase its bilingual capacity, the CBSA needs a recruitment plan that targets OLMCs.

Linguistic profiles

Although there is a great diversity of tasks associated with BSO positions, including agriculture, customs and immigration, bilingual BSOs are required to have a minimum BBB linguistic profile. In the Office of the Commissioner’s 2005 audit of the CBSA, the institution was encouraged to take advantage of its reclassification review to reassess level B for oral proficiency. We again encourage the CBSA to review the linguistic profiles and language skills required to perform the duties of a BSO. The on-site visits conducted during the audit revealed that a level B in oral proficiency is not always sufficient for dealing with complex enforcement and immigration cases.

The CBSA does not request or impose language testing for bilingual employees with expired second-language evaluation results who have not changed position. Some bilingual BSOs working in primarily unilingual regions, where opportunities to use their second official language are often limited, had not been tested for more than a decade. Deteriorating second-language skills may result in a lower quality of service. The CBSA therefore needs to assess and monitor the language skills of bilingual BSOs with expired profiles.

Language training

The CBSA recognizes that it can increase bilingual capacity among BSOs more effectively if it also works to improve the language skills of current employees. In June 2013, the CBSA made the final adjustments to the National Language Training Strategy in support of CBSA’s Official Languages Policy, and created a centralized budget for language training. The training strategy outlines the CBSA’s priorities for second-language training, as well as employee learning options, access to these options and the approval process.

A review of this strategy yielded positive results. There are many challenges associated with providing language training to employees who work on shifts covering 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and who may be located in very remote areas. The training strategy seeks to offer a variety of courses to meet these challenges, including on-line learning, telephone tutoring and a course that includes an annual three-week intensive immersion session that is offered at three different times during the year. The CBSA has also made an effort to hire and train in-house language teachers who have a good understanding of employee realities to facilitate these courses. On-site visits revealed that there had been some challenges and confusion during the initial roll out of the training strategy, but once it was underway, comments about the course offerings were generally positive. The main complaint we received was that second-language training opportunities are not equally accessible to all employees across all regions.

There is little mention of official languages maintenance in the strategy. Our review of the plan and interviews conducted with bilingual BSOs concluded that there is a great need for official languages maintenance training. Many bilingual BSOs were located in largely unilingual regions where there were few opportunities to use their language skills outside of work. As with any skill, language proficiency will deteriorate over time if it is not maintained.

We learned during interviews that a number of bilingual BSOs felt uncomfortable communicating in their second official language when performing complex tasks such as conducting an in-depth secondary inspection or explaining the reason why a client might need a lawyer or why the BSO must conduct a strip search. Many bilingual BSOs also stated that the specific enforcement and immigration terminology required for their work is not something easily acquired outside of the work environment. Interviews further revealed that bilingual BSOs felt there was limited support offered by the institution to help them maintain their second official language or acquire the specific job-related terminology required for their work. Many stated language training opportunities were only made available to employees who were not yet designated bilingual. The CBSA needs to place a greater emphasis on second-language maintenance and offer learning opportunities to all BSOs, including those in designated bilingual positions, across the country.

As part of the initiatives stemming from regional 2011–2013 or 2014 official languages action plans, several regions have developed and implemented their own training and learning initiatives in order to tailor learning to their particular region. In the summer of 2013, the Toronto Pearson International Airport (Pearson Airport) and the Montréal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport organized an exchange with several employees. Not only did this enable employees from both offices to practise and improve their second official language, it also increased the number of bilingual BSOs at Pearson Airport during one of its busiest travel seasons. The Atlantic region is a strong promoter of lunch-and-learn sessions, such as Taboo Tuesdays and Lingo Wednesday, to provide informal opportunities for employees to practise their French. Pearson Airport’s Official Languages Committee and the Northern Ontario region’s headquarters have both created learning modules to help BSOs learn the French terminology required for their position. One initiative—among several in the Southern Ontario region—includes bilingual lunches with the Regional Director General (RDG) and a selection of bilingual employees. This provides an opportunity for employees to meet with the RDG and discuss issues while practising their French. In interviews conducted during the audit, we received positive comments from employees who participated in these activities. Investing in these types of activities shows employees how important official languages are to the organization. What is particularly impressive about most of these initiatives is that they are often very cost effective, as most CBSA organizers have discovered. The CBSA as a whole is encouraged to draw inspiration from the positive second-language maintenance initiatives being implemented in several regions as it develops a national second-language maintenance strategy.

Planning for the provision of bilingual services

The audit examined the way in which the CBSA plans for the provision of bilingual services by looking at how the CBSA organizes its service delivery, such as ensuring that there are enough bilingual employees on site at all times when assigning bilingual personnel and when establishing work schedules. A review was also conducted to determine whether there are procedures in place that ensure services of equal quality in English and French, where required.

Services of equal quality in person in English and French

As noted earlier in this report, following instruction from headquarters, points of entry developed their own procedures to ensure that services are provided in a timely fashion in the official language of the traveller’s choice. The procedures implemented generally ensure that travellers receive services in the official language of their choice when a bilingual agent is available; however, they do not always guarantee that services in the minority official language will be of equal quality to the services received by the majority. In some instances, travellers in the primary inspection line at land-border crossings will be asked to present themselves at the secondary inspection area in order to receive services in the minority official language. We learned through interviews that this practice leads some travellers to feel scared or hesitant, and at times travellers prefer to speak in the majority language rather than be sent to a secondary inspection area to receive their services.

In other instances, the procedures implemented at some points of entry for scheduling shifts might not guarantee an even distribution of bilingual BSOs across all shifts. Some shifts might therefore have a disproportionately low number of bilingual BSOs, and services of equal quality might not be available during those periods. We noted at some points of entry visited that all possible steps are taken to staff a bilingual BSO 24 hours a day, including requesting overtime from bilingual officers first when there are an insufficient number of bilingual officers on shift. While direction with regard to including bilingualism as a factor in shift planning was provided in January 2011 at an Operations Branch Executive Committee meeting, our on-site visits revealed that the need for bilingual BSOs does not factor into the overtime callouts at all points of entry. We noted at several points of entry that the procedures were such that if no bilingual BSO was on shift, services were provided over the telephone by a BSO at another point of entry. In these instances, the next available BSO was called in for overtime and the procedures at these particular points of entry did not require prioritizing requesting overtime for a bilingual BSO when necessary.

Being sent to secondary inspection areas for services that would otherwise be given at the primary inspection area and being served over the telephone rather than in person because the particular point of entry scheduling procedures do not factor bilingualism into overtime callouts are examples of services that are not of equal quality, which can be immediately remedied. The Commissioner of Official Languages’ 2010–2011 annual report comments on the inequality of the CBSA’s practice of sending travellers to secondary inspection areas; however, at the time of this audit the procedure at certain points of entry had yet to be changed. Regardless of intention, this practice may leave travellers feeling as though their first official language has been relegated to second-class status, because the other official language is the default language and therefore the only one that is really recognized.

We additionally learned in interviews and during on-site visits that services in both official languages are not consistently provided during the entire inspection or at all levels of inspection. Some BSOs do not consistently provide services in the official language of the traveller’s choice once a preference has been expressed. Some BSOs will say, “I don’t speak French,” or ask in English, “Would you like service in French?” instead of continuing the conversation in the language used by the traveller. There may also be too few bilingual BSOs to provide services at all levels of inspection when needed, resulting in travellers’ experiencing long delays when sent to secondary inspection areas, receiving services over the telephone or not being able to receive services in the official language of their choice.

We recognize that the deficit in bilingual BSOs is the primary reason that services of equal quality are not always provided at designated bilingual points of entry. However, during interviews, senior management at the CBSA stated that, realistically, they are likely a number of years away from reaching optimal bilingual BSO capacity. Therefore, to ensure the services that are offered are of equal quality whenever possible, we believe it is necessary for all CBSA designated bilingual points of entry to have a clear understanding of what does and does not constitute service of equal quality. It is equally necessary that headquarters follow up with designated bilingual points of entry to ensure that the procedures implemented follow the directives issued and ensure a service of equal quality in both official languages.

a) Verify that the CBSA has a process in place to ensure that it understands the service needs of official language minority communities and that it takes these needs into account when planning and modifying its services.

The CBSA has taken a number of positive measures to comply with its language obligations relating to Part VII of the Act. These have ranged from planning, promoting and participating in OLMC events, like Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie and linguistic duality days, to establishing partnerships with OLMC colleges (e.g., Collège Boréal in northern Ontario, and Université Sainte-Anne in western Nova Scotia) and associations (e.g., Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta) for the purposes of language training or promotion of activities and events.

With regard to OLMCs, the audit sought to verify that the CBSA had applied the principle of substantive equality as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in its DesRochers decision (the CALDECH case). The CBSA has made some progress toward understanding the needs of OLMCs. For example, in 2012, as part of the initiatives in the 2011–2014 Official Languages Action Plan, and in order to gain a better understanding of OLMC needs, the Vice-President of Operations sent a letter to many OLMCs across Canada, inviting them to contact CBSA regional directors. Interviews conducted during the audit revealed that several consultations and exchanges were held as a result of this initiative. These consultations are not systematic across all regions, however, and should not be confused with a formal cyclical process. They are typically one-way communications that do not ensure an ongoing understanding of OLMC needs.

b) Verify that the CBSA has effected a review of its services to determine whether the services satisfy the principle of substantive equality and, when necessary, has subsequently adapted its services to meet the needs of official language minority communities (re: DesRochers decision, CALDECH case).

Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s DesRochers decision in 2009, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provided guidance to institutions to help them determine whether their services satisfy the principle of substantive equality. One of the tools provided was the Analytical Grid for Analysing Federal Services and Programs in Light of the Principle of Substantive Equality, the purpose of which is to assist institutions in the immediate review of their programs and services to determine whether these need to be adjusted in order to provide services of equal quality to OLMCs. In the five years following this decision, the only action the CBSA has taken is to modify the grid to suit its own organizational reality. There is no further evidence that the CBSA has used this modified tool to effect a full review of services or that it has adapted its services, as necessary, in order to satisfy the principle of substantive equality. The CBSA’s 2014–2015 Official Languages Action Plan includes a review of services, and the institution is encouraged to conduct this review without delay.

a) Verify that the CBSA has formal monitoring mechanisms in place to determine whether services of equal quality are being actively offered in both official languages and delivered in the language of the traveller’s choice at designated bilingual points of entry.

The CBSA has several mechanisms in place that help to provide information on its service delivery in both official languages. The institution actively monitors incidents where bilingual front-line services are not available at designated bilingual points of entry. The information is then reported to management, shared and used as one indicator in staffing decisions. The monitoring results reveal that the CBSA has improved its hours of bilingual service delivery. The first quarter of the 2014−2015 fiscal year shows an overall 28% decrease in the number of hours during which bilingual services were not available at reported sites. The CBSA also closely monitors service delivery by new recruits. In the first 12 to 18 months of their employment, new recruits are frequently monitored and every quarter they are given feedback.

The CBSA has not conducted an internal audit on official languages in the past seven years. This is one type of internal monitoring mechanism that would give the institution an overall picture of the health of its official languages program. We are pleased, however, to see that one of the measures proposed in the 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan is to integrate official languages considerations into CBSA internal audits and evaluation.

In 2012, the CBSA introduced Management Practices Assessments (formerly Port of Entry Capacity Checks) that evaluate 14 management capacities within three pillars: People Management, Operational Management and Client Service Excellence. Language of Choice is evaluated within the latter pillar, and the active offer of service and working toward meeting official languages obligations are included in this. In 2013−2014, 10 sites were visited and assessed, and 9 sites were scheduled to be visited and assessed in 2014–2015, most of which are designated bilingual points of entry. Points of entry are required to implement and report on action plans developed as a result of these assessments.

The Pacific region conducted monthly monitoring of active offer and subsequent services in French by telephone at its bilingual points of entry between 2010 and 2013. It also monitored the same services periodically as early as 2007. The results from the first three quarters of the 2013–2014 fiscal year indicate a 97% success rate of providing the active offer and services in French.

While these are all positive practices, the CBSA does not have national formal monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the real-time delivery of the active offer and subsequent provision of services at all designated bilingual points of entry. Superintendents and managers appear to be the only control mechanism in place to monitor whether an active offer and bilingual services are provided to travellers, and this monitoring is not conducted systematically or consistently across the CBSA. We learned through interviews that, in general, BSOs are aware that they are being monitored by the fact of their superintendent’s or manager’s physical presence. We believe this type of monitoring results in a less reliable sample of typical performance, because BSOs may perform their duties perfectly when they know they are being observed and evaluated, but may be less consistent in their performance when they know they are not being observed. Given that interviews and on-site visits conducted during the audit revealed that the active offer of service in both official languages continues to be inconsistent, the CBSA is encouraged to implement, for the benefit of travellers, an ongoing monitoring process across all of its regions.

b) Verify whether the results of the monitoring are used to promote continuous improvement of services.

In terms of using the results of monitoring the active offer and delivery of bilingual services, the CBSA still has some work to do, as it has not implemented a formal monitoring mechanism across all of its regions to track these aspects of Part IV of the Act. A mechanism must first be put in place before it can be verified whether the results of monitoring have been used to promote continuous improvement.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

The Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) three-year official languages action plan 2014–2017 provides for the annual review of official data published by Statistics Canada on the number of passengers at airports where services are offered. In accordance with section 7(3) of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, based on the number of passengers, the CBSA will take the necessary measures to fulfill its language obligations and inform the Treasury Board Secretariat as needed.

Since the audit, the airports in Kelowna, British Columbia, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Regina, Saskatchewan, have been designated bilingual. The Treasury Board Secretariat has been informed and the changes have been made in Burolis. Steps are being taken to increase bilingual capacity and fulfill our language obligations in these locations.

Completion date: June 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are satisfied with the CBSA’s proposed measures to implement this recommendation. We commend the CBSA for the measures already taken to ensure the CBSA points of entry located in the airports of Kelowna, British Columbia, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Regina, Saskatchewan, have been designated bilingual.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

The CBSA’s three-year official languages action plan 2014–2017 provides for the implementation of new official languages directives to determine the need and increase the bilingual capacity of positions with supervision duties. These directives will be implemented nationally. The Official Languages Action Plan also provides for human resources planning procedures that take official languages needs into consideration.

Commissioner’s Comments

We are satisfied with the measures proposed in the action plan in response to this recommendation as well as those currently listed in support of increasing bilingual capacity among supervisors in the 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan. For instance, as the 2014–2017 Official Languages Action Plan indicates, the implementation of the new CBSA official languages directives will help the Agency to increase the bilingual capacity in supervisory positions by raising the linguistic profiles of vacant positions and positions with incumbents who meet the new language requirements.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

As part of the CBSA recruitment strategy for front-line officers, the Agency is developing a three-year national marketing plan to attract individuals who seek a career as a law enforcement officer in a federal border security organization. This national strategy will inform the types of outreach activities to be undertaken to recruit bilingual applicants, including among official language minority communities (OLMCs). This strategy has been highlighted as an Agency commitment in the 2014–2017 official languages action plan.

In support of this initiative, the CBSA established its bilingual capacity requirements in 2014, which will enable the Agency to conduct both targeted recruitment and placement strategies where capacity gaps exist.

Completion date: June 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are satisfied with the CBSA’s proposed measures to implement this recommendation.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

The CBSA publishes on Atlas all of its policies and internal procedural manuals in both official languages, each of which include glossaries and terminology definitions of technical terms. For example, a CBSA Enforcement Glossary is currently available on Atlas. As part of the Agency’s three-year official languages action plan, the CBSA will remind employees of their obligation to stay current with technical job-related terminology required for their work.

The CBSA also supports employee efforts for language development through a comprehensive offering of accessible and effective training programs and services designed to support the Border Services Officers (BSOs) in maintaining and enhancing their bilingual skills.

Since 2013, through its formal internal linguistic school, the CBSA offers to approximately 1,000 employees per year ongoing official languages training to help them maintain and further develop their second-language proficiency skills.

Completion date: April 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are partially satisfied with the measures proposed in response to this recommendation. We recognize the tools the CBSA has created and placed on Atlas to provide BSOs with technical job-related terminology. We agree that continual communication on the availability of these tools is a key step in assisting bilingual BSOs to learn the technical job-related terminology required for their work.

We additionally commend the CBSA for the work they have done to offer a broad range of language training programs to BSOs in order to improve linguistic competencies and increase bilingual capacity. The audit revealed that many bilingual BSOs felt they had limited or no access to these learning opportunities. We believe that the Agency must go beyond communication of currently available resources and work to increase the availability and accessibility of learning opportunities for BSOs who are already bilingual, for the purposes of language maintenance.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

The CBSA publishes its commitments regarding service excellence in both official languages in the charter posted on its website.

To support its commitments, the Agency issues regular reminders to its officers regarding their obligations in relation to active offers of service and the rights of members of the public to obtain services in the official language of their choice.

The CBSA recognizes that the most important element in our operating environment to ensure that services provided are of equal quality in both official languages is to have sufficient bilingual capacity. As outlined in the action plan addressing recommendation 3, the Agency will continue its recruitment initiatives to increase bilingual capacity.

The CBSA also implemented procedures to ensure that bilingual capacity needs are factored into planning and scheduling and that quality services are delivered in both official languages.

Monthly reports are sent to headquarters to ensure that shift planning procedures are followed, to identify gaps in bilingual capacity, to guide decisions about the placement of officers in locations where there are vulnerabilities and to determine priorities in language training.

Completion date: April 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are partially satisfied with the measures proposed in response to this recommendation. We recognize that the CBSA’s greatest challenge to providing service of equal quality is its current deficit of bilingual capacity; however, our audit revealed that the procedures being implemented at some points of entry did not always ensure a service of equal quality.

We additionally recognize that the CBSA’s Operations Branch Executive Committee agreed on measures in 2011 to staff all unanticipated bilingual vacancies on the roster with the next available bilingual officer from the overtime list. Despite this agreement, we found that not all points of entry visited followed these measures and we would like to commend the CBSA for the reminder on this subject that was sent out shortly after the completion of our audit examination phase on August 27, 2014.

Finally, we agree that the monthly reports that are sent to headquarters might identify some gaps related to implementation of the shift planning procedure measures as directed by headquarters. However, the reports we have received in the context of this audit do not fully verify the implementation of procedures that ensure a service of equal quality.

This recommendation seeks to ensure that “equal quality” is clearly defined and implemented at all bilingual points of entry and then that headquarters verifies appropriate procedures ensuring services of equal quality have been fully implemented. The CBSA proposes in their management action plan to send annual reminders on official languages rights and obligations; however, it is our opinion that this commitment is not specific enough to address the recommendation. We would like the CBSA to keep in mind that previous communications on official languages rights and obligations have not equated with procedures at all points of entry ensuring services of equal quality. We believe that a more specific definition of what does and does not constitute service of equal quality as well as verification of the implementation of procedures that meet the definition is required.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

As initiated in 2012, the CBSA’s three-year official languages action plan 2014–2017 provides for a continuation of discussions with OLMCs to incorporate their needs when planning and modifying services.

Completion date: September 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are partially satisfied with the measures proposed in response to this recommendation. We commend the consultations the CBSA initiated in 2012 and the steps they are now taking to continue the discussions with OLMCs. However, the recommendation also includes a component regarding developing a formal process for communication with OLMCs and adopting a formal mechanism to take into account the needs of the OLMCs. There do not appear to be any commitments to this effect in the CBSA’s action plan. The CBSA must not merely rely on discussions that may occur once every 3–5 years. We would like the Agency to keep this in mind and ensure the establishment of formal processes and mechanisms so that communication with OLMCs is on-going and their needs are taken into account when planning and modifying services on an on-going basis.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

The CBSA’s three-year official languages action plan 2014–2017 provides a process for assessing its services and programs to determine if they comply with the principle of substantive equality.

The CBSA is committed to ensuring that all its programs and services are adapted, as required, to meet the needs of the OLMCs.

Completion date: December 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are satisfied with the CBSA’s proposed measures to implement this recommendation.

CBSA’s Management Response and Action Plan

As stated in the audit report, the ability to monitor active offers of service is limited because of the difficulties associated with crossing the border several times. The CBSA will continue to raise awareness and train officers on the obligations related to active offers of service and delivering services in the traveller’s official language of choice.

Moreover, as noted in the three-year official languages action plan 2014–2017, the CBSA will establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure the availability of services to the public in both official languages and the quality of these services, and the presence of a sufficient number of bilingual employees at all times.

Completion date: September 2015

Action Plan

8.1 Establish a national monitoring mechanism to ensure the availability of services to the public in both official languages and the quality of these services by reviewing the following criteria:

• bilingual capacity and gaps;
• visual active offer;
• active offer by telephone; and
• analysis of complaints and risks.

OPI: Operations Branch

Completion date: September 2015

Action Plan

8.2 Issue annual reports on monitoring results and ensure the implementation of corrective actions, if required.

OPI: Operations Branch

Completion date: September 2015

Commissioner’s Comments

We are partially satisfied with the CBSA’s proposed measures to implement this recommendation. Regarding the proposed monitoring mechanisms for the active offer of services, the CBSA must not merely monitor visual active offer and active offer by telephone. While on-going, anonymous monitoring of active offer of service in person at points of entry may be challenging, we believe there are several options that the CBSA can explore that would allow the effective monitoring of active offer in person. The CBSA should seek opportunities to collaborate with other institutions that have similar mandates and with OLMCs as they develop a complete monitoring mechanism that includes active offer of service in person. This audit, as well as our previous audit, revealed that active offer in person is inconsistent despite the fact that BSOs are very knowledgeable about their obligation to provide an active offer. The CBSA must establish a formal, reliable and anonymous monitoring mechanism that includes monitoring of active offer of service in person.

Atlantic

Quebec

Northern Ontario

Southern Ontario

Greater Toronto Area

Prairie

Pacific