Previous Page   Next Page   Table of Contents   Report Index

 

3.  FINDINGS

3.1  Overview

The Audit Team found that the three Sections under review were generally effective and efficient in carrying out their roles.  Few problems of an operational nature were found.  A number of issues were identified, however, that we believe require management attention.

The audit of Legislative Services reviewed the management framework in terms of planning, organizing, controlling, directing and communicating.  Subject to the findings set out below, the audit found no significant or systemic problems in these areas of inquiry.  A number of issues relating to the management framework were addressed in the Phase I audit report.  Additional issues such as quality control are discussed in greater detail in this report.  The audit did not examine the management of financial or materiel resources.

3.2  Client Satisfaction with Editing, Jurilinguistic, and Informatics Services

Client satisfaction with the services provided by the Legislative Services Branch was examined in detail in Phase I.  Clients were generally very satisfied with the services being provided to them.  Client departments, of course, usually deal directly and exclusively with the Branch counsel and would have difficulty in most cases discerning the specific contribution of revisors, jurilinguists and Informatics Services staff.  However, it is clear that the quality of services provided by these personnel is a critical factor in determining the quality of services provided by the Branch.  Consequently the overall high level of client satisfaction with the services of the Branch reflects satisfaction with the work of the revisors and jurilinguists and the inputs of the Informatics Services.

In the context of Phase II of the audit, the appropriate clients are to some degree the Legislation Section and the Regulations Section themselves.  The auditors heard concerns regarding a perceived shortage of editorial and jurilinguistic services and a need for improved communication, especially between French and English revisors and jurilinguists.  The latter point is discussed in greater detail below.  In general, however, the Legislation and Regulations Sections were well satisfied with the services being provided by revisors and jurilinguists.  Service from the Informatics Services is discussed below.

The audit, through both the Phase I and Phase II enquiries, found that appropriateness of interfaces with other organizations, including the Legislation and Regulations Sections, is generally satisfactory.  Some specific issues are discussed below.

3.3  Client Satisfaction with Informatics Services

Our interviews indicated there is a high level of satisfaction with the responsiveness of Informatics Services to problems identified with the network or with individual PCs.  Staff appeared to have a great deal of respect for the abilities of the Informatics Services staff.  However, concerns were expressed regarding the lack of informatics-related training for drafters, revisors, and jurilinguists.  Such training is particularly important given the number of new drafters that have been recently hired.  We were told that the efforts to introduce LIMS have consumed the resources of Informatics Services, and that other areas (such as the provision of training) are not being addressed.  While it is anticipated that LIMS, when implemented, will significantly reduce the workload in some areas, such as the Database Management Unit and, to some extent, in Legislative Editing, training in the use of LIMS will need to be provided.

As noted in the Phase I report, there is a need in the Regulations Section to make full use of macros and templates and ensure that those that are developed by individual drafters are made available to their colleagues including those in satellite offices.  At the present time, some drafters create macros, but they do not necessarily make them widely available to their colleagues.  The need for such efficiencies will be increased as the Section is called upon more often to draft from instructions and to draft regulations to accompany bills being introduced into Parliament.  Not only should macros be shared more consistently, but new, user-friendly macros should be developed wherever possible.

Discussions with members of the Database Management Services unit indicated that unit has been relying on manual checking procedures in order to ensure data reliability and to control different versions of bills.  Staff of the unit review each amending act or regulation, then follow the instructions set out in the act or regulation, inputting the required changes into the master database version of the legislation, thus creating a consolidated version.  In the absence of technological solutions (which did not exist previously), this process and the inefficiencies associated with it are unavoidable.  We were advised, however, that LIMS has the potential to automate part of this process, offering significant advantages in terms of efficiency and also improving the information available to system users.  (LIMS could allow a user to ask the system to display a consolidated version of an act or regulation at any particular point in time in the past, a valuable feature not available from the existing database).  Automation of a significant portion of the functions now performed manually by the Database Management Services unit clearly has important human resource implications for the unit and potentially for Editing Services.  In addition, introduction of LIMS has broader implications for shifting to use of the electronic database as the official version of the federal government's law and regulations.  The audit confirmed that Branch management are aware of all these implications, although they have not developed strategies for addressing the issues since, at the time of the audit, the full functionality of, and implementation timetable for, the LIMS system had not been finalized.

Recommendations and Management Response

1.	The Branch should develop and implement an informatics training plan that includes LIMS for all employees. I agree with this recommendation. By the end of April 2001, we will have clearly identified training needs in the Branch in the area of informatics, especially with respect to LIMS. And this will be coordinated with the training plan established for the Branch by John Mark Keyes.
2.	The Regulations Section should explore greater use of templates and macros and ensure that existing examples are shared among drafters, and revisors and jurilinguists who are preparing drafts. I agree with the essence of this recommendation. As part of our new LIMS system, the Branch as a whole will establish an inventory of its most reliable macros and make them available to everyone.
3.	When the functionality of LIMS has been settled and its human resource and other implications for the Legislative Services Branch more fully understood, Branch management should implement strategies that will ensure employee participation in planning and managing the transition to the new system. I agree with the essence of this recommendation. The Branch is currently in the process of setting up a steering committee on LIMS. The Committee will include all key players in the Branch and also some representatives of other sectors of the Department, such as the Information Management Branch and the Communications and Executive Services Branch. LIMS implications for the Branch will be discussed at that forum and appropriate decisions made after appropriate consultations.

3.4  Functions of Jurilinguists and Revisors

The audit found that, although there are distinctions in both design and practice, jurilinguists and revisors do have some overlapping responsibilities.  We believe that the nature of the two functions is, in fact, evolving and that further changes are inevitable as the newly expanded Jurilinguist unit gains experience and as new technology has an impact.  However, we do not recommend that Branch management take immediate action to change the internal organization of the Branch or to re-define the job functions either to distinguish or to consolidate the two classes of positions.  As is discussed below, the distinctions in functions are subtle in some cases, and are determined to some extent by the nature and predominance of the language used in the development of draft bills and regulations.  This results in a complex and somewhat fluid arrangement for dividing and processing work, which, although not consistent organizationally, continues to provide the operational effectiveness required by the Legislative Services Branch.  Although fluidity can be a strength, the audit did also find that it can be source of tension  among staff, a concern addressed further below.

At present, the Branch legislative revisors are primarily concerned with reviewing draft statutes and regulations "vertically," that is within each language version, for consistency, language, and style.  They also deal with accuracy of language, formatting, and they handle printing arrangements.  Jurilinguists, who are primarily responsible for ensuring the linguistic and stylistic quality of legislative texts, also carry the responsibility of researching, developing, and recommending specialized terminology for legal concepts.  Jurilinguists also carry out the "horizontal" review of the legislation: a comparison between French and English versions.  We were told, however, that some revisors also do research and advise on terminology, especially in English because until recently, there was no English jurilinguist on staff.

Jurilinguists and revisors perform different roles in the drafting of French and English statutes and regulations.  Jurilinguists play a more active role in French drafting, in part because most of the departmental clients of the Branch work predominantly in English throughout the policy development and legislative drafting process (acts and regulations).  Both preliminary drafts of regulations and drafting instructions pertaining to regulations are often prepared first in English and then translated into French by the client.  Consequently, comparatively more effort is required by the Branch to determine appropriate French terminology and help ensure the integrity of the French draft.  This can include researching foreign legislation.

In the absence of English language jurilinguists, English language drafters in both the Legislation and Regulations Sections have relied primarily on English Language revisors for any linguistic or drafting-related support services.  The audit team was advised that, in some exceptional instances, drafters in the Regulations Section have been passing on to revisors drafts prepared by departments without first reviewing these drafts.  In such cases, the initial review and revision work is left to the revisors.  The drafters later vet the resulting draft and, of course, carry out their advisory role regarding the vires of the regulation and its conformity with applicable legal and drafting standards.

Although this approach could be both cost-effective and efficient in certain cases (e.g., where there is a high degree of confidence in the draft or where the revisor has highly developed "paralegal" drafting skills), we believe that caution should be exercised.  The lack of an initial legal review could actually cause delays where, for example, the client department needs to rethink its regulatory approach or consider alternative courses of action, due to unrecognized limitations in the enabling legislation.  There is an opportunity for management to examine the intake process and develop criteria for deciding whether early Regulations Section drafter involvement is advisable or whether a draft text can be forwarded directly to the revisors without additional legal review.

The audit found that there is some confusion among revisors and jurilinguists about their respective roles, which in some situations appear to be similar.  The audit also found some degree of confusion about differentiation in the roles of these two groups during interviews with drafters.  We were told that, in some cases, the fact that revisors and jurilinguists worked on the same text sequentially might have resulted in the drafters receiving apparently conflicting advice.  As is discussed above, English revisors sometimes performed roles similar to those of the French language jurilinguists, particularly when there was no English language jurilinguist in the Branch.

The lack of clarity with respect to roles is a source of tension among the revisors and jurilinguists.  This is exacerbated by differences in classification levels and the manner in which the two positions are used in the drafting of English vs. French legislation.  To date, there have been no significant operational problems due to these tensions, but the audit team is concerned that issues pertaining to roles, classifications, and the use of paralegals (see below) could impair the effectiveness and efficiency of the units and the Branch as a whole over the long-term.

Recommendations and Management Response

4.	Regulations Section Management should examine the intake process of draft regulations from client departments and determine criteria for involving drafters early in the process. I agree with the essence of this recommendation. Except for those cases that are clearly earmarked for the legislative paralegal stream, all regulations files go to lawyers first and must be examined by them before being submitted to either legislative revisors or jurilinguists.
5.	Legislative Services Branch Management should examine the evolving roles of jurilinguists and revisors and develop a strategy aimed at reconciling the roles and responsibilities of these two groups. Such an examination should take account of the potential for greater use of paralegal services, addressed in Recommendation 6. I agree with the essence of this recommendation. Our Branch Strategic Plan provides for the development, before the end of this calendar year, of a communications package whose purpose will be to explain to all Branch employees the different roles that are exercised in the Branch and how these various roles interact with and complement each other. The package will definitely clarify the respective roles of the legislative revisors and the jurilinguists.

(continued)

 

Previous Page   Next Page   Table of Contents   Report Index