SUMMARY
Audit of Service to the Public in Both Official Languages
in Seven Airports Having a Significant Demand
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) 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) 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.