Annual Report on Official Languages 2014-15

ISSN: 1486-9683
Catalogue No. BT23-1F-PDF

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,
represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2015

Table of Contents

Message From the President of the Treasury Board

The Honourable Scott Brison

The Honourable Scott Brison
President of the Treasury Board

I am pleased to table in Parliament this 27th Annual Report on Official Languages for fiscal year 2014–15. This report describes the Government of Canada’s efforts to ensure that Canada’s two official languages continue to be an integral part of our everyday operations.

I am committed to working with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to ensure that all federal government services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act. To achieve this, through the Official Languages Centre of Excellence in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we will strengthen the use of Canada’s two official languages.

We are continuing the review of the language obligations of federal offices under the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. This helps ensure that federal institutions have the right people in the right places to best serve Canadians in the official language of their choice.

I invite you to read this report to see how the Government of Canada is putting into practice our commitment to Canada’s official languages.

Original signed by

The Honourable Scott Brison, P.C., M.P.
President of the Treasury Board

Introduction

The Official Languages Act (the Act) requires that the President of the Treasury Board report on the status of official languages programs in federal institutions subject to Parts IV, V and VI of the Act.

The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (the OCHRO) provides support for some 200 federal institutions subject to the Act—those that are part of the core public administration as well as Crown corporations, privatized organizations, separate agencies and other public institutions—so that they can meet their obligations under the Act.

Deputy heads have the primary responsibility for human resources management in their respective organizations. They must ensure that their institutions

  • develop and maintain a corporate culture that is conducive to the use of both official languages;
  • have the capacity to communicate with the Canadian public and public servants in both official languages; and
  • maintain a public service workforce that accurately reflects the two official language communities.

This 27th annual report presents the status of the programs relating to the implementation of Parts IV, V and VI of the Act in 2014–15, with respect to the federal institutions for which the Treasury Board has responsibility under section 46 of the Act.

Status of Official Languages Programs

Offering official languages programs in federal organizations is a fundamental part of human resources management and delivering services to the Canadian public. Federal institutions must submit to the OCHRO an official languages review at least once every three years. This fiscal year marks the first year of a new three-year cycle. Sixty-eight organizations.Footnote 1 were required to submit a review on the elements related to the application of Parts IV, V and VI of the Act. All did so except the Canadian Wheat Board, which was in the final stages of privatization.

Methodology

Institutions were required to report on the following elements:

  • communications with and services to the public in both official languages;
  • language of work;
  • human resources management;
  • governance; and
  • monitoring of official languages programs.

These five elements were assessed primarily through multiple-choice questions. However, the number of questions was reduced for small institutions,Footnote 2 to lighten their reporting burden.

Narrative questions were used to gather more detailed information about the elements, including the following aspects:

  • institutions’ official languages capacity;
  • official languages in the context of strategic and operational reviews;
  • measures taken in large institutions and key institutions to ensure governance of the official languages function, as well as the expected results of these measures.

The sections below provide an overview of the status of the official languages programs in the 67 institutions that submitted reviews. The statistical tables in this report reflect the results for these federal institutions.Footnote 3

Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations Reapplication Exercise

The Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (the Regulations) oblige all federal institutions to undertake the reapplication exercise (the Regulations Exercise) every 10 years, following the release of data on first official language spoken from the most recent decennial census. The Regulations Exercise updates the language obligations of federal offices offering services to the public, thereby ensuring that offices are designated bilingual where there is significant demand for services in the minority language, based on thresholds set out in the Regulations.

In 2014–15, institutions continued to review the application of the Regulations, which began following the release of the language data from the 2011 Census on .

To update the language obligations of their offices, federal institutions follow a three-stage process:

  • Phase I: Institutions examine the census data on the size and proportion of the official language minority population in the census areas in which their offices are located. Some institutions are also required to consider the number of people they serve at their offices;
  • Phase II: Institutions examine the census data on the size and proportion of the official language minority population in the broader area served by each affected office; and
  • Phase III: Institutions gather data on the language preferences of the public they serve at a specific location.

The first phase of the Regulations Exercise, which involved a systematic review of the language obligations of 10,240 federal offices subject to the Regulations, was completed in January 2014. Phase II of the exercise, which affected about 1,500 offices from 48 institutions, was completed in summer 2014, and the results were released on .

Activities

In 2014—15, the OCHRO supported institutions in the application of the Directive on the Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. Specifically, the OCHRO was involved in the following activities:

  • preparing three strategic updates for the Human Resources Council;
  • distributing a communications strategy for reporting the results of the Regulations Exercise, which can be adapted to the needs of each institution, as applicable; and
  • providing interpretation, advice and individualized support in response to institutions’ requests.

Discussions on the results of Phase II took place in spring 2015 with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Quebec Community Groups Network and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Results

In the first two phases of the Regulations Exercise, 89 per cent of the targeted offices were reviewed, including all of the Canada Post offices; and the language obligations for communications with and services to the public were determined. Burolis, the federal government database that lists the offices of federal institutions where Canadians can obtain services in their official language, is updated regularly to reflect the progress of the exercise.

Figure 1. Status of the offices and service locations under the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise
status of the offices and service locations under the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise. Text version below:
Figure 1 - Text version

Phase 1 – Automatic rules (completed in ): 7,880 offices and service points; Phase 2 – Service areas (completed in ): 1,223 offices; Phase 3 – Measure of demand (in progress until fall 2016): 1,035 offices; 1,277 offices are not included in the Regulations reapplication exercise and are automatically bilingual; and 102 offices have been removed from the exercise.

As of , no change has been made to the linguistic designation of 8,944 offices, or 98.3 per cent of the 9,102 offices reviewed:

  • 2,155 offices continue to be designated bilingual for the purposes of communications with and services to the public; and
  • 6,789 offices continue to provide communications with and services to the public in one official language.

However, 84 offices of the 9,102 offices whose language obligations were reviewed have been newly designated bilingual, while 74 others are not or will no longer be required to provide services in both official languages. The majority of these 158 offices are Canada Post service locations across the country.

In Quebec, 21 offices are or will become bilingual, and 18 others are or will be newly designated unilingual, the majority of these offices being Canada Post service locations.

Some 2,000 other federal offices are automatically designated bilingual under section 22 or 24 of the Act; therefore, they are not included in the Regulations Exercise. It is also worth mentioning that since the start of this exercise, 102 federal offices have been removed from the exercise for a variety of reasons (e.g., discontinuation of services, consolidation, move to another location).

Figure 2. Impact of Phases I and II of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise on the federal offices and service locations as a whole
Impact of Phases I and II of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise on the federal offices and service locations as a whole. Text version below:
Figure 2 - Text version

There was no change in linguistic obligations after Phase 1 and Phase 2 for 10,221 offices and service points, which represents 89 per cent of all offices; 84 offices are newly bilingual after Phase 1 and Phase 2, or 0.73 per cent; 74 offices are no longer bilingual after Phase 1 and Phase 2, or 0.64 per cent; 1,035 offices must measure the demand to determine linguistic obligations (Phase 3); and 102 offices have been removed from the Regulations Exercise, or 0.89 per cent.

The proportion of bilingual offices and service locations has remained unchanged at 34.2 per cent since the start of the Regulations Exercise. Following Phases I and II of the exercise, it is estimated that more than 90 per cent of the official language minority population is able to receive federal services nearby in the minority language. This does not include online services, toll-free telephone lines and other types of service delivery available in both official languages across Canada at all times.

Next Steps

Offices with new language obligations must put in place the measures necessary to provide bilingual services within one year:

  • the deadline for offices with new obligations following Phase I was and
  • the deadline for offices with new obligations following Phase II was .

However, for offices that are no longer required to provide bilingual services, the Directive on the Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations states that the minority language community must be consulted on the terms and conditions of the cessation of bilingual services, the date the services will stop, and the location of offices where the minority community can receive services in its language. The Directive gives institutions up to two years to carry out these consultations. Bilingual services continue to be provided until the consultations are held.

Phase III of the Regulations Exercise has begun and is expected to continue until the middle of 2016—17:

  • as of , Phase III began for 853 offices providing services to a restricted or identifiable clientele, such as veterans or the inmate population, or that are subject to special circumstances in the Regulations, for example the travelling public—several offices have completed this phase;
  • following Phase II results, 182 additional offices began assessing the demand for services in both official languages on
  • federal offices have a two-year period to complete Phase III; and
  • the final results for the entire exercise should be known early in 2017.

As of , Burolis is being updated quarterly to reflect changes in the language obligations of offices and service locations.

Communications With and Services to the Public

As of , federal institutions had 11,383 offices and service locations, of which 3,986 (35 per cent) were required to offer services to the public in both official languages.Footnote 4

Based on the 2014–15 reviews, almost all of the institutions that were assessed (97 per cent) reported that, in bilingual offices for the purposes of communications with and services to the public, oral communications nearly always or very often occur in the official language chosen by the public. However, this percentage falls to 93 per cent in small institutions.

Ninety-nine per cent of the institutions said that written communications nearly always or very often occur in the official language chosen by the public. In small institutions, this percentage is 97 per cent.

Figure 3a. Institutions’ responses for: Frequency of oral and written communications in the official language chosen by the public when the office is bilingual - Oral communications

Figure 3a. Institutions’ responses for: Frequency of oral and written communications in the official language chosen by the public when the office is bilingual - Oral communications. Text version below:
Figure 3a - Text version

Nearly always: 52 institutions, or 84 per cent; very often: 8 institutions, or 13 per cent; often: no institutions, or 0 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: 1 institution, or 2 per cent.

Figure 3b. Institutions’ responses for: Frequency of oral and written communications in the official language chosen by the public when the office is bilingual - Written communications

Institutions’ responses for: Frequency of oral and written communications in the official language chosen by the public when the office is bilingual - Written communications. Text version below:
Figure 3b - Text version

Nearly always: 55 institutions, or 89 per cent; very often: 6 institutions, or 10 per cent; often: no institutions, or 0 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Eighty-nine per cent of institutions stated they ensure that in bilingual offices all communications material is nearly always or very often produced and simultaneously issued in full in both official languages. For small institutions, this is the case more than three quarters of the time (78 per cent).

Figure 4. Institutions’ responses for: All communications material is produced and simultaneously issued in full in both official languages when the material comes from a bilingual office
Institutions’ responses for: All communications material is produced and simultaneously issued in full in both official languages when the material comes from a bilingual office. Text version below:
Figure 4 - Text version

Nearly always: 53 institutions, or 83 per cent; very often: 4 institutions, or 6 per cent; often: 4 institutions, or 6 per cent; sometimes: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Nearly all of the institutions questioned (95 per cent) stated that the English and French versions of their websites are simultaneously posted in full, and are nearly always or very often of equal quality. This is the case for 90 per cent of small institutions.

Figure 5. Institutions’ responses for: The English and French versions of websites are simultaneously posted in full and are of equal quality
Institutions’ responses for: The English and French versions of websites are simultaneously posted in full and are of equal quality. Text version below:
Figure 5 - Text version

Nearly always: 61 institutions, or 92 per cent; very often: 2 institutions, or 3 per cent; often: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: 1 institution, or 2 per cent.

Federal institutions have various ways to ensure the active offer of communications with and services to the public in both official languages in bilingual offices. The Policy on Official Languages defines active offer as follows: “Clearly indicate visually and verbally that members of the public can communicate with and obtain services from a designated office in either English or French”.

A total of 92 per cent of all institutions stated that the signs identifying the institution’s offices are nearly always in both official languages. This is the case for 85 per cent of the small institutions that submitted a review.

Figure 6. Institutions’ responses for: Signs identifying the institution’s offices or facilities are in both official languages at all locations
Institutions’ responses for: Signs identifying the institution’s offices or facilities are in both official languages at all locations. Text version below:
Figure 6 - Text version

Nearly always: 60 institutions, or 92 per cent; very often: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; often: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

A smaller number of institutions indicated that they take appropriate measures to greet the public in person in both official languages: 83 per cent of institutions nearly always take appropriate measures (82 per cent for small institutions), and 10 per cent of institutions very often take such measures (4 per cent for small institutions).

Figure 7. Institutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in person in both official languages
Institutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in person in both official languages. Text version below:
Figure 7 - Text version

Nearly always: 52 institutions, or 83 per cent; very often: 6 institutions, or 10 per cent; often: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent; sometimes: no institutions, or 0 per cent; almost never: 2 institutions, or 3 per cent.

The vast majority of institutions stated that when interacting with the public by telephone, they nearly always (89 per cent) or very often (5 per cent) answer in both official languages. The results are slightly lower for small institutions (86 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively).

Figure 8. Institutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in both official languages over the telephone
Institutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in both official languages over the telephone. Text version below:
Figure 8 - Text version

Nearly always: 58 institutions, or 89 per cent; very often: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent; often: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; sometimes: no institutions, or 0 per cent; almost never: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent.

Almost all institutions reported that recorded messages are nearly always (91 per cent) or very often (5 per cent) bilingual. When the results for all institutions are broken down, large and key institutions demonstrate very high results (94 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively), while small institutions demonstrate lower results at 86 per cent and 4 per cent, respectively.

Figure 9. Institutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in both official languages in recorded messages
nstitutions’ responses for: Appropriate measures are taken to greet the public in both official languages in recorded messages. Text version below:
Figure 9 - Text version

Nearly always: 58 institutions, or 91 per cent; very often: 3 institutions, or 5 per cent; often: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: 1 institution, or 2 per cent.

Large and key institutions stated that contracts and agreements with third parties acting on behalf bilingual offices contain clauses setting out their language obligations (77 per cent, nearly always; 14 per cent, very often). A lower number of these institutions said they ensure that measures are taken to verify that the language clauses are respected (59 per cent, nearly always; 24 per cent, very often). Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Oshawa Port Authority reported that they did not conclude any contracts or agreements with third parties to Act on their behalf.

All institutions stated that they nearly always (97 per cent) or very often (3 per cent) select and use media that reach the targeted public in the most efficient way possible.

Language of Work

In regions designated bilingual for language of work purposes, the majority of the institutions reporting in 2014–15 stated that meetings are nearly always (38 per cent) or very often (38 per cent) conducted in both official languages and that employees may use the official language of their choice. In contrast, 61 per cent of small institutions indicated that this is nearly always the case, and 11 per cent stated that this is very often the case. Fourteen institutions responded that the question did not apply to them because they do not have offices in bilingual regions.

Figure 10. Institutions’ responses for: Meetings are conducted in both official languages, and employees may use the official language of their choice
Institutions’ responses for: Meetings are conducted in both official languages, and employees may use the official language of their choice. Text version below:
Figure 10 - Text version

Nearly always: 20 institutions, or 38 per cent; very often: 20 institutions, or 38 per cent; often: 8 institutions, or 15 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: 4 institutions, or 8 per cent.

Two thirds of the institutions (68 per cent) stated that the incumbents of bilingual or either/or positions are nearly always supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of whether the supervisors are located in bilingual or unilingual regions. A quarter of the institutions (25 per cent) reported that this is very often the case. In small institutions, this is nearly always the case for 83 per cent of them, and very often the case for 6 per cent.

Figure 11. Institutions’ responses for: Incumbents of bilingual or either/or positions are supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of whether the supervisors are located in bilingual or unilingual regions
Institutions’ responses for: Incumbents of bilingual or either/or positions are supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of whether the supervisors are located in bilingual or unilingual regions. Text version below:
Figure 11 - Text version

Nearly always: 36 institutions, or 68 per cent; very often: 13 institutions, or 25 per cent; often: 3 institutions, or 6 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Fifty institutions stated that managers and supervisors who occupy bilingual positions in bilingual regions nearly always (72 per cent) or very often (20 per cent) supervise each employee in the official language chosen by that employee, regardless of the linguistic identification of the employee’s position. In small institutions, 89 per cent of managers and supervisors indicated that this is nearly always the case; 6 per cent indicated that this is very often the case.

Figure 12. Institutions’ responses for: Managers and supervisors occupying bilingual positions in bilingual regions supervise each employee in the language chosen by that employee, regardless of the linguistic identification of the employee’s position
Institutions’ responses for: Managers and supervisors occupying bilingual positions in bilingual regions supervise each employee in the language chosen by that employee, regardless of the linguistic identification of the employee’s position. Text version below:
Figure 12 - Text version

Nearly always: 39 institutions, or 72 per cent; very often: 11 institutions, or 20 per cent; often: 3 institutions, or 6 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Almost all of the institutions that submitted a review stated that personal and central services are nearly always (85 per cent) or very often (11 per cent) provided to employees in bilingual regions in the official language of their choice. This is nearly always the case for 61 per cent of small institutions, and very often the case for 11 per cent.

Figure 13. Institutions’ responses for: Personal and central services are provided to employees in bilingual regions in the official language of the employee’s choice
Institutions’ responses for: Personal and central services are provided to employees in bilingual regions in the official language of the employee’s choice. Text version below:
Figure 13 - Text version

Nearly always: 47 institutions, or 85 per cent; very often: 6 institutions, or 11 per cent; often: 2 institutions, or 4 per cent; sometimes: no institutions, or 0 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

In their reviews, 34 of the 37 large and key institutions (92 per cent) stated that senior management communicates effectively with employees in both official languages. An identical proportion stated that senior management encourages employees to use the official language of their choice in the workplace.

Large and key institutions also reported that employees nearly always (69 per cent) or very often (22 per cent) obtain training or professional development in the official language of their choice.

In a majority of the institutions, documentation and regularly and widely used work instruments and electronic systems are nearly always (81 per cent) or very often (17 per cent) available in the official language of employees’ choice.

Figure 14. Institutions’ responses for: Documentation and regularly and widely used work instruments and electronic systems are available in the official language of employees’ choice
Institutions’ responses for: Documentation and regularly and widely used work instruments and electronic systems are available in the official language of employees’ choice. Text version below:
Figure 14 - Text version

Nearly always: 29 institutions, or 81 per cent; very often: 6 institutions, or 17 per cent; often: 1 institution, or 3 per cent; sometimes: no institutions, or 0 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Fifty-six per cent of institutions stated that employees can nearly always draft documents in the official language of their choice.

Figure 15. Institutions’ responses for: Employees can draft documents in the official language of their choice
Institutions’ responses for: Employees can draft documents in the official language of their choice. Text version below:
Figure 15 - Text version

Nearly always: 20 institutions, or 56 per cent; very often: 10 institutions, or 28 per cent; often: 5 institutions, or 14 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 3 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

In nearly all (97 per cent) of the large and key institutions with employee websites, the English and French versions are simultaneously posted in full and are of equal quality. National Defence responded that this is very often the case for its employee websites. The Oshawa Port Authority reported that it does not have an employee website.

In unilingual regions, 85 per cent of large and key institutions stated that regularly and widely used work instruments are nearly always available in both official languages for employees providing bilingual services to the public or to employees in a bilingual region. This is often the case for 12 per cent of these institutions. Four large and key institutions stated that this question did not apply to them.Footnote 5

Several institutions said that they used the results of the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) in their 2014—15 reviews to support their responses regarding language of work. The next section of the report examines these results.

Public Service Employee Survey

The 2014 PSES gave employees Footnote 6 the opportunity to share their perceptions on certain issues in the public service. Six questions dealt with aspects of language of work, including a new question on the chairing of meetings, which was added at the suggestion of the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions.Footnote 7

The 2014 survey results on the questions relating to the use of official languages remain stable with the results obtained for these same questions in the 2008 and 2011 PSES.

Employees whose first official language is French were less likely than those whose first official language is English to give positive responses to the questions on official language usage. Under the Official Languages Act, certain regions are designated bilingual for the purpose of language of work in the federal public service. In these regions, employees of federal institutions have the right to use either official language as their language of work. The survey results show that, despite the existence of this right, employees in bilingual regions do not necessarily feel free to use the official language of their choice, especially when their first official language is the minority language in the region.

Overall, the results for the questions relating to official language usage were the least positive for employees whose first official language is French and who work in the National Capital Region or other bilingual regions of Ontario, as well as for employees whose first official language is English and who work in bilingual regions in Quebec.

The most pronounced difference between employees in bilingual positions whose first official language is French and those whose first official language is English was in response to the question of whether employees feel free to use their official language of choice when preparing written materials.

The OCHRO published a document entitled Focus on Use of Official Languages that provides a detailed analysis of the PSES results on official languages. The document notes correlations between employees’ freedom to communicate in the official language of their choice and the positive perception they have of their supervisors, and between the use of official languages in the organization and employees’ perception of a respectful workplace where efforts are made to prevent discrimination.

Human Resources Management (including equitable participation)

Part VI of the Official Languages Act provides for workforce participation rates of Anglophones and Francophones in the federal public service that generally align with their representation in the general population.

On , the participation rate of Anglophones in all federal institutions subject to the Act was 73.6 per cent. The participation rate of Francophones was 26.3 per cent. In the core public administration, the participation rate was 68.4 per cent for Anglophones and 31.6 per cent for Francophones.

Data from the 2011 Census indicate that 75 per cent of the Canadian population identified English as its first official language, and 23.2 per cent of the population identified French. Based on a comparison of the workforce data and the most recent data from the 2011 Census, employees from both official language communities continue to be well represented in all federal institutions subject to the Act. The participation rates of the two linguistic groups have remained relatively stable over the past four years.

The institutions that submitted a review in 2014–15 stated that administrative measures are nearly always (79 per cent) or very often (16 per cent) taken to ensure that bilingual positions are staffed appropriately so that services to the public and to employees can be offered in the official language of their choice, as required by Treasury Board policies. This is nearly always the case for 80 per cent of small institutions, and very often the case for 12 per cent. Five small institutions indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 16. Institutions’ responses for: Administrative measures are taken to ensure that bilingual positions are staffed appropriately, so that services to the public and to employees can be offered in the official language of their choice, as required by Treasury Board policies
Institutions’ responses for: Administrative measures are taken to ensure that bilingual positions are staffed appropriately, so that services to the public and to employees can be offered in the official language of their choice, as required by Treasury Board policies. Text version below:
Figure 16 - Text version

Nearly always: 49 institutions, or 79 per cent; very often: 10 institutions, or 16 per cent; often: 2 institutions, or 3 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

Almost all of the institutions stated that the language requirements of bilingual positions are nearly always (79 per cent) or very often (17 per cent) established objectively. Linguistic profiles reflect the duties of employees or their work units and take into account language obligations related to service to the public and language of work. Small institutions reported that for 94 per cent of them, this is always the case; for 6 per cent of them, it is very often the case. Fifteen large and small institutions indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 17. Institutions’ responses for: The language requirements of bilingual positions are established objectively; linguistic profiles reflect the duties of employees or their work units, as well as the obligations related to service to the public and language of work
Institutions’ responses for: The language requirements of bilingual positions are established objectively; linguistic profiles reflect the duties of employees or their work units, as well as the obligations related to service to the public and language of work. Text version below:
Figure 17 - Text version

Nearly always: 41 institutions, or 79 per cent; very often: 9 institutions, or 17 per cent; often: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; sometimes: 1 institution, or 2 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

In all institutions where there are bilingual positions, these positions are nearly always (77 per cent) or very often (15 per cent) staffed by candidates who are bilingual at the time of appointment. This is nearly always the case for 89 per cent of small institutions with bilingual positions.

Figure 18. Institutions’ responses for: Bilingual positions are staffed by candidates who are bilingual on appointment
Institutions’ responses for: Bilingual positions are staffed by candidates who are bilingual on appointment. Text version below:
Figure 18 - Text version

Nearly always: 41 institutions, or 77 per cent; very often: 8 institutions, or 15 per cent; often: 2 institutions, or 4 per cent; sometimes: 2 institutions, or 4 per cent; almost never: no institutions, or 0 per cent.

The 37 large and key institutions that submitted reviews stated that they nearly always (78 per cent) or very often (14 per cent) have the resources they need to meet their language obligations regarding service to the public and language of work.

To meet these obligations:

  • less than one third of these institutions (30 per cent) nearly always provide language training as part of their employees’ career development;
  • another third of the institutions (32 per cent) very often provide this training;
  • 84 per cent of institutions stated that they nearly always (43 per cent) or very often (41 per cent) provide a work environment that allows employees returning from language training to use and improve their second language skills, so that they can retain what they learned; and
  • several institutions mentioned using online courses offered by the Canada School of Public Service.

Governance and Monitoring

Two thirds (67 per cent) of all institutions reviewed in fiscal year 2014–15 stated that they have developed a separate official languages action plan or have integrated precise and complete objectives in another planning instrument to ensure that their language obligations are met. By comparison, over a third (37 per cent) of small institutions have developed an action plan.

More than half (58 per cent) of institutions with performance agreements have included performance objectives for implementing the various parts of the Act. In the case of small institutions, the proportion is 46 per cent.

For almost all of the large and key institutions, language obligations regularly (59 per cent) or sometimes (32 per cent) appear as items on senior management committee agendas, as needed.

The champion or co-champions and the persons responsible for Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act meet regularly (78 per cent) or sometimes (14 per cent) to discuss the official languages file in the majority of large and key institutions. Three large and key institutions submitted a review indicating that the persons responsible for official languages also take on the role of champion.

Twenty-eight out of the 37 large and key institutions (76 per cent) have established an official languages committee, a network, or a working group made up of representatives from the different sectors or regional offices, which meets regularly (69 per cent) or sometimes (5 per cent) to deal horizontally with questions related to language obligations.

Of the large and key institutions that submitted a review, 35 institutions (95 per cent) stated that they regularly take measures to ensure that employees are well aware of the obligations related to various parts of the Act.

A total of 78 per cent of all institutions indicated that mechanisms are in place to ensure regular monitoring of the implementation of the various parts of the Act and to inform the deputy head of the results. In the case of small institutions, the proportion is 67 per cent.

Figure 19. Percentage of institutions that have mechanisms in place to regularly monitor the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII (section 41) of the Act and to inform the deputy head of the results
Percentage of institutions that have mechanisms in place to regularly monitor the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII (section 41) of the Act and to inform the deputy head of the results. Text version below:
Figure 19 - Text version

All institutions: 78 per cent; small institutions: 67 per cent; and large and key institutions: 86 per cent.

A total of 69 per cent of all institutions conducted activities during 2014–15 to measure the availability and quality of services offered to the public in both official languages. A total of 57 per cent of small institutions conducted such activities.

Figure 20. Percentage of institutions that carried out activities throughout the year to measure the availability and quality of services offered in both official languages (Part IV)
Percentage of institutions that carried out activities throughout the year to measure the availability and quality of services offered in both official languages (Part IV). Text version below:
Figure 20 - Text version

All institutions: 69 per cent; small institutions: 57 per cent; and large and key institutions: 78 per cent.

A total of 70 per cent of all institutions (74 per cent of large and key institutions and 61 per cent of small institutions) carried out activities to periodically measure whether employees can use the official language of their choice in the workplace in any region designated bilingual for the purposes of language of work.

Figure 21. Percentage of institutions that carry out activities to periodically measure whether employees (in regions designated bilingual for the purposes of language of work) can use the official language of their choice in the workplace (Part V)
Percentage of institutions that carry out activities to periodically measure whether employees (in regions designated bilingual for the purposes of language of work) can use the official language of their choice in the workplace (Part V). Text version below:
Figure 21 - Text version.

All institutions: 70 per cent; small institutions: 61 per cent; and large and key institutions: 74 per cent.

Two thirds (66 per cent) of all institutions indicated that they have mechanisms in place to determine whether their decisions have an impact on the implementation of the Act, and to document their findings. Such decisions might have to do with adopting or revising a policy, creating or eliminating a program, or establishing or closing a service location. Of the 67 institutions that submitted a review, 15 stated that they do not have such mechanisms, and 8 specified that this question did not apply to them.

Figure 22. Percentage of institutions that have in place mechanisms to determine and document the impact of their decisions on the implementation of the Act
Percentage of institutions that have in place mechanisms to determine and document the impact of their decisions on the implementation of the Act. Text version below:
Figure 22 - Text version

All institutions: 66 per cent; small institutions: 50 per cent; and large and key institutions: 78 per cent.

A total of 70 per cent of large and key institutions stated that audit or evaluation activities are undertaken by internal audit or other units to evaluate to what extent official language requirements are being implemented. When monitoring activities or mechanisms reveal shortcomings or deficiencies, the vast majority of these institutions (89 per cent) stated that steps are taken and documented to improve or rectify the situation with due diligence. This is the case for 70 per cent of small institutions.

Figure 23. Percentage of institutions that take documented steps to quickly improve or rectify a situation where monitoring activities or mechanisms reveal shortcomings or deficiencies
Percentage of institutions that take documented steps to quickly improve or rectify a situation where monitoring activities or mechanisms reveal shortcomings or deficiencies. Text version below:
Figure 23 - Text version

All institutions: 81 per cent; small institutions: 70 per cent; and large and key institutions: 89 per cent.

OCHRO Activities and Follow-Up

In 2014–15, the OCHRO continued to provide horizontal support to federal institutions on key issues. To help institutions improve their outcomes in certain areas, the OCHRO worked with them through

  • Clearspace, an external online platform (e.g., information sharing, discussions);
  • the activities of the departmental and Crown corporation advisory committees on official languages (e.g., workshops, case studies, discussions); and
  • the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions (e.g., annual conference).

The topics addressed included the Regulations Exercise, identification of language requirements for positions and the bilingual bonus, translation of drafts, access to language training, bilingual signature blocks, social media and Web 2.0, contracts or agreements with third parties acting on behalf of institutions, human resources information systems, communications between regions, and management of performance agreements.

The OCHRO was consulted about Canada.ca, the website incorporating all Government of Canada websites, regarding the ease of switching from one official language to the other, whether from a web page or an application. The OCHRO also provided advice regarding Treasury Board submissions.

The Chief Human Resources Officer and an OCHRO representative appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on November 17, 2014, to respond to questions from senators on the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 annual reports on official languages to Parliament. On the same day, the OCHRO also testified during the Committee’s study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).

In November and December 2014, the OCHRO’s Executive Director, Official Languages, was delegated to the Government of Sri Lanka’s Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration to support its employees in finalizing an action plan to implement the Sri Lankan language policy. This technical mission was part of the National Languages Project launched in 2011 and funded by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.

The OCHRO collaborated with Canadian Heritage in order to streamline reporting on official languages. The Auditor General of Canada recognized this in his spring 2015 report on required reporting by federal organizations. He also emphasized that “the sizes and mandates of reporting organizations were taken into account in establishing some of the reporting requirements”. As an example, he noted that “while the [OCHRO] requires some organizations to provide their official language review information annually, it requires other organizations to submit this information only once every three years”.

The Auditor General further stated:

Information on official languages that was required by the [OCHRO] was used for monitoring compliance and reporting to Parliament. Although some reports we examined were rated as useful for purposes of external transparency and accountability, their rating on usefulness for internal decision making varied. For example, respondents indicated that the official languages annual review was useful for organizational planning purposes.

The OCHRO also contributed to a variety of activities and initiatives led by the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions (the Council) and the community of official languages champions, to help champions support deputy heads in meeting their official languages obligations and in promoting official languages in their institutions.

For example, the OCHRO continued

  • to contribute to the vision exercise, Blueprint 2020: Building Tomorrow’s Public Service Together by participating in a working group organized by the Council. Several activities are mentioned in the Clerk of the Privy Council’s action plan, Destination 2020; and
  • to support the Council’s working group on the Public Survey Employee Survey, which undertook an analysis of the 2014 survey results after they were released to better understand the trends and issues related to the use of both official languages in the workplace. The analysis will help the Council refine its measures and strategies to strengthen bilingualism throughout the public service.

The official languages advisory committees of departments and Crown corporations, made up of persons responsible for official languages and chaired by the OCHRO, were also active in 2014–15:

  • A working group on language training and skills maintenance continued its work on reviewing two recommendations from an Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ study on language training, possible follow-up measures, and skills maintenance for public servants who have met the linguistic requirements of their positions. Committee members drafted a list of indicators and began developing a kit on language training and skills maintenance.
  • The working group on the active offer of services in both official languages continued its work from last year in discussing ways to improve results in this area.
  • A new working group on official languages research was launched.

The OCHRO distributed a checklist for newly appointed persons responsible for official languages, which provides links to official languages resources and reference materials.

The OCHRO also encouraged the sharing of good practices by supporting the organization of the Best Practices Forum in February 2015, which was attended by 193 people.

These OCHRO activities, as well as dialogue and discussion in the official languages community through the platform Clearspace, enabled the sharing of good practices and contributed to improved results and a better understanding of official languages obligations. This platform makes it possible to reach the community of persons responsible for official languages quickly and efficiently. As of March 31, 2015, it had enabled 330 discussions between 255 community members and the sharing of 89 documents since its inception.

Conclusion and Trends

Institutions that are subject to the Act are determined to meet all their obligations under the Act and Regulations, and to implement the requirements of the Policy on Official Languages. Most institutions have put in place an official languages governance structure and deal with shortcomings when they arise.

Nonetheless, there continue to be challenges. These include ensuring that

  • effective social networks are in place to share good practices and advice, in person or online, in order to deal with the high turnover among persons responsible for official languages and official languages champions;
  • language skills remain valued at work;
  • new employees take measures to acquire language skills early in their careers to help them advance;
  • the results of the Public Service Employees Survey lead institutions to take measures to establish a workplace that is conducive to the effective use of both official languages; and
  • the way institutions deliver services to the public changes as websites, social media and toll‑free telephone lines overtake face‑to‑face services and gain preference by businesses and Canadians when dealing with their government.

Deputy heads will need to continue to demonstrate leadership to ensure that their institutions have a competent workforce capable of offering quality services to the public in both official languages at all bilingual offices. The OCHRO will continue to provide support to institutions throughout the Regulations Exercise to ensure that the government’s active offer of service in both official languages adjusts to demographic changes in the Canadian population so that Canadians continue to have appropriate access to programs and services.

Appendix A: Federal Institutions Required to Submit a Review in 2014–15

Sixty‑seven federal institutions submitted a review in 2014–15. The distinction between small and large or key institutions was based on size and official languages mandate. Large and key institutions were required to respond to a longer questionnaire.

In general, small institutions are those with fewer than 500 employees. The Oshawa Port Authority, which completed its first review this year, was required to respond to the questionnaire for large institutions in order to establish a benchmark.

Large and Key Institutions

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  • Air Canada
  • Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
  • Bank of Canada
  • Business Development Bank of Canada
  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Canada Lands Company Limited
  • Canada Post
  • Canadian Heritage
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada
  • Correctional Service Canada
  • Courts Administration Service
  • Defence Construction Canada
  • Employment and Social Development Canada
  • Export Development Canada
  • Farm Credit Canada
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
  • Health Canada
  • Industry Canada
  • National Arts Centre Corporation
  • National Defence
  • Natural Resources Canada
  • Office of the Auditor General of Canada
  • Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
  • Oshawa Port Authority
  • Parks Canada
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Works and Government Services Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mint
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (civilian personnel)
  • Statistics Canada
  • Transport Canada
  • Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
  • Veterans Affairs Canada
  • VIA Rail Canada Inc.

Small Institutions

  • Belledune Port Authority
  • Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
  • Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
  • Canadian Grain Commission
  • Canadian Human Rights Commission
  • Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
  • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  • Farm Products Council of Canada
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  • Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
  • Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
  • Halifax Port Authority
  • Hamilton Port Authority
  • National Energy Board
  • Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
  • Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  • Parole Board of Canada
  • Port Alberni Port Authority
  • Prince Rupert Port Authority
  • RCMP External Review Committee
  • Ridley Terminals Inc.
  • Saint John Port Authority
  • Sept-Îles Port Authority
  • St. John’s Port Authority
  • Thunder Bay Port Authority
  • Transportation Safety Board of Canada
  • Trois-Rivières Port Authority
  • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

Only one federal institution did not submit a review in 2014–15, because it was in the last stages of privatization:

  • Canadian Wheat Board

Appendix B: Sources of Statistical Data

There are three main sources of statistical data:

  • Burolis is the official inventory of offices and service locations that indicates whether they have an obligation to communicate with the public in both official languages;
  • The Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) covers the positions and employees of institutions that are part of the core public administration; and
  • The Official Languages Information System II (OLIS II) provides information on the resources held by institutions that are not part of the core public administration (i.e., Crown corporations and separate agencies).

The reference date for the data in the statistical tables is the same for the data systems: March 31, 2015, for the PCIS and Burolis, as well as for OLIS II.

Four institutions were unable to provide complete information on the allocation of their resources serving the public in English or French for all of their offices and service locations designated bilingual. These institutions are Air Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Parks Canada and VIA Rail Inc. Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Tourism Commission did not provide any data on this subject.

Notes

Percentages in the tables may not add up to 100 per cent due to rounding.

The data in this report that pertain to positions in the core public administration are compiled from the Position and Classification Information System.

Pursuant to the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, incumbents may not meet the language requirements of their position for two reasons:

  • They are exempt; or
  • They have two years to meet the language requirements.

The linguistic profile of a bilingual position is based on three levels of second language proficiency:

  • Level A: Minimum proficiency
  • Level B: Intermediate proficiency
  • Level C: Superior proficiency

Appendix C: Definitions

Position
means a position filled for an indeterminate period or a determinate period of three months or more, according to the information in the Position and Classification Information System.
Resources
refers to the resources required to meet obligations on a regular basis, according to the information available in the Official Languages Information System II. Resources can consist of a combination of full-time and part-time employees as well as contract resources. Some cases involve automated functions, hence the need to use the term “resources” in this report.
Bilingual position
is a position in which all or part of the duties must be performed in both English and French.
Reversible or either/or
position is a position in which all the duties can be performed in English or French, depending on the employee’s preference.
Incomplete record
means a position for which data on language requirements is incorrect or missing.
Linguistic capacity outside Canada

refers to all rotational positions outside Canada (i.e., rotational employees) that are staffed from a pool of employees with similar skills—most of which are in Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.

In Tables 5, 7, 10 and 12, the levels required in second language proficiency refer only to oral interaction (i.e., understanding and speaking). The “Other” category refers to positions either requiring code P (i.e., specialized proficiency) or not requiring any second language oral interaction skills.

The terms Anglophone and Francophone
refer to employees on the basis of their first official language. The first official language is the language declared by the employee as the one with which he or she has a primary personal identification.

Appendix D: Statistical Tables

From 2013—14 to 2014—15, the percentages of bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration remained stable at 43 per cent and 46 per cent respectively.

Table 1
Bilingual positions and pool of bilingual employees in the core public administration
 Bilingual positions and pool of bilingual employees in the core public administration. Text version below:
Table [1 - Text version
Table 1 Bilingual positions and pool of bilingual employees in the core public administration
Year Bilingual positions % Superior proficiency % Intermediate proficiency % Minimum proficiency % Total %
1978 25% 6% 11% 4% 21%
2000 33% 21% 11% 3% 35%
2014 43% 29% 14% 2% 46%
2015 43% 29% 14% 2% 46%

From 2013—14 to 2014—15, the language requirements of positions in the core public administration remained stable, although the total number of positions decreased.

Table 2
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration
Year Bilingual positions English essential positions French essential positions English or French essential positions Incomplete records Total positions
1978 52,300 24.7% 128,196 60.5% 17,260 8.1% 14,129 6.7% 0 0.0% 211,885
2000 50,535 35.3% 75,552 52.8% 8,355 5.8% 7,132 5.0% 1,478 1.0% 143,052
2014 79,403 43.3% 90,827 49.6% 6,589 3.6% 5,903 3.2% 479 0.3% 183,201
2015 78,748 43.3% 90,298 49.7% 6,485 3.6% 5,908 3.2% 427 0.2% 181,866

Of the 181,866 positions in the core public administration in 2014—15, a total of 78,748 positions were bilingual. The National Capital Region (67.7 per cent), Quebec (excluding the NCR) (67.1 per cent) and New Brunswick (53.4 per cent) had the most bilingual positions.

Table 3
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration by province, territory or region
Province, territory or region Bilingual positions Unilingual positions Incomplete records Total positions
English essential French essential English or French essential
British Columbia 511 3.2% 15,348 96.4% 1 0.0% 33 0.2% 25 0.2% 15,918
Alberta 368 4.0% 8,765 95.3% 0 0.0% 44 0.5% 16 0.2% 9,193
Saskatchewan 142 3.1% 4,405 96.6% 4 0.1% 8 0.2% 0 0.0% 4,559
Manitoba 531 8.2% 5,931 91.4% 0 0.0% 20 0.3% 5 0.1% 6,487
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 2,523 10.8% 20,674 88.5% 12 0.1% 130 0.6% 29 0.1% 23,368
National Capital Region (NCR) 54,596 67.7% 20,362 25.2% 144 0.2% 5,353 6.6% 189 0.2% 80,644
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 13,604 67.1% 142 0.7% 6,289 31.0% 180 0.9% 60 0.3% 20,275
New Brunswick 3,559 53.4% 3,007 45.1% 18 0.3% 84 1.3% 2 0.0% 6,670
Prince Edward Island 451 29.2% 1,094 70.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,545
Nova Scotia 900 11.1% 7,043 87.1% 14 0.2% 37 0.5% 94 1.2% 8,088
Newfoundland and Labrador 92 3.3% 2,657 96.2% 0 0.0% 12 0.4% 2 0.1% 2,763
Yukon 19 6.4% 279 93.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 299
Northwest Territories 11 2.9% 370 97.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 381
Nunavut 15 6.6% 208 92.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.3% 0 0.0% 226
Outside Canada 1,426 98.3% 13 0.9% 3 0.2% 3 0.2% 5 0.3% 1,450
Total 78,748 43.3% 90,298 49.7% 6,485 3.6% 5,908 3.2% 427 0.2% 181,866

Employees in bilingual positions in the core public administration continued to meet the linguistic requirements of their positions.

Table 4
Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
Year Employees meet requirements Employees do not meet requirements Incomplete records Total employees
Exempted Must meet
1978 36,446 69.7% 14,462 27.7% 1,392 2.7% 0 0.0% 52,300
2000 41,832 82.8% 5,030 10.0% 968 1.9% 2,705 5.4% 50,535
2014 75,881 95.6% 2,776 3.5% 178 0.2% 568 0.7% 79,403
2015 75,172 95.5% 2,909 3.7% 141 0.2% 526 0.7% 78,748

The percentage of bilingual positions in the core public administration that require Level C proficiency for oral interaction has increased by 0.4 per cent since 2013—14.

Table 5
Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total positions
1978 3,771 7.2% 30,983 59.2% 13,816 26.4% 3,730 7.1% 52,300
2000 12,836 25.4% 34,677 68.6% 1,085 2.1% 1,937 3.8% 50,535
2014 26,333 33.2% 50,968 64.2% 560 0.7% 1,542 1.9% 79,403
2015 26,434 33.6% 50,407 64.0% 534 0.7% 1,373 1.7% 78,748

From 2013—14 to 2014—15, the percentage of employees in the core public administration who provided services to the public and who met the linguistic requirements of their positions remained stable. This is an indicator that institutions have the necessary capacity to serve the public in both official languages.

Table 6
Service to the public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
Year Employees meet requirements Employees do not meet requirements Incomplete records Total employees
Exempted Must meet
1978 20,888 70.4% 8,016 27.0% 756 2.5% 0 0.0% 29,660
2000 26,766 82.3% 3,429 10.5% 690 2.1% 1,631 5.0% 32,516
2014 42,724 95.8% 1,471 3.3% 97 0.2% 301 0.7% 44,593
2015 42,087 95.7% 1,517 3.4% 78 0.2% 303 0.7% 43,985

Although the number of positions in the core public administration has decreased from 2013—14, the percentage of bilingual positions offering services to the public and requiring Level C proficiency for oral interaction increased to 38.4 per cent in 2014—15.

Table 7
Service to the Public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total positions
1978 2,491 8.4% 19,353 65.2% 7,201 24.3% 615 2.1% 29,660
2000 9,088 27.9% 22,421 69.0% 587 1.8% 420 1.3% 32,516
2014 16,972 38.1% 27,286 61.2% 258 0.6% 77 0.2% 44,593
2015 16,904 38.4% 26,754 60.8% 247 0.6% 80 0.2% 43,985

Of the 99,936 positions offering services to the public in the core public administration, a total of 43,682 positions offered services in both English and French; 42,087 of the 43,682 employees occupying bilingual positions met the language requirements of their positions.

Table 8
Service to the Public: Positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents by region
Province, territory or region Bilingual positions Incomplete records Unilingual positions Total employees
Employees meet requirements Employees do not meet requirements English essential French essential English or French essential
Exempted Must meet
Western and Northern Canada 1,121 64 4 44 23,513 4 45 24,795
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 1,650 77 1 46 12,983 2 28 14,787
National Capital Region (NCR) 25,383 818 65 131 6,863 50 1,418 34,728
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 9,278 240 3 45 53 3,869 70 13,558
New Brunswick 2,658 82 2 14 1,698 15 12 4,481
Other Atlantic provinces 869 54 3 14 5,299 7 14 6,260
Outside Canada 1,128 182 0 9 7 0 1 1,327
All regions 42,087 1,517 78 303 50,416 3,947 1,588 99,936

In 2014—15, a total of 95.5 per cent of the 55,314 employees that occupy positions offering personal and central services in the core public administration met the linguistic requirements of their positions. This result remains stable with 2013—14 results.

Table 9
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
Year Employees meet requirements Employees do not meet requirements Incomplete records Total employees
Exempted Must meet
2013 53,595 95.4% 2,038 3.6% 174 0.3% 372 0.7% 56,179
2014 53,486 95.7% 1,924 3.4% 114 0.2% 379 0.7% 55,903
2015 52,843 95.5% 2,033 3.7% 82 0.1% 356 0.6% 55,314

Of the 55,314 positions offering personal and central services in the core public administration in 2014—15, a total of 34.6 per cent of the positions required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which represents an increase of 0.5 per cent from 2013—14.

Table 10
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total positions
2013 19,122 34.0% 35,659 63.5% 272 0.5% 1,126 2.0% 56,179
2014 19,085 34.1% 35,472 63.5% 248 0.4% 1,098 2.0% 55,903
2015 19,115 34.6% 34,969 63.2% 225 0.4% 1,005 1.8% 55,314

In 2014—15, a total of 95.1 per cent of incumbents in the core public administration’s 22,587 bilingual supervisory positions met the linguistic requirements of their positions.

Table 11
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
Year Employees meet requirements Employees do not meet requirements Incomplete records Total employees
Exempted Must meet
Note: This table excludes employees working outside Canada.
2013 21,922 95.4% 786 3.4% 135 0.6% 125 0.5% 22,968
2014 21,584 95.6% 774 3.4% 83 0.4% 132 0.6% 22,573
2015 21,474 95.1% 906 4.0% 80 0.4% 127 0.6% 22,587

In 2014—15, a total of 54.7 per cent of the core public administration’s 22,587 bilingual supervisory positions required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which represents an increase of 1.2 per cent from 2013—14.

Table 12
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total positions
Note: This table excludes employees working outside Canada.
2013 11,962 52.1% 10,923 47.6% 45 0.2% 38 0.2% 22,968
2014 12,085 53.5% 10,408 46.1% 40 0.2% 40 0.2% 22,573
2015 12,354 54.7% 10,153 45.0% 39 0.2% 41 0.2% 22,587

In 2014—15, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.7 per cent) working in the core public administration, and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (90.2 per cent). This is similar to 2013—14 results.

Table 13
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration by province, territory or region
Province, territory or region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total employees
British Columbia 15,612 98.1% 306 1.9% 0 0.0% 15,918
Alberta 8,913 97.0% 280 3.0% 0 0.0% 9,193
Saskatchewan 4,483 98.3% 76 1.7% 0 0.0% 4,559
Manitoba 6,230 96.0% 257 4.0% 0 0.0% 6,487
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 22,128 94.7% 1,239 5.3% 1 0.0% 23,368
National Capital Region (NCR) 47,729 59.2% 32,914 40.8% 1 0.0% 80,644
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 1,992 9.8% 18,283 90.2% 0 0.0% 20,275
New Brunswick 3,703 55.5% 2,967 44.5% 0 0.0% 6,670
Prince Edward Island 1,374 88.9% 171 11.1% 0 0.0% 1,545
Nova Scotia 7,586 93.8% 502 6.2% 0 0.0% 8,088
Newfoundland and Labrador 2,726 98.7% 37 1.3% 0 0.0% 2,763
Yukon 288 96.3% 11 3.7% 0 0.0% 299
Northwest Territories 363 95.3% 18 4.7% 0 0.0% 381
Nunavut 202 89.4% 24 10.6% 0 0.0% 226
Outside Canada 1,013 69.9% 437 30.1% 0 0.0% 1,450
All regions 124,342 68.4% 57,522 31.6% 2 0.0% 181,866

In 2014—15, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (78.0 per cent) working in the core public administration, and the Administrative and Foreign Service category had the highest percentage of Francophones (38.6 per cent). This is similar to 2013—14 results.

Table 14
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration by occupational category
Category Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total employees
Management (EX) 3,321 66.6% 1,662 33.4% 0 0.0% 4,983
Scientific and Professional 23,619 74.2% 8,228 25.8% 0 0.0% 31,847
Administration and Foreign Service 50,628 61.4% 31,762 38.6% 1 0.0% 82,391
Technical 9,591 76.6% 2,930 23.4% 0 0.0% 12,521
Administrative Support 13,792 68.5% 6,340 31.5% 1 0.0% 20,133
Operations 23,391 78.0% 6,600 22.0% 0 0.0% 29,991
All categories 124,342 68.4% 57,522 31.6% 2 0.0% 181,866

In 2014—15, there were 73,531 resources offering services to the public at offices and service locations in institutions not part of the core public administration; 26,441 of these resources provided services in both English and French.

Table 15
Service to the public: Number of resources serving the public, by region or method of delivery, in bilingual offices and service locations in institutions not part of the core public administration
Province, territory or region English only resources French only resources Bilingual resources Total resources
Western and Northern Canada 21,648 89 1,927 23,664
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 12,746 14 2,201 14,961
National Capital Region (NCR) 5,011 114 9,504 14,629
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 71 1,807 9,355 11,233
New Brunswick 606 27 1,624 2,257
Other Atlantic provinces 3,896 8 846 4,750
Outside Canada 226 0 32 258
Travel 355 0 35 390
Telephone 472 0 917 1,389
All regions 45,031 2,059 26,441 73,531

In 2014—15, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.0 per cent) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration, and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (83.3 per cent). This is similar to 2013—14 results.

Table 16
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration by province, territory or region
Province, territory or region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total resources
British Columbia 33,309 96.1% 1,342 3.9% 7 0.0% 34,658
Alberta 27,121 94.8% 1,470 5.1% 7 0.0% 28,598
Saskatchewan 7,691 96.5% 275 3.5% 4 0.1% 7,970
Manitoba 14,782 95.0% 742 4.8% 37 0.2% 15,561
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 73,634 94.4% 4,338 5.6% 15 0.0% 77,987
National Capital Region (NCR) 30,900 68.8% 13,996 31.2% 34 0.1% 44,930
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 8,252 16.6% 41,407 83.3% 20 0.0% 49,679
New Brunswick 7,172 73.8% 2,550 26.2% 2 0.0% 9,724
Prince Edward Island 1,847 94.8% 102 5.2% 0 0.0% 1,949
Nova Scotia 14,471 91.7% 1,302 8.3% 5 0.0% 15,778
Newfoundland and Labrador 5,349 98.0% 111 2.0% 0 0.0% 5,460
Yukon 363 93.8% 24 6.2% 0 0.0% 387
Northwest Territories 599 89.5% 70 10.5% 0 0.0% 669
Nunavut 204 85.4% 35 14.6% 0 0.0% 239
Outside Canada 1,111 78.6% 302 21.4% 0 0.0% 1,413
All regions 226,805 76.9% 68,066 23.1% 131 0.0% 295,002

In 2014—15, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (80.4 per cent) and the Professionals category had the highest percentage of Francophones (26.7 per cent) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration. This is similar to 2013—14 results.

Table 17
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration by occupational category or equivalent category
Category Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total resources
Management 11,316 75.8% 3,613 24.2% 6 0.0% 14,935
Professionals 26,388 73.2% 9,612 26.7% 30 0.1% 36,030
Specialists and Technicians 19,546 75.5% 6,289 24.3% 38 0.1% 25,873
Administrative Support 31,213 76.0% 9,840 24.0% 20 0.0% 41,073
Operations 76,623 80.4% 18,598 19.5% 37 0.0% 95,258
Canadian Forces and Regular Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 61,719 75.4% 20,114 24.6% 0 0.0% 81,833
All categories 226,805 76.9% 68,066 23.1% 131 0.0% 295,002

In 2014—15, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.7 per cent) and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (85.3 per cent) working in all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. This is similar to 2013—14 results.

Table 18
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in all federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act by province, territory or region
Province, territory or region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
British Columbia 48,921 96.7% 1,648 3.3% 7 0.0% 50,576
Alberta 36,034 95.4% 1,750 4.6% 7 0.0% 37,791
Saskatchewan 12,174 97.2% 351 2.8% 4 0.0% 12,529
Manitoba 21,012 95.3% 999 4.5% 37 0.2% 22,048
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 95,762 94.5% 5,577 5.5% 16 0.0% 101,355
National Capital Region (NCR) 78,629 62.6% 46,910 37.4% 35 0.0% 125,574
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 10,244 14.6% 59,690 85.3% 20 0.0% 69,954
New Brunswick 10,875 66.3% 5,517 33.7% 2 0.0% 16,394
Prince Edward Island 3,221 92.2% 273 7.8% 0 0.0% 3,494
Nova Scotia 22,057 92.4% 1,804 7.6% 5 0.0% 23,866
Newfoundland and Labrador 8,075 98.2% 148 1.8% 0 0.0% 8,223
Yukon 651 94.9% 35 5.1% 0 0.0% 686
Northwest Territories 962 91.6% 88 8.4% 0 0.0% 1,050
Nunavut 406 87.3% 59 12.7% 0 0.0% 465
Outside Canada 2,124 74.2% 739 25.8% 0 0.0% 2,863
All regions 351,147 73.6% 125,588 26.3% 133 0.0% 476,868
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: