Conclusion
Page 6 of 9
During the audit, we sought to determine whether AAFC provides service to the public in both official languages, specifically to Canadian producers and citizens in rural areas, and whether the existing management framework and mechanisms allow the Department to fulfill its service-to-the-public obligations pursuant to the Official Languages Act.
It was noted that the Department has a structure in place to administer the official languages program, and that it has identified two champions for the program. These champions also chair an internal official languages committee. However, the audit revealed that AAFC does not have an accountability framework or a policy or guidelines for official languages, and that the goals of the existing action plan are insufficient to effectively implement Part IV of the Act.
With regard to accountability, managers of offices required to provide services in both official languages are not evaluated on the bilingual capacity or the quality of bilingual services provided by their offices.
Despite the efforts to familiarize staff with official language requirements, personnel are not all aware of their language responsibilities in terms of service delivery. Moreover, the language capacity of several offices in Western Canada falls short, particularly at the PFRA.
The results of our observations showed that most of the offices visited had exterior and interior signage in both official languages. With regard to the availability of publications in both official languages, there were problems in Atlantic and Western Canada. Several offices in Western Canada had no pictogram at the reception indicating that service is offered in both official languages. Furthermore, the staff answering the telephone in this region greeted clients in both official languages in only 55% of the offices. Finally, major shortcomings were noted concerning active offer in person across the country.
It was found that only 56% of the offices visited could provide satisfactory services in person in the official language of the minority, and only 65% over the telephone. The fact that a number of PFRA offices could not provide services in person and over the telephone in the official language of the minority undermines the Department’s overall performance. In Quebec, all the offices that were audited were able to provide satisfactory services in person and over the telephone in English.
Finally, AAFC does not consult the national and regional representatives of OLMCs to identify their particular needs as regards service to the public. Weaknesses were also noted concerning the language clauses in implementation, collateral and contribution agreements negotiated with other organizations. Moreover, the Department has no formal monitoring mechanism to ensure that it meets its language obligations when providing services.
The Commissioner has made eight recommendations to AAFC to improve service in both official languages at its designated bilingual offices. Certain measures have already been initiated by the Department to implement these recommendations.
