ARCHIVED - Chapter 4
The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
| 24 of 35 |
PERFORMANCE REPORT CARDS AND SUCCESS STORIES (cont.)
Each institution’s performance was measured against 13 basic criteria grouped under 5 factors: program management, service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and advancement of English and French. Each of the 13 basic criteria has been assigned a relative weighting in order to calculate an overall grade for each institution. A detailed rating guide describes the methodology used by analysts to rate the institutions.32
Many different sources were used to carry out the analyses needed for the report cards: interviews, documents, observations on service quality, surveys, statistical data, recommendations made by the Commissioner and consultations with colleagues who performed investigations and audits.
The evaluation framework was modified this year to place more emphasis on the institutions’ results. For instance, the number of observations made in the field doubled in comparison to the previous year.
The report cards took into account language of work data from the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey 33 and a survey requested by the Commissioner last year.34
To emphasize results, the Commissioner took into consideration formal recommendations made during his investigations and audits to create a list of institutions that have specific problems complying with the Act. These institutions lost points on their performance report cards. The penalty accounted for 5% of the overall grade, or 2% if the institution made considerable progress in resolving the issue.
Amendments to the Official Languages Act regarding the advancement of English and French
The evaluation framework was also revised to take into account the amendments made to Part VII of the Act in November 2005.35 Designated institutions,36 accustomed to preparing action plans and reporting to Canadian Heritage on Part VII, were subject to stricter requirements than other institutions not accountable in this respect. For the latter institutions, the Commissioner primarily sought to determine the extent to which they were aware of the legislative changes, whether they had considered what impact the changes would have on their organization and whether they had made any preparations to comply with the changes. The Commissioner considers this two-speed approach a temporary measure.
The results facilitate comparison among institutions with similar characteristics. As such, the 37 institutions in question are grouped into three portfolios: economy; transport and security; and social, cultural and other.
The results are given as letters that correspond to general convention
| A | Exemplary |
| B | Good |
| C | Fair |
| D | Poor |
| E | Very Poor |
To make the results easier to read, a subtotal now appears for each factor that has been evaluated. When an institution has been penalized because of a specific issue with compliance, an asterisk appears on the subtotal line of the factor in question.37
As in past annual reports, the evaluation criteria and their relative weights appear in the left-hand column. The overall grade is a total of the results obtained for all the evaluated components.
| Results Table 2006-2007 | |||||||||
| Indian and Northern Affairs Canada | Agriculture and Agri-Food | Business Development Bank | Canadian Tourism Commission | Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | |||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | C | B | B | A | A | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | C | C | B | B | A | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | B | C | A | B | A | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | B | B | A | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | B | B | D | C | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | D | E | D | B | B | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | C | C | A | D | B | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | C | C | B | C | B | ||||
| Subtotal | D | D | C | **C | B | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | B | B | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | C | C | D | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | C | C | B | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | |||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | B | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | D | C | A | N/A1 | E | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | A | C | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | C | B | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | C | C | B | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | B | B | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | C | C | C | C | B | ||||
 |
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| Western Economic Diversification | Mortgage & Housing Corporation | Industry Canada | Fisheries and Oceans Canada | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | C | A | A | B | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | A | B | A | B | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | C | B | B | A | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | A | B | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | C | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | C | C | D | D | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | B | C | B | C | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | B | C | C | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | C | C | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | C | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | C | C | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | B | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | B | A | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A1 | C | B | D | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | B | B | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | A | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | B | B | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | B | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | C | B | B | C | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| Canada Post | Atlantic Canada Opportunities | Revenue Canada | Public Works | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | A | B | B | A | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | A | B | B | A | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | A | A | A | B | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | A | A | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | C | B | C | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | D | C | C | D | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | A | B | C | C | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | A | C | A | C | ||||
| Subtotal | **D | C | B | C | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | C | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | B | C | C | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | B | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | N/A1 | C | D | ||||
| Subtotal | B | A | B | C | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | B | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | A | B | C | C | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | B | C | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | C | B | B | C | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | |||||||||
| Halifax Robert L. Stanfield Airport | Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Airport | Food Inspection Agency | Border Services | Environment Canada | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | |||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | D | B | A | A | B | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | D | B | B | A | C | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | C | A | A | A | B | ||||
| Subtotal | D | B | A | A | B | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | D | D | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | D | C | E | C | C | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | C | A | B | C | B | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | D | B | A | A | C | ||||
| Subtotal | D | C | C | *C | C | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | N/A2 | B | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A2 | C | C | C | D | ||||
| Subtotal | N/A3 | C | B | B | C | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | |||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | A | A | A | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A1 | N/A1 | D | A | A | ||||
| Subtotal | D | A | B | A | A | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | |||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | N/A3 | N/A3 | B | B | D | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | N/A3 | N/A3 | B | B | D | ||||
| Subtotal | N/A3 | N/A3 | B | B | D | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | D | B | C | B | C | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| Canadian Forces | RCMP | NAV CANADA | Passport Canada | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | A | C | B | D | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | B | C | C | C | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | B | B | B | A | ||||
| Subtotal | B | C | B | C | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | D | B | C | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | D | E | C | B | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | B | C | C | A | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | D | C | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | D | D | C | B | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | D | B | D | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | E | D | C | ||||
| Subtotal | **E | D | D | C | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A1 | A | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | A | A | B | B | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | C | C | D | D | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | D | C | C | E | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | D | D | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | D | D | D | C | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| Correctional Service | Canadian Air Transport Security Authority | Transport Canada | VIA Rail | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | C | A | A | A | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | C | A | B | C | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | B | A | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | A | B | B | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | B | C | B | D | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | E | C | D | C | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | E | B | B | C | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | C | B | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | D | *C | C | C | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | B | C | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | C | B | D | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | B | D | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | A | A | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | D | N/A1 | A | A | ||||
| Subtotal | B | A | A | A | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | D | C | B | C | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | D | B | B | C | ||||
| Subtotal | D | C | B | C | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | D | C | B | C | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| Public Health Agency | CBC/Radio-Canada | National Arts Centre | Citizenship and Immigration | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | D | B | D | A | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | B | B | B | A | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | C | B | A | A | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | A | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | B | D | B | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | C | E | B | C | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | C | C | B | B | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | B | B | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | D | B | B | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | C | B | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | D | B | C | C | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | C | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | A | A | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A4 | C | N/A1 | A | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | A | A | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | B | B | B | A | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | B | A | B | A | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | A | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | C | C | B | B | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | ||||||||
| National Capital Commission | Canadian Museum of Civilization | National Film Board | Parks Canada | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | ||||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | B | C | B | B | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | A | A | A | A | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | A | A | A | B | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | A | B | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | A | B | A | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | A | A | D | C | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | A | B | C | B | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | A | A | C | B | ||||
| Subtotal | A | A | C | C | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | B | B | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | B | B | C | C | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | B | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | ||||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | B | B | B | A | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | N/A1 | N/A1 | A | E | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | C | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | ||||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | B | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | B | B | A | B | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | B | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | B | B | B | B | ||||
|
| Results Table 2006-2007 | |||||||
| Health Canada | Service Canada | Statistics Canada | ||||
| A. Management (15%) | |||||||
| a) An accountability framework, an action plan and accountability mechanisms are in place (5%) | A | B | A | ||||
| b) Visibility of official languages in the organization (5%) | A | B | B | ||||
| c) Complaints (5%) | B | A | A | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | A | ||||
| B. Service to the Public – Part IV (25%) | |||||||
| a) Bilingual services advertised to the public and sufficient bilingual staff (3%) | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Observations on active offer and service delivery (15%) | D | D | B | ||||
| c) Service agreements delivered by third parties or in partnership provide for the delivery of bilingual services (2%) | C | B | A | ||||
| d) Policy on service to the public and bilingual services quality monitoring (5%) | C | B | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | C | B | ||||
| C. Language of Work – Part V (25%) | |||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | B | B | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | C | C | B | ||||
| Subtotal | C | B | B | ||||
| D. Equitable Participation – Part VI (10%) | |||||||
| a) Percentage of Francophone participation throughout Canada (5%) | A | A | B | ||||
| b) Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec (5%) | D | D | B | ||||
| Subtotal | B | B | B | ||||
| E. Advancement of English and French – Part VII (25%) | |||||||
| a) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the development of official language minority communities (12.5%) | A | B | A | ||||
| b) Strategic planning and the development of policies and programs take into account the promotion of linguistic duality (12.5%) | B | B | A | ||||
| Subtotal | A | B | A | ||||
| OVERALL RATING | C | B | B | ||||
|
1 No staff in Quebec (excluding NCR)
2 Part V of the Act does not apply
3 Not subject to Part VII of the Act.
4 Data not publicized for confidentiality reasons (only one small office in Quebec).
An analysis of the results shows progress has been made in the way many institutions are managing the implementation of the Act. Some have put an accountability framework into place, others, an action plan. Overall, their commitment to official languages is now more readily apparent in strategic documents, for example, reports on plans and priorities, departmental performance reports and business plans. The institutions that have distinguished themselves in terms of program management include the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which come in at the top of the class with an “Exemplary” rating for the three criteria. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority, which received a low grade in this category.
Data regarding service to the public shows, once again this year, that some institutions are performing poorly. First, many institutions lack policies or guidelines that inform employees of senior management’s commitment to promoting both official languages. The same can be said of institutional documents related to communications with the public and service delivery in both official languages. Furthermore, institutions rarely use monitoring mechanisms for service delivery in both official languages, and when they do so, the mechanisms are rather weak.
When organizations do monitor service provision, it is often limited to a single mode of delivery, such as the telephone or the web site. Yet, all institutions should continuously monitor all methods of direct service delivery to the public and give more responsibility to employees required to serve the public in both official languages.
However, most institutions have made an effort to list bilingual points of service in telephone directories. Some also make a point of distributing the list of bilingual points of service to official language community representatives. In addition, services delivered by third parties or under partnership agreements generally include standard language clauses in their contracts. Nevertheless, the monitoring of bilingual service delivery leaves much to be desired, and non-compliance with the terms of a contract rarely leads to any consequences. Senior management must show greater commitment in this area.
Another noteworthy fact: the language skills of employees who provide service to the public and institutions’ ability to provide bilingual services have remained virtually unchanged compared to last year. The rating is around 90%. This means that 90% of employees responsible for providing service to the public in both official languages meet the language requirements of their positions. However, this percentage does not include the three lowest scores, which come from the Canadian Forces (40%), the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (63%) and Canada Post (72%).
Results from the field: Analysis of observation results
In federal institutions, services can be delivered to the public in many ways: in person, over the telephone, over the Internet, by written communications or by using newspapers, radio and other media. This year, the performance report cards focus on two of these methods: service provided in person and over the telephone.
To obtain a representative sample of the performance of each of the 37 institutions that were evaluated, the Office of the Commissioner carried out 918 observations of service over the telephone and 850 observations of service in person across the country. This sample was established by Statistics Canada.
The following table presents the results of the observations made in the field between mid-June and mid-July 2006.
| Table 1 | |||
| Institution | Visual active offer | Active offer by employee | Adequate service |
| Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | 60% | 0% | 56% |
| Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency | 69% | 0% | 85% |
| Business Development Bank of Canada | 81% | 12% | 65% |
| Canada Border Services Agency | 99% | 16% | 87% |
| Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec | 85% | 0% | 92% |
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | 86% | 21% | 86% |
| Canada Post Corporation | 94% | 8% | 78% |
| Canada Revenue Agency | 100% | 34% | 89% |
| Canadian Air Transport Security Authority | 93% | 14% | 73% |
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency | 80% | 10% | 66% |
| Canadian Forces | 88% | 0% | 76% |
| Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Canadian Tourism Commission | 100% | 50% | 100% |
| CBC/Radio-Canada | 66% | 13% | 65% |
| Citizenship and Immigration Canada | 100% | 11% | 72% |
| Correctional Service Canada | 77% | 0% | 63% |
| Environment Canada | 93% | 19% | 94% |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada | 83% | 0% | 81% |
| Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority | 33% | 0% | 0% |
| Health Canada | 61% | 17% | 84% |
| Indian and Northern Affairs Canada | 73% | 0% | 73% |
| Industry Canada | 84% | 12% | 74% |
| National Arts Centre | 100% | 33% | 100% |
| National Capital Commission | 100% | 75% | 100% |
| National Film Board of Canada | 75% | 0% | 88% |
| NAV CANADA | 75% | 25% | 100% |
| Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority | 100% | 0% | 33% |
| Parks Canada Agency | 82% | 36% | 83% |
| Passport Canada | 93% | 40% | 93% |
| Public Health Agency of Canada | 85% | 20% | 90% |
| Public Works and Government Services Canada | 85% | 21% | 87% |
| Royal Canadian Mounted Police | 79% | 14% | 56% |
| Service Canada | 80% | 8% | 70% |
| Statistics Canada | 100% | 20% | 100% |
| Transport Canada | 85% | 19% | 68% |
| Western Economic Diversification Canada | 90% | 10% | 90% |
| VIA Rail | 83% | 25% | 88% |
| Total | 87% | 13% | 75% |
| |
| Table 1 (cont.) | ||
| Institution | Active offer | Adequate service |
| Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | 55% | 63% |
| Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency | 93% | 86% |
| Business Development Bank of Canada | 93% | 80% |
| Canada Border Services Agency | 85% | 89% |
| Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec | 80% | 100% |
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | 95% | 78% |
| Canada Post Corporation | 64% | 77% |
| Canada Revenue Agency | 90% | 90% |
| Canadian Air Transport Security Authority | 100% | 100% |
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency | 78% | 61% |
| Canadian Forces | 95% | 68% |
| Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation | 100% | 100% |
| Canadian Tourism Commission | 100% | 100% |
| CBC/Radio-Canada | 67% | 80% |
| Citizenship and Immigration Canada | 100% | 100% |
| Correctional Service Canada | 74% | 55% |
| Environment Canada | 49% | 56% |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada | 78% | 69% |
| Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority | 100% | 100% |
| Health Canada | 75% | 88% |
| Indian and Northern Affairs Canada | 60% | 53% |
| Industry Canada | 92% | 89% |
| National Arts Centre | 100% | 100% |
| National Capital Commission | 100% | 100% |
| National Film Board of Canada | 78% | 89% |
| NAV CANADA | 100% | 50% |
| Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority | 100% | 100% |
| Parks Canada Agency | 93% | 94% |
| Passport Canada | 100% | 88% |
| Public Health Agency of Canada | 85% | 77% |
| Public Works and Government Services Canada | 66% | 75% |
| Royal Canadian Mounted Police | 54% | 58% |
| Service Canada | 87% | 88% |
| Statistics Canada | 100% | 89% |
| Transport Canada | 82% | 83% |
| Western Economic Diversification Canada | 82% | 73% |
| VIA Rail | 76% | 100% |
| Total | 73% | 77% |
Visual active offer consists of a series of visual elements present in service points that indicate to customers that service is offered in both official languages. While some institutions obtained excellent marks in this area, others had disappointing results, notably the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada.
Active offer by staff refers to the use of a bilingual greeting by an employee when communicating with a member of the public. This ensures that members of the public feel comfortable using their language of choice when they deal with a federal institution. In this regard, the overall results are quite worrisome. During the previous year, it was observed that an active offer was rarely made by employees (24%). This year, it has plunged to 13%. In addition, there was no active offer made in 10 out of the 37 institutions that were evaluated. The Commissioner is disappointed with these results and was hoping to see an improvement. He considers such a performance unacceptable. The results show that front-line supervisors are neglecting to ensure services are provided in both official languages. When it comes to active offer by employees, the facts could not be clearer: it is not part of the federal administration’s service culture (except at the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation). Front-line agents fail to take advantage of numerous opportunities to promote the equality of status and use of English and French when serving the public. Moreover, there are no consequences for employees not complying with the legal obligation to actively offer service to the public in English and in French, as stipulated in section 28 of the Act.
Recommendation 5
The Commissioner recommends that deputy heads in federal institutions ensure front-line employees and all agents who respond to client enquiries actively offer services in both official languages at first contact in order to enhance the use of the public’s official language of choice.
Furthermore, the quality of service provided in person in the language of the minority is adequate three times out of four (75%). These results are consistent with those of previous years. Six institutions received excellent marks, delivering adequate service during all visits by the Office of the Commissioner. In contrast, the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority did not provide adequate service on any occasion. In addition, the progress made by two institutions as regards service in person should be noted: Environment Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Active offer through service over the telephone refers to the public’s first contact with an employee or automated system. Observations have shown that some institutions performed quite well in this respect. However, others that had obtained satisfactory results for in-person service received low marks for service over the telephone. This is the case with Environment Canada, which was only able to provide adequate telephone service half of the time. In contrast, the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority, which failed miserably with regards to active offer and service in person, obtained an “Exemplary” rating for active offer and adequate service over the telephone in the minority language.
In preparing the performance report cards, several criteria were used to examine the question of language of work. The following findings were most noteworthy this year.
Several institutions still do not have documents that reflect senior management’s commitment to creating a workplace conducive to the use of both official languages and promoting English and French. However, most of these institutions have nonetheless taken concrete measures to enhance the use of both languages in the workplace and allow employees in a minority situation to work in the language of their choice, for example, through translation and revision services or the indication in the personnel file of the employee’s preferred language. Other measures primarily encourage employees in a majority situation to use their second language. These include, for example, language training and retention programs, writing tools and alternating between languages during meetings.
Furthermore, the Commissioner is pleased to note an increase in the number of senior managers who meet the language requirements of their positions in the departments that were evaluated. Overall, more than 90% of them meet the language requirements of their position. This is significant because when managers communicate between one another and with their employees in the listener’s language, they are putting into action senior management’s commitment to promoting the use of both official languages. All the same, the Commissioner notes that some departments evaluated for the first time this year are lagging behind, namely the Public Health Agency of Canada (76%) and Western Economic Diversification Canada (71%).
The Commissioner noticed little change in the bilingual capacity of supervisors who occupy positions outside of senior management. The rate is generally between 85% and 90%. Based on the number of supervisors who meet the language requirements of their position, three institutions appear to have difficulty supervising their employees in the language of their choice: Canadian Forces (33%), the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (58%) and Canada Post (58%).
As mentioned previously, the Commissioner used the results of the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey to determine the level of satisfaction of Francophone employees working in the National Capital Region (NCR), New Brunswick and the bilingual regions of Ontario, as well as Anglophone employees working in designated bilingual regions in Québec.39
The findings of the public service surveys conducted in 2005 and 2002 allow an analysis to be made of the evolution of employee satisfaction in nine departments regarding language of work. The Commissioner notices a modest increase in the level of satisfaction among Francophones working in the NCR, New Brunswick and the bilingual regions of Ontario. In terms of the satisfaction levels of Anglophones working in the bilingual regions of Québec, the Commissioner notes both increases and decreases.
Survey questions regarding language of work:
- The material and tools provided for my work, including software and other automated tools, are available in the official language of my choice.
- When I prepare written materials, including electronic mail, I feel free to use the official language of my choice.
- When I communicate with my immediate supervisor, I feel free to use the official language of my choice.
- During meetings with my work unit, I feel free to use the official language of my choice.
- The training offered by my organization is available in the official language of my choice.
Survey results indicate that, for Francophones in minority situations, the possibility of using their language of choice in written communications and during meetings remains a problem. Anglophones in minority situations in Quebec, in turn, find it difficult to receive training in English and use their language of choice in team meetings.
The following table presents employee satisfaction levels as determined by the five questions in the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey regarding the possibility of working in their language of choice. Note that these results only represent the satisfaction levels of employees in a minority situation who work in regions designated bilingual for the purpose of language of work.
The Commissioner sent the detailed survey results to each institution to help them in their efforts to encourage the use of English and French in the workplace.
| Table 2 | |||||
|
| Satisfaction levels among Francophones (NCR, N.B., Ont.) | Satisfaction levels among Anglophones (Que.) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institution | 2006-2007 | 2006-2007 | |||
| Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | 69% | * | |||
| Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency | 88% | ** | |||
| Business Development Bank of Canada | 77% | 94% | |||
| Canada Border Services Agency | 68% | 81% | |||
| Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec | 97% | * | |||
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | 73% | 59% | |||
| Canada Post Corporation | 70% | 58% | |||
| Canada Revenue Agency | 71% | 72% | |||
| Canadian Air Transport Security Authority | 61% | * | |||
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency | 74% | 58% | |||
| Canadian Forces | 39% | 84% | |||
| Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation | 81% | ** | |||
| Canadian Tourism Commission | * | ** | |||
| CBC/Radio-Canada | 84% | 79% | |||
| Citizenship and Immigration Canada | 77% | 84% | |||
| Correctional Service Canada | 76% | 43% | |||
| Environment Canada | 69% | 70% | |||
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada | 75% | * | |||
| Health Canada | 68% | 51% | |||
| Indian and Northern Affairs Canada | 72% | * | |||
| Industry Canada | 75% | 73% | |||
| National Arts Centre | 81% | ** | |||
| National Capital Commission | 84% | ** | |||
| National Film Board of Canada | * | 89% | |||
| NAV CANADA | 53% | 72% | |||
| Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority | 60% | ** | |||
| Parks Canada Agency | 76% | * | |||
| Passport Canada | 80% | 94% | |||
| Public Health Agency of Canada | 69% | * | |||
| Public Works and Government Services Canada | 79% | 73% | |||
| Royal Canadian Mounted Police | 66% | 70% | |||
| Service Canada | 75% | 51% | |||
| Statistics Canada | 82% | * | |||
| Transport Canada | 75% | 76% | |||
| Western Economic Diversification Canada | * | ** | |||
| VIA Rail | 61% | 86% | |||
* Due to the small number of respondents, Statistics Canada asked the Commissioner not to use these results.
** No offices in this region.
*** National Defence provides for the choice of language of work in some of its units outside of regions designated bilingual for purposes of language of work. Francophone respondents came from bilingual units in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and the NCR. Anglophone respondents came from bilingual units in Quebec.
This year, as in previous years, the institutions obtained very good marks in terms of equitable participation. It should be mentioned, though, that the participation of Anglophones in Quebec remains a problem for some institutions. For instance, at Parks Canada, the participation rate is 1.3%, while at the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it is 1.8%.
Advancement of English and French
The performance report cards included the Commissioner’s evaluation of the way in which institutions meet their obligations under Part VII of the Act.
One of the evaluation criteria involves gauging the extent to which management committees of the institutions have obtained information for increasing their awareness of the amendments to the Act and encouraging them to begin thinking about the changes this entails. The information that was gathered shows that most committees had been given a presentation on the subject. In addition, among the institutions evaluated, 13 of the 16 institutions not required to report to Canadian Heritage now have coordinators responsible for Part VII or have formed a committee to coordinate the institution’s efforts to meet their new obligations. However, in many cases, institutions have still not been given the names of relevant liaison officers to official language community groups.
Twenty-three out of the 37 institutions that were evaluated for the performance report cards have still not begun examining their policies and programs to determine which ones could have an impact on the development of official language minority communities or the promotion of linguistic duality. Yet this examination is essential for the implementation of the amendments to the Act. Similarly, most institutions required to report to Canadian Heritage on Part VII do not systematically carry out an annual, structured consultation with official language communities in the regions and have not reviewed their action plan with them. At times, the consultation process amounts to sending the institution’s action plan to the associations and asking for feedback. The Commissioner expects more effort from institutions when it comes to consultation.
That being said, the institutions’ report cards reveal a number of measures liable to have a positive effect on the development of official language communities or the promotion of the equality of status and use of English and French. Such initiatives are often carried out because of the leadership shown by a regional manager. At the national level, two institutions in particular stand out for their leadership in implementing Part VII of the Act. Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Statistics Canada obtained an “Exemplary” rating in each of the two criteria. This should serve as a source of inspiration for other institutions.
Perhaps because such high importance was given to results this year and the criteria for Part VII were tightened, none of the 37 institutions obtained an overall “Exemplary” rating. The following list is a breakdown of the overall ratings:
- Good: 16 institutions (which belong mainly to the “social, cultural and other” portfolio)
- Average: 16 institutions (which belong mainly to the “economy” portfolio)
- Poor: 5 institutions (which all belong to the “transport and security” portfolio)
Service Canada received a “good” rating overall, but did not perform well when service delivery was observed in the field. Yet, this institution should serve as a model in this area. The Commissioner expects an improvement in these results next year.
