TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT
Official Languages Audit
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AUDIT

Published in March 1998

Table of Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Objectives
3.	Scope
4.	Approach
5.	Summary of Audit Results
6.	Conclusion
7.	Recommendations
APPENDIX A
List of Federal Institutions visited

1.	Introduction
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.

2.	Objectives
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:
–	to determine to what extent 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;
–	to determine, for each institution selected, the availability, in both official languages, of regularly and widely used computer systems, hardware and software;
–	to determine the degree of employee satisfaction, using a sample of employees from both language groups in the institutions and regions covered by the audit; and
–	to develop recommendations which will help federal institutions improve compliance with their obligations, and help the Official Languages and Employment Equity Branch (OLEEB) provide assistance and advice to these institutions.

3.	Scope
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

4.	Approach
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 institutions’ information management plan, with respect to the strategy for implementing information management and procuring information technology
–	the institutions’ internal policies and directives regarding the language of commercial and in‑house software, keyboards, printers and manuals
–	contracts for the acquisition of IT goods and services

The following related areas were also included in the scope of this audit:
Training
–	respect for the employee’s choice of language when being trained 
–	the quality of training depending on the language used and selected by the employee, and the quality of training materials
–	the timing of training in each language
–	the linguistic competence of the instructors
Help Service
–	the service's ability to answer requests in both official languages
–	measures taken to ensure that services are provided at all times in both official languages
–	other, for example complaints about the language of work, especially complaints relating to computer systems, training, Help service, etc
Telework
–	the conditions governing telework arrangements, including the number of employees involved and the measures taken to ensure respect for the preferred language of teleworking employees
Internet
–	the availability of documentation and instructions concerning the use of the Internet (user manuals, training, orientation provided to staff, etc.)
Note that the audit concerned the use of the Internet in relation to the language of work, not service to the public.
–	other, for example complaints about the language of work, especially complaints relating to information systems, training, Help services, etc
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: 
–	to what extent the audited institutions communicate to PWGSC, as well as to their suppliers, their linguistic requirements concerning proposed information technology acquisitions, and to what extent these linguistic requirements comply with official languages policies and guidelines
–	PWGSC’s role in procuring information technology for the institutions, and the measures in place to comply with official languages policies and guidelines and the institutions' requirements 
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 majority were French‑speaking employees.
–	They were aware of the issue of using French versions of software.
–	In most cases, they were known to the individuals responsible for official languages or for information management, because they had previously raised issues relating to IT management and official languages.
The results of the survey sometimes differed from our audit observations for the following reasons:
–	lack of information: for example, employees might not have been informed of the availability of software in both official languages
–	lack of knowledge: for example, employees might not know how to produce characters with French accents using bilingual or unilingual keyboards
–	failure to understand the topic
–	failure to understand the questionnaire, which some might find complex in certain respects
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.

5.	Summary of Audit Results
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.
–	The Canadian International Development Agency should make available to employees, in the language of their choice, Internet access software which is available in both languages. 
–	Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada has only the English version of some of the most commonly used commercial applications, such as Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel and Group Wise. In addition, some specialized courses are offered in English only. 
–	At the National Archives of Canada, some employees indicated that the word processing programs they use do not display accented French characters. This has been reported but so far no corrective action has been taken. 
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.
–	At the Passport Office, the e‑mail software does not produce characters with French accents. In addition, hardware – which may be passed from one employee to another – does not always meet Treasury Board standards, and the software documentation made available to employees is not always of comparable quality in English and French.
–	At the Office of the Auditor General, most of the audited keyboards do not have accented French characters. In addition, some in-house software is only available in English. 
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.
–	At Citizenship and Immigration Canada, keyboards tested did not have accented French characters. In addition, several of the commercial applications are available only in English and do not provide French characters.
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.
–	At the Office of the Information Commissioner, Help services are only available in English.
–	The Office of the Privacy Commissioner should provide employees with Internet software and documentation in their language of choice. 
–	At the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, some applications and the related documentation, for example Ami Pro, Lotus 123, Lotus Organizer and ccMail, are not available in both official languages or in the employee’s language of choice.
–	At Human Resources Development Canada, we noticed a large quantity of English‑only keyboards. In addition, some users reported that they did not have access to the French versions of commercial software such as WordPerfect and Beyond Mail.
–	Elections Canada uses certain common commercial applications that do not allow for screen display or printing of accented French characters, such as Fox Pro and Shark Mail. In addition, it was reported that in some of the training sessions, documentation is distributed in English only.
–	At the Department of Finance, keyboards of some portable computers do not have French characters with accents. In addition, instructors are offering “bilingual” courses where participants ask questions in the language of their choice, but the content of the course is in English. The Department should ensure that the training offered to employees respects their language of choice at all times.
–	At Industry Canada, some French‑speaking employees still have access only to English keyboards. Our survey indicated that the quality of training was not comparable in both official languages. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that training material is not available in the employee’s language of choice.
–	At the Canadian Museum of Civilization, none of the keyboards we tested had French characters. In addition, we were told that certain courses are only offered in English. 
–	At Public Works and Government Services Canada, many of the keyboards for desktop and portable computers do not have French accented characters. Most of the user guides for the stand‑alone computers are in English only. Employees are given the English version of software without being offered the French version. When employees want the French version, they must request it from their managers.
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.

6.	Conclusion
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: 
–	They are not aware of the existence of French versions of Group Wise, Delrina Fax, Lotus, Norton Anti Virus, etc.
–	They do not inform employees of the existence of French versions of software.
–	They do not know how to install, in an economical way, both the French and English versions of WordPerfect, for example, on an employee's hard drive. 
–	Because of the cost, they are reticent about purchasing such applications. 
–	Due to an incorrect evaluation of demand, they purchase only a limited number of French software licences. 
–	They do not install the French spelling and grammar correctors with the English word processors even though these are available.
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.

7.	Recommendations
We recommend that the institutions’ official languages services: 
–	remind managers of their roles and responsibilities for implementing the Official Languages Program;
–	ensure that the rights of employees and their choice of language of work are respected at all times;
–	ensure that employees are provided with work instruments in the language of their choice (keyboards, software, documentation, training, Help service, telework etc);
–	establish effective control mechanisms and perform regular checks regarding: 
–	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: 
–	acquire only hardware which meets Treasury Board standards on official languages if there is a possibility that it will be assigned to employees of both language groups during its useful life; 
–	provide employees with needed equipment, such as keyboards, in the language of their choice; 
–	inform employees of the language choices available for software, and provide them with software in both languages or in the employee's language of choice, when available;
–	provide employees, on request, with software documentation and manuals in the language of their choice;
–	regularly count requests for courses, manuals and software in English and in French, and ensure that training offered to employees respects their language of choice at all times;
–	ensure that Help services are available at all times and are of comparable quality in the two official languages; 
–	invite employees to comment on the impact technology has on their ability to work in the language of choice and inform them regularly of how to make the most effective use of existing technology.
We recommend that Public Works and Government Services Canada: 
–	ensure that information provided to institutions about software is accurate.

List of Federal Institutions visited

	1.	Canadian International Development Agency
	2.	Agriculture and Agri-food Canada - National Capital Region
	3.	National Archives of Canada
	4.	Passport Office - National Capital Region
	5.	Office of the Auditor General - National Capital Region
	6.	Citizenship and Immigration Canada - National Capital Region
	7.	Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners
	8.	Natural Sciences and Engineering - Research Council of Canada
	9.	Human Resources Development Canada - National Capital Region
	10.	Elections Canada
	11.	Department of Finance
	12.	Industry Canada - National Capital Region
	13.	Canadian Museum of Civilization
	14.	Public Works and Government Services Canada - National Capital Region