This page has been archived.
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Annex A - List of Federal
Institutions visited
The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the degree of compliance by certain pre-selected federal institutions with the requirements of the Official Languages Act and the Treasury Board's information technology policy.
This report covers the objectives of the audit, its scope, the approach that was adopted, the institutions audited, and the conclusions reached.
The audit objectives were based on the Treasury Board's manual on information management and computer systems. This manual covers the obligations of federal institutions with respect to official languages and language of work.
The objectives were as follows:
We examined the availability, in the two official languages, of regularly and widely used computer systems at 14 federal institutions. These federal institutions were selected by the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
The following extracts from the Official Languages Act set the context for this audit.
35(1) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that
(a) within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or any place outside Canada, that is prescribed, work environments of the institution are conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees;
...
36(1) Every federal institution has the duty, within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or in any place outside Canada, that is prescribed for the purpose of paragraph 35(1)(a), to
...
(b) ensure that regularly and widely used automated systems for the processing and communication of data acquired or produced by the institution on or after January 1, 1991 can be used in either official language;
36(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that, within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or any place outside Canada, that is prescribed for the purpose of paragraph 35(1)(a), such measures are taken in addition to those required under subsection (1) as can reasonably be taken to establish and maintain a work environment for the institution that is conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodates the use of either official language by its officers and employees.
Our review took place mainly in the National Capital Region. At the beginning of the audit, it was expected that regional offices in Montréal and in northern and eastern Ontario would also be reviewed. However, Treasury Board's Evaluation, Audit and Review Group (EARG) decided to restrict the audit to the National Capital Region. The federal institutions examined were:
Canadian International Development Agency
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
National Archives of Canada
Passport Office
Office of the Auditor General
Elections Canada
Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Human Resources Development Canada
Department of Finance
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Industry Canada
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Public Works and Government Services Canada
The audit focused on microcomputers, minicomputers and mainframes. For each type of computer and information system, we examined compliance with Treasury Board policies.
The fieldwork took place from mid-January to the end of February 1996. We interviewed 75 managers, including 58 who were responsible for management of information systems.
We distributed 193 questionnaires to employees; of these, 163 (85%) were returned.
In addition, we reviewed the following documents:
The following related areas were also included in the scope of this audit:
Training
Help Service
Telework
Internet
Note that the audit concerned the use of the Internet in relation to the language of work, not service to the public.
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
The Supply Branch of PWGSC is mandated to provide common services to government departments and agencies in the area of procurement. This includes establishing needs, acquiring goods and services, developing standards and traffic management. The Branch is responsible for acquiring complex goods and services in the field of science and technology as well as commercial goods and services. It is also responsible for contracting out research and development work.
In our review of PWGSC, we therefore examined the following two matters:
Employee Survey
At each institution, we conducted a limited survey of employee satisfaction with respect to the availability, in both official languages, of regularly and widely used information technology systems, hardware and software. Participants were selected with the help of individuals responsible for official languages or for information management.
The participants had the following characteristics:
The results of the survey sometimes differed from our audit observations for the following reasons:
These factors must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Nevertheless, the results provide an indication of the difficulties experienced on a daily basis by employees in implementing guidelines on information technology and official languages.
We noted that employees generally do not make formal complaints even if they are aware of non-compliance with guidelines. Only occasionally were we told of a complaint that had been reported to an official languages service, or, in very unusual cases, to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
In general, departments, agencies and Crown corporations, as well as Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) as a central agency, are fulfilling their language responsibilities when procuring information technology goods and services.
In most cases, institutions purchase their own goods through Local Purchase Orders or Standing Offers. For purchases over $40,000, they draw on the expertise of PWGSC.
Most of the institutions we examined prepare calls for bids and contracts in English. However, where the supplier's choice of language is French, the document is translated.
PWGSC makes available to institutions all the information they need to procure goods and services in both official languages. Institutions can obtain advice from qualified PWGSC employees, and have access to the PWGSC bulletin board system and the Department's on-line manuals and other documents. However, the tests we made revealed that the listing of French language software is incomplete and that many products are missing, from suppliers such as Lotus, Borland, Delrina and Netscape Communications.
PWGSC does not monitor the institutions' acquisitions of goods and services in any way. Institutions establish their own specifications.
Results by Institution
Following is a brief summary, by institution, of the results of our audit and our main recommendations. Note that many of the institutions have taken positive action.
Some commercial and in-house software, and related the documentation, is not available in both official languages.
Help services are not available in both official languages, and Internet training is not always provided in both languages.
Help services of comparable quality are not available to both language groups within comparable timeframes.
The Internet is being used on a trial basis. Training, documentation and advice are offered only in English.
French Help services are not immediately available.
The Internet is being used on a trial basis in three branches. The software is only available in English. Training and manuals are available in both English and French, but some documentation is only provided in English.
To make training economically viable, it is given only when there are a minimum number of registrants. There is a longer waiting period for courses in French. Training material is available in both languages. However, we noted that the quality of the English and the French guides is not comparable. Some of the French guides are badly structured, incomplete, and poorly presented.
Help services are not of comparable quality in the two languages. Central Help offices offer both telephone and counter service in both languages, and voice mail recorded messages are bilingual. However some of the smaller Help offices only offer service in English.
Telework is being implemented on a trial basis at PWGSC. The Department is also marketing telework to other federal institutions. The person responsible for the project speaks only English. The documentation, which is in draft form, is for the most part available in both languages.
Most of the institutions have their own policies on information technology. However, we found that none of them cover official languages in their information management plans.
Generally, stand-alone computer keyboards have characters with French accents. In some instances departments purchase TBITS-5 (Treasury Board Information Technology Standards) keyboards. The keyboards on portable computers rarely have accented French characters. Instead, transparent labels with accents are often used. This is not an ideal solution and should only be considered as a temporary measure.
We observed that many employees are still using ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) numbers to produce French characters with accents. This inefficient method, which prevailed in the 1980s, reveals that employees are poorly informed. It also demonstrates that delays in implementing appropriate work tools, and lack of awareness that such tools exist, have an impact on the work habits of employees for many years afterwards.
Display and printing of accented French characters is not a problem in most federal institutions. However, we were informed on several occasions that Internet e-mail does not show accented characters. This situation will be corrected in the near future with improved technology and software.
Many e-mail products developed some years ago in the United States were encoded with 7 bits. They handle only 128 characters, which is barely sufficient to include the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet in upper and lower case along with some symbols. They cannot handle accented characters. Consequently, these products support only the English language. The most recent e-mail products encode documents in 8 bits, which doubles the code capacity to 256 characters. These products can handle most Western languages. Increasingly, applications support 16 bits and some of them even support 32 bits. The acquisition of improved technology should assist in solving this problem.
At almost all the audited institutions, user guides (either on-line or on paper) for common systems were for the most part in the language specified at the time the equipment was purchased. A problem arises when such equipment is re-assigned to a user whose language preference differs. In these circumstances, the user guides no longer respect the employee's language preference. However, users informed us that they rarely refer to these guides.
While the number of quality applications available in both French and English increases every year, many are not yet available in both languages. English-only applications are often used on a daily basis by employees of both linguistic groups, though from what we were told, this does not affect their preferred language of work. The problems most frequently noted among IT services personnel at the institutions were the following:
Most employees have learned to work using the English versions of the software. Many of them wish to continue using this environment even though they process their documents in French, but they would like access to all the utilities which are available in French.
At most of the audited institutions, commercial software user guides are in both languages when the software itself is in both languages. Guides for operational personnel are also in both languages. However operating and maintenance procedures are most often in English only, because of where the products were manufactured. This was the case at almost all the institutions.
Regarding training, the institutions sometimes impose restrictions. So software and hardware may only be available in the language of the course, or the choice of language may be left to the instructor. Some employees reported that even courses scheduled to be given in French were ultimately given in English simply because the instructor felt more at ease in English, or because one English-speaking participant requested it, or because the hardware and software being used by the instructor were in English. In most cases, highly technical courses are given in English only. To take them in French, employees must go to Quebec, which entails travel costs.
We recommend that the institutions' official languages services:
- services available in the two official languages
- respect for employees' choice of language
- delivery of services of comparable quality in the two
languages
- availability in both languages of messages e-mailed to groups
of employees
We recommend that the institutions' IT services:
We recommend that Public Works and Government Services Canada: