The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages conducts observations on services to the public in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of federal institutions in terms of their various obligations under the Official Languages Act (Part IV of the Act).
Results of observations of service to the public
Results of observations of service to the public
| Federal institutions | By telephone: Active offer (%) |
By telephone: Availability of service (%) |
By email and e-form: Response in requested language1 (%) |
By email and e-form: Comparable response rate2 (%) |
By email and e-form: Response time3 (%) |
Content published on the Internet: Availability of information4 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | 36 | 79 | 93 | 93 | 76 | 100 |
| Canadian Security Intelligence Service | 96 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 100 |
| Correctional Service Canada | 84 | 89 | 98 | 95 | 47 | 83 |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada | 54 | 80 | 95 | 87 | 72 | 93 |
| Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | 89 | 86 | 100 | 88 | 84 | 100 |
| Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada | 97 | 100 | 92 | 90 | 74 | 100 |
| Infrastructure Canada | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 77 | 5 |
| Transport Canada | 88 | 98 | 96 | 98 | 66 | 100 |
Public Safety Canada was included in the 2019–2020 observations; however, it does not appear in the results table because data collection was unsuccessful.
Observations of service in person and by telephone
Observations of service in person and by telephone
Background
The observations of service to the public conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (Office of the Commissioner) are one of many tools used to measure the performance of federal institutions with respect to Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with service to the public. The Office of the Commissioner observed three types of service provided by the institutions: service in person, by telephone and over the Internet. This tab describes the methodology used for in-person and telephone observations.
The Office of the Commissioner is supported by Statistics Canada in its methodological approach, particularly with respect to sampling, calculations and validation of results. It is important to note that the results provide an indication of an institution’s performance at the specific time the observations take place. They do not represent the probability of obtaining service in the official language of your choice. It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic had no impact on the data collected.
Definitions
In-person observations
Observations of service in person involve making anonymous visits to a federal institution’s bilingual points of service to assess its capability to serve the public in the official language of the linguistic minority. This includes observations of service in English in Quebec and service in French outside of Quebec.
The evaluation is based on the following three criteria:
Visual active offer
The observer indicates (“yes” or “no”) whether bilingual services are offered at the point of service. This offer is provided through the following visual elements:
- Bilingual signage outside
- Bilingual signage inside
- Presence of “English/Français” pictogram
- Display of pamphlets, forms or documents in both official languages
The observer may indicate “yes” even if not all of the elements are present. For example, if the “English/Français” pictogram is not visible, but most of the documents and signs at the point of service are in both official languages, the observer will indicate that there is a bilingual visual active offer.
Active offer by staff
The observer indicates (“yes” or “no”) whether initial contact with an employee at the point of service is in both official languages, through the use of the “Hello, bonjour” greeting, a phrase such as “Next, suivant” or a similar phrase.
Availability of service in the official language of the linguistic minority
The observer indicates (“yes” or “no”) whether service is received in the official language of the linguistic minority at the point of service.
Note: In-person observations were not conducted in 2019–2020; therefore, this category does not appear in the results table.
Telephone observations
Observations of service by telephone involve making calls to contact numbers that the institution provides to the public. When the telephone number is for a specific physical office, the same approach is used as for in-person observations with respect to the official language of the linguistic minority. The purpose of the telephone observations is to assess the institution’s capacity to serve the public in the official language of the linguistic minority. This includes observations of service in English in Quebec and service in French outside Quebec. If there is only one telephone number for the entire country, the same number of observations is made in English and French.
The evaluation is based on the following two criteria:
Active offer by telephone
Several factors are taken into account when evaluating active offer by telephone. For example, if the institution has a separate telephone number for English and French, the active offer is implicit. If the voicemail system’s main menu lets callers choose the official language in which they wish to proceed, the active offer is explicit. If there is no choice offered, the active offer is evaluated based on the first verbal contact with an agent.
In the latter case, the observer indicates (“yes” or “no”) whether the institution’s first point of contact is made in both official languages through a bilingual voicemail message, a bilingual greeting ( e.g. , “Hello, bonjour.”) or a bilingual announcement of the institution’s name ( e.g. , “Canada Revenue Agency, Agence du revenu du Canada.”). Greetings like this make it clear to callers that service is available in the official language of their choice.
Availability of service by telephone in the official language of the linguistic minority
The observer indicates (“yes” or “no”) whether service is received in the official language of the linguistic minority.
Methodology
The methodology is the same for observations in person and by telephone. It involves making a number of anonymous observations at a representative sample of all the bilingual points of service of the institution being assessed. At the beginning of the observation cycle, the Commissioner asks the institutions that will be observed to provide a list of all of their bilingual points of service that are open to the public without an appointment. The list is sent to Statistics Canada to establish a sample. One or more observations of the points of service in the sample are made over a defined period of time. The results provide an indication of the availability of service in the official language of the linguistic minority. Telephone observations were conducted between February 11 and March 31, 2020; therefore, the results are representative of that time period.
Results
The main objective of in-person and telephone observations is to obtain statistically valid overall results for each of the observation criteria. Unless otherwise stated, the observations do not generate statistically valid results by point of service.
Results quality indicator
When Statistics Canada calculates the observation results, it assigns a quality indicator to each one. The indicator establishes the quality of the sample that was subject to observations.
- Standard deviation below 4% (margin of error of less than 8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Standard deviation between 4% and 8% (margin of error between 8% and 16%, 19 times out of 20)
- Standard deviation between 8% and 12% (margin of error between 16% and 24%, 19 times out of 20)
Statistics Canada considers the quality indicators A, B and C to be appropriate, given the objective of the Office of the Commissioner’s observations. This statistical survey is not an opinion survey, nor is it intended to predict future results.
Comparison of results
Observation results are snapshots of service availability at various points of service at a specific time. Unless otherwise stated, they cannot be compared from year to year or serve to determine progress over time. The ensuing results would not be reliable, as the margins of error increase when results from separate samples are compared. However, it is reasonable to conclude that an institution must make improvements at its bilingual points of service if it obtains poor results in every observation exercise.
Observations of service over the Internet
Observations of service over the Internet
Background
The observations of service to the public conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (Office of the Commissioner) are one of many tools used to measure the performance of federal institutions with respect to Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with service to the public. The Office of the Commissioner observed three types of service provided by the institutions: service in person, by telephone and over the Internet. This tab describes the methodology used for the observations of service over the Internet. It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic had no impact on the data collected.
For the third year in a row, the Office of the Commissioner gathered data using a variety of methods for communicating with federal institutions over the Internet. In keeping with the digital shift, observations were conducted on various platforms, including computers and mobile devices.
Federal institutions use a number of online media. The Office of the Commissioner therefore grouped them into two categories of services that have similar functions.
The first category of services includes interactions with federal employees through email or online forms. Using the observations conducted in this category, the Office of the Commissioner sought to verify whether email responses were in the official language used by the requester and to compare response rates and times in English and French. The second category of services includes content posted online by federal institutions for public viewing. Using samples of content published on federal institutions’ websites, social media accounts, applications and online accounts, the Office of the Commissioner sought to determine whether online content was equivalent in both official languages.
Methodology
The methodology was established in cooperation with Statistics Canada, which also participated in the interpretation and validation of the results.
Unlike the results of the observations conducted in person and by telephone, which indicate the availability of service in the official language of the linguistic minority, the results of the observations of interactive services over the Internet compare the number of email responses or forms that were received in the official language used by the requester, as well as response rates, response times and the availability of information in both official languages.
For the observations of interactive services over the Internet, equivalent messages in English and French were sent to each institution to assess compliance with the language preference, which is the official language in which the requester has written the email or completed the form, and to compare response rates and times. The observations sought to simulate the experience of a member of the public who contacts the institution to obtain information.
Through the interactive online observations, it was possible to compare the number of responses in the matching official language, the number of responses in each official language and the time it took to receive a response in each official language.
The observations of interactive services over the Internet were conducted between February 14 and April 3, 2020; therefore, the results are representative of that time period.
Observations of online content were conducted on a variety of online sites and media provided in advance by federal institutions. These online observations sought to simulate the experience of a member of the public who browses online to obtain information or learn about a topic. Observers evaluated whether the content was equivalent in both official languages by examining the availability in English and French of the same sample content and by looking at the targets of the links provided. A summary review of social media posts was also conducted to compare the quality of the posts in each official language.
The observations of online content were conducted from February 14 to March 31, 2020; therefore, the results are representative of that time period.
Appendix A: Comparable response rates and times
1) Comparable response rates
The response rates in both official languages make it possible to determine whether federal institutions provide comparable service in English and French, without taking established service standards into account.
i. Calculating response rates in English and French
-
- Response rate in English: (Number of English responses received ÷ Number of English emails and e-forms sent) × 100 = x%
- Response rate in French: (Number of French responses received ÷ Number of French emails and e-forms sent) × 100 = x%
ii. Determining the score
-
- Comparable response rate score: 100% minus the difference between the response rates in both official languages.
- For example, if Institution A provided a response in English or French for each email and e-form during the observation period, based on the calculation formula, there is no difference (0%) between the two response rates, resulting in a score of 100% for the comparable response rate (see Appendix B).
- As another example, Institution B’s response rate was 90% in English and 40% in French. Since the difference between the two response rates is 50%, the score is calculated as 100 − 50 = 50% for the comparable response rate (see Appendix B).
2) Comparable response times
The average response times for emails and e-forms in English and French make it possible to compare response times in each official language. To do this, a score is assigned that represents the proportionality or equivalency of the average response times in both official languages. The closer the score is to 100%, the closer the response times were in English and French.
i. Calculating average response times
- In order to reduce the effect of excessive response times on the average, the Winsorization estimation method is used. This method involves determining a limit6 ( e.g. , 200 hours for a given institution) based on the assumption that a response time exceeding that limit is the result of something other than a question of language. Therefore, any response time exceeding the limit is rounded off to that number for the purposes of calculating the average response times.
- Calculating average response times for English emails and e-forms and French emails and e-forms
- Average response times (hours) = Response times total (hours) ÷ Number of responses received
- Calculating average response times for English emails and e-forms and French emails and e-forms
ii. Determining the score
-
- Comparable response time score: 100 × Shortest average response time ÷ Longest average response time.
- For example, if Institution A has an average response time of 75.2 hours for English emails and e-forms and 163.9 hours for French emails and e-forms, its score is 46% (100 x 75.2 ÷ 163.9 = 46).
- As another example, Institution B’s average response time is 83.3 hours for English emails and e-forms and 62.7 hours for French emails and e-forms. This results in a score of 75% (100 x 62.7 ÷ 83.3 = 75).
Appendix B: Examples of observations of service over the Internet
| Institution | Response rate in English | Response rate in French | Service availability score | Average response time in English | Average response time in French | Difference between the average response times (hours) | Difference between the average response times (%) | Response time score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 100% | 100% | 100% | 75.2 hours | 163.9 hours | 88.7 hours | 54% | 46% |
| B | 90% | 40% | 50% | 83.3 hours | 62.7 hours | 20.6 hours | 25% | 75% |