SUMMARY
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA (CIC)
Introduction:
This audit was performed by the Official Languages Branch (OLB)
of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC)1
as a follow up to an audit conducted in the year 2000 of the following seven
airports: Vancouver International Airport (Vancouver), Calgary
International Airport (Calgary), Winnipeg International Airport (Winnipeg),
Toronto Pearson International Airport (Toronto), Montreal-Dorval International
Airport (Montreal), Greater Moncton International Airport (Moncton) and Halifax
International Airport (Halifax). The goal of this audit is to determine whether
services at these airports allow the public to communicate and receive services
in the official language of their choice in compliance with the Official
Languages Act (OLA), the Official Languages
(Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (Regulations)
and Treasury Board (TB) official languages policy.
For the most part, findings for Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)2
were similar to those noted in the prior audit. CIC
Montreal continues to be exemplary in fulfilling its responsibilities under the OLA.
CIC Halifax and Moncton continue to perform adequately, and
have both experienced improvement in their capacity to provide continuous
service in both official languages. CIC Winnipeg
continues to fulfill its official language responsibilities except that its
capacity to provide bilingual services needs some improvement. Finally,
the performance of CIC Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto
continue to indicate that there is significant room for improvement in
fulfilling their responsibilities under the OLA.
Active Offer:
CIC Moncton, Montreal and Winnipeg are providing all forms
of active offer in both official languages in accordance with the OLA.
However, some areas of active offer were noted to have room for improvement at CIC
Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Halifax, such as active offer in person.
In addition, bilingual active offer was sometimes not provided over the
telephone by CIC Calgary. CIC
Toronto did not have any official language symbols visible, and a number of
postings were either in English only or contained errors in French.
Finally, CIC Vancouver had several postings in English only,
and there was no documentation on display in both official languages.
It is recommended that CIC Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and
Halifax improve its active offer in person (and by telephone for Calgary).
It is further recommended that postings and publications on display and
available to the travelling public at CIC Vancouver and
Toronto be improved as denoted above.
Service:
CIC Montreal and Moncton continue to provide commendable
services in both official languages. Further, CIC
Halifax has demonstrated marked improvement in its delivery of bilingual
services. However, CIC Winnipeg has shown a
slight deterioration in its ability to schedule bilingual staff on all work
shifts.
CIC Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto need to make
significant improvements in their provision of bilingual services, particularly
in their capacity to provide continuous service in both official
languages. Less than 15% of CIC staff in each of these
offices are bilingual, which makes it impossible to schedule bilingual staff on
all work shifts. It is further not possible to consistently schedule
bilingual staff during peak periods, rendering services completely
non-comparable. Finally, adequate administrative arrangements are not in
place for times when bilingual staff are not available.
It is recommended that CIC Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto
have adequate bilingual capacity in place to provide continuous and comparable
services in both official languages. In addition, adequate administrative
arrangements should be developed and implemented so that the public has access
to services in both official languages at all times.
The managers of CIC Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and
Toronto have expressed frustration in the recruitment, retention and scheduling
of bilingual staff. However, CIC Calgary and Winnipeg
are working actively towards adding more bilingual staff in the near future.
If CIC Toronto employees are to be encouraged to pursue
language training, it is recommended that the necessary financial resources
should be made available. In addition, an adequate number of temporary staff
brought on at peak periods at CIC Toronto should be
bilingual. Further, CIC Toronto should study the
possibility of using imperative staffing in accordance with government policy.
CIC Vancouver provides some services to the public through
a contractor that has no bilingual staff contrary to the official language
requirements of their agreement. In addition, CIC
Winnipeg has no language clause in its agreement with a contractor for the short
term detention of people who have been denied immigration. It is therefore
recommended that all contracts between CIC and third parties
pertaining to the travelling public contain sufficient official language
clauses. Further, a mechanism should be in place to annually evaluate
contractor compliance with official language requirements.
Managers’ Responsibilities:
CIC managers are well aware of their official language
requirements. However, CIC offices did not have
satisfactory controls nor monitoring mechanisms to ensure that bilingual
services are provided at all times. It is recommended that official
language monitoring mechanisms as well as mechanisms to assess client
satisfaction be developed and implemented to ensure the satisfactory provision
of services to the public in both official languages in accordance with the OLA,
the Regulations and TB official languages policy.
Conclusion:
It is recommended that an action plan (including a time-line) be prepared by CIC
Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto and forwarded to the OLB
describing how the denoted recommendations will be implemented. Further
details of the above findings and recommendations can be found in the detailed
reports “Audit of Service to the Public in Both Official Languages in seven
Airports Having a Significant Demand” dated February 2005 for the seven
above mentioned airports.
1
The Official Languages Branch, which used to be part of the Treasury Board
Secretariat, was transferred to the new Public Service Human Resources
Management Agency of Canada on December 12, 2003.
2
Please note that some sectors of CIC were transferred to
the new Canada Boarder Services Agency on December 12, 2003. However,
the details of these transfers were still unclear at the time the report was
being prepared. Consequently, it was deemed more practical to use the
organizational structure in place at the time the audit took place.
|
