Annual Report on Official Languages 2021–22

1.1 Summary

The network of public offices and service locations operated by federal institutions (see Appendix F for a map of the network of offices and service locations) spans all provinces and territories and extends to Canadian offices internationally. This network provides service in person; over the telephone; aboard aircraft, ferries and trains; and through interactive kiosks. As of March 31, 2022, institutions had 11,134 offices and service locations,^{Footnote 2} of which 3,838 (34.5%) were required to provide services to and communicate with the public in both official languages.

As shown in Table 1, a very high percentage of federal institutions surveyed between 2019 and 2022 “nearly always” met obligations relating to communications with and service to the public. This positive result is largely attributable to the fact that federal institutions have the ability to provide services in both languages. For example, as of March 31, 2022, 41.1% of the 114,469 incumbents of positions serving the public in the core public administration (47,057 employees) were required to offer services in both English and French. Of these employees, 96.6% met the language requirements of their position. In other words, they were able to provide service at the desired level to both English and French speakers.^{Footnote 4}

Nevertheless, there is room for improvement since, in the last cycle, the aforementioned 90% target was met for only 4 of the 11 statements presented in Table 1. That is insufficient, even though it is a slight improvement over 2016–19, when this target was met for only 3 of the 11 statements.

1.2 Oral and written communications

Between 2019 and 2022, 95% of institutions reported that when communicating with the public in writing (particularly through news releases and public notices), they “nearly always” did so in the official language chosen by the public, an increase of four percentage points from the 2016–19 cycle. This is the obligation that federal institutions are currently most compliant with.

Institutions are also doing slightly better on oral communications than in the last cycle. Specifically, 89%, up from 86% in 2016–19, “nearly always” use both English and French, particularly in news conferences, public addresses and videos.

1.3 Active offer

For an institution, active offer means clearly indicating, both visually and orally, that English or French can be used to communicate with the institution or obtain services from one of its designated bilingual offices. It is mandatory – and critically important – for every institution to practise active offer, thereby encouraging members of the public to interact with it in the official language of their choice.

Active offer remains the Achilles heel of too many federal institutions. Only 84% of the institutions surveyed between 2019 and 2022 (four percentage points better than in 2016–19) said they “nearly always” took appropriate greeting measures (such as saying “Hello, bonjour!”) to signal to people who visit their offices that they can feel comfortable using English or French. The reviews for the last two years also show that only 82% of institutions “nearly always” practise active offer on the telephone. However, 91% of institutions have English and French signage (see Figure 1) in their designated bilingual offices almost all the time, as expected.

1.4 Outreach and advertising

To meet the needs of the public, the websites of federal institutions must be accessible in both official languages. Overall, they are. In the 2019–22 cycle, 93% of institutions reported that, with rare exceptions, the English and French content on their website is posted simultaneously, is of equal quality, and is published in full. This is four percentage points higher than in the 2016–19 cycle.

While the Internet has become the tool used by a large segment of the public to access government information, many citizens still expect to be able to access government information by traditional means. Consequently, federal institutions must continue to use English and French in communication tools such as their reports and brochures. In their most recent reviews, 87% of institutions stated that communications materials issued by their designated bilingual offices are “nearly always” produced and disseminated simultaneously and in full in both English and French. In the previous cycle, the percentage was 85%, which was also below the target.

When it comes to advertising, more than 94% of federal institutions say they “nearly always” choose and use advertising vehicles (such as newspapers, television and radio stations or Facebook pages) that enable them to reach their target audience in the official language of their choice. This is a small decrease from the previous cycle, when federal institutions had a perfect score.

1.5 Contracts and agreements with third parties

Under the Act, federal institutions must ensure that the information or services provided by a partner on their behalf are provided in the public’s official language of choice. Many federal institutions do not always do so.

First, only 78% of institutions ensure that contracts and agreements with third parties acting on behalf of bilingual offices “nearly always” include clauses that set out the language obligations that these third parties must meet. This is slightly better than in 2016–19, when it was 76%. Second, 74% of federal institutions that have language clauses in their contracts or agreements with third parties report that those clauses were “nearly always” adhered to. This is a six percentage-point drop from 2016–19.

1.6 Upholding the principle of substantive equality

According to the reviews submitted between 2019 and 2022, 79% of federal institutions “nearly always” uphold the principle of substantive equality when communicating with or providing services to the public. This means that about four out of five institutions (the same as in 2016–19) work to provide official language minority communities with the same quality of information and services as those offered to the majority by offering services with distinct content or with an approach tailored to the specific needs of English-speakers or French-speakers.

1.7 Conclusion

A large majority of federal institutions “nearly always” comply with their obligations under Part IV of the Act or embrace certain best practices in communicating with and serving the public.

However, the 90% compliance target is met in only 7 out of 11 cases. In addition, certain key practices, such as active offer, the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with third parties, and the application of the principle of substantive equality, are applied by fewer than four out of five institutions.

Federal institutions, with TBS support (as described in Chapter 6), will need to take action to correct existing deficiencies.

2.1 Summary

Part V of the Act deals with language of work. It aims to foster the full recognition of both official languages in the federal public service.

An analysis of the reviews submitted by institutions between 2019 and 2022 shows that, all too often, federal employees are still unable to work in the official language of their choice. Table 2 shows that less than 90% of federal institutions comply with each of the obligations the Act creates with respect to language of work. Worse still, only less than two out of three federal institutions “nearly always” allow their employees to draft documents in the official language of their choice (60%) or ensure almost always that their management communicates regularly in English and French with its staff (61%). Less than one in two institutions “nearly always” conducts truly bilingual meetings (45%).

This does not appear to be due to a lack of language proficiency. Almost all employees who must provide personal and central services in both English and French (96%) and almost all incumbents of bilingual supervisory positions (96%) in the core public administration meet the language requirements of their position.

2.2 Language of writing

Only 60% of federal institutions, compared with 59% in 2016–19, reported in their most recent review that their staff were “nearly always” able to draft documents in the official language of their choice. This very low proportion is partly due to the fact that many French-speaking employees continue to feel that they have to write in English, which is consistent with what Patrick Borbey and Matthew Mendelsohn noted in their 2017 report on language of work (a report submitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council).

2.3 Languages at meetings

Significant improvement is also needed in the area of languages used in meetings. Only 45% of institutions reported that during the 2019–22 cycle, meetings in regions designated bilingual were “nearly always” conducted in both official languages. This is a five percentage-point drop from 2016–19, which shows that leadership is still lacking in too many federal institutions.

2.4 Language of employee supervision

Managers and supervisors are required to supervise employees working in a region designated bilingual in the official language of their choice when they occupy bilingual or either/or positions. This rule is too often ignored. In the 2019–22 cycle, only 74% of institutions “nearly always” followed this rule, down two percentage points from 2016–19.

Almost all incumbents of bilingual supervisory positions (96%) in the core public administration meet the language requirements of their position. They make up 31.6% of supervisory positions. In contrast, in institutions that are not part of the core public administration but have offices in regions designated bilingual for language of work, only 78% of managers who are required to be bilingual are actually able to perform their supervisory functions in both official languages.

2.5 Personal and central services

According to data collected between 2019 and 2022, 88% of federal institutions “nearly always” provide employees in regions designated bilingual with personal and central services (for example, assistance with their pay or computer network) in the official language of their choice. This is an increase of two percentage points.

Almost all employees who provide personal and central services in both official languages (96%) in the core public administration meet the language requirements of their position. They make up 72.5% of the staff assigned to personal and central services. In institutions not part of the core public administration with offices in regions designated bilingual, 40% of internal service positions are bilingual.

2.6 Training and professional development

In bilingual regions, federal institutions must ensure that the training and professional development services they offer to their employees are provided in the official language preferred by the employee. According to the data for 2019–22, 81% of organizations required to answer this question say they “nearly always” meet this requirement, an eight percentage-point increase from 2016–19.

2.7 Communicating with staff

In the 2019–22 cycle, only 61% of federal institutions said that, in general, their senior management “nearly always” communicates with employees in both English and French. More leaders should use both official languages in their formal encounters with their staff and also in their day-to-day interactions with employees (for example, in the hallway or at the coffee machine).

However, in the 2022 Public Service Employees Survey, 76% of public servants said that the senior managers in their department or agency use both official languages in their interactions with employees. Perceptions are similar between English-speaking (76%) and French-speaking (75%) public servants. Only 10% of all the respondents provided negative answers.

2.8 Documentation and working tools

Under the Act, employees in bilingual regions have the right to access documentation (such as instruction manuals, procedures, guides and forms) and regularly and widely used work instruments (keyboards, for example) and electronic systems (such as spreadsheets or word-processing software) in English or French. As in the previous cycle, just over four out of five federal institutions (82%) say they “nearly always” uphold this right. The Act gives the same right to federal employees in unilingual regions who are required to provide services to the public in English and French or to employees in bilingual regions. According to the reviews, 84% of institutions “nearly always” make it possible for their staff to exercise this right. In the previous cycle, the figure was 87%.

2.9 Conclusion

Significant shortcomings remain in the implementation of Part V of the Act in 2019–22. In particular, far too many institutions still do not give their employees the right to prepare documents in the official language of their choice or to participate in meetings using English or French. In last year’s report, TBS stated that it would increase its interventions in the coming years to improve the language-of-work situation. In fact, TBS’s Official Languages Centre of Excellence has repeatedly addressed the language insecurity of employees and executives — and how to overcome it in order to create a workplace that is truly conducive to the use of both official languages. Its training sessions for official languages champions and leaders have also dealt with the language rights of employees. In addition, institutions shared TBS’s reminder about safeguarding linguistic duality in a remote work context.

3.1 General situation

Under Part VI of the Act, federal institutions are required to ensure that Anglophones and Francophones have equal opportunities for employment and advancement, while applying the merit principle in their human resources management approaches. Institutions must also ensure, taking into account factors such as their mandate and the location of their offices, that their workforce adequately reflects the official language communities in Canada. To achieve this, they could, for example, take part in job fairs held in Anglophone or Francophone communities or publish job advertisements in Anglophone or Francophone community media.

Graph 1 - Text version

Linguistic representation within the federal public service: Anglophones in the Canadian population in 2021: 75.5%, Francophones, 21.4%, and 1.3% that said that English and French are both their official languages; Anglophones in the core public administration: 69.6%, and Francophones, 30.4%; Anglophones in institutions that are not part of the core public administration: 78.2%, and Francophones, 21.6%; Anglophones in all the institutions, 74.6%, and Francophones, 25.4%. Sources: Census 2021; Positions and Classification Information System and Official Languages Information System as of March 31, 2022.

According to the reviews, 85% of federal institutions took steps in the 2019–22 cycle to ensure that the composition of their workforce tended to reflect that of the population.

As Chart 1 shows, as of March 31, 2022, the participation rate in the core public administration was 69.6% for Anglophones and 30.4% for Francophones. In federal institutions not part of the core public administration, the rates were 78.2% and 21.6% respectively. Across all institutions subject to the Act, Anglophones made up 74.6% of the workforce and Francophones 25.4%. These percentages are in line with those in the 2021 Census of Population, which showed that 75.5% of the population had English as their first official language and 21.4% had French (1.3% of respondents reported both French and English as their first official languages).

4.1 Summary

Compliance with the Act depends on establishing rigorous official languages management processes. This section discusses the human resource management, governance and monitoring measures that institutions have taken to create and implement these processes.

Analysis of the reviews submitted between 2019 and 2022 shows that few of the management processes that institutions are expected to use are being implemented at the expected level. For example, only 5 of the 19 processes shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5 below are “nearly always” applied by 90% or more of institutions. While institutions’ performance on the other 14 processes is not what it should be, it is particularly poor on four of them. Less than 60% of federal institutions are sufficiently concerned with providing language training to their employees, building a good environment for post-language training, taking official languages into account in performance agreements, and including official languages on the agenda of senior management meetings.

The situation has not really improved since the last cycle. As a result, 13 of the 19 indicators measured remained unchanged or declined slightly between 2016–19 and 2019–22.

4.2 Human resources management

Federal institutions must ensure that they implement various human resources management practices to strengthen their capacity to provide quality bilingual services to the public and their employees. Table 3 shows some shortcomings in this area.

In its examination of the reviews, TBS found that only 71% of federal institutions “nearly always” had the necessary human resources to fulfill all of their language obligations. This is a three percentage-point decrease from the 2016–19 cycle.

Federal institutions take various measures to ensure that they have staff who are able to respect the language rights of federal employees and members of the public.

As shown in Table 3, 81% of institutions, slightly less than in the previous cycle (83%), “nearly always” work to objectively define the language requirements associated with bilingual positions. Ultimately, this ensures that a person is comfortable enough in both official languages to work in a job where a particular level of proficiency in English and French is required (reading comprehension, writing, oral interaction) to perform certain tasks. Similarly, 96% of institutions “nearly always” review how a position was designated when it is staffed, reclassified or affected by a reorganization.

Hiring candidates who are sufficiently fluent in both English and French to staff designated bilingual positions is another important human resource management practice. An examination of the reviews submitted between 2019 and 2022 shows that 74% of institutions (seven percentage points less than in 2016–19) almost always recruit individuals who are already bilingual at the expected level when appointed to a position. In addition, 94% of institutions surveyed in the 2019–22 cycle and the previous cycle reported taking specific administrative measures to ensure that services to the public and to employees remained of high quality in both English and French when the person assigned to a position was not as bilingual as they needed to be for the position.

Offering staff the opportunity to grow by improving their official bilingualism and applying their language skills on the job is another best practice, one that far too few institutions have implemented to date. Between 2019 and 2022, only one in two federal institutions “nearly always” ensured that English or French language training was offered to employees. In addition, fewer than two in three (57%, down five percentage points from 2016–19) said they “nearly always” provided employees with working conditions and tools (software for second-language writing, for example) that support language skills retention.

TBS is paying special attention to these issues, as shown in Chapter 6, which describes efforts to develop a new language training framework.

4.3 Governance of official languages

Governance of official languages refers to mechanisms of various kinds, such as those shown in Table 4, that are put in place by an institution to ensure compliance with the Act, the achievement of language targets and the prevention of risks. Overall, as Table 4 shows, governance is a weak point that needs to be addressed in the coming years.

Specifically, 61% of all institutions (three percentage points more than in 2016–19) currently have a separate official languages action plan or have included in another planning instrument (such as their strategic plan) specific and comprehensive objectives for the parts of the Act relating to communications with and services to the public (Part IV), language of work (Part V), participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians (Part VI), and/or advancement of English and French (Part VII). However, preparation is the key to success, and you can only improve what you decide to measure.

Another good governance measure is the inclusion of performance targets for management. Where warranted (based on the institution’s mandate, for example), the inclusion of targets in performance agreements sends a strong message to executives and managers that full compliance with the Act is a fundamental value. It also assists in the proper evaluation of management personnel. Yet only 59% of federal institutions (just three percentage points better than in 2016–19) “regularly” ensure that such targets relating to the implementation of Parts IV through VII of the Act are included.

To ensure that language issues are taken into account effectively at all levels of an institution, it is also important to include them “regularly” in the agenda of management meetings. According to the 2019–22 cycle reviews, this is the case in 59% of large institutions. This percentage is unchanged from 2016–19.

Other official languages coordinating bodies also play a role. In this regard, the reviews show that in 76% of institutions (eight percentage points less than in 2016–19),^{Footnote 10} the Champion (or Co-Champion) and those responsible for Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act meet “regularly” to discuss official languages issues. Reviews submitted between 2019 and 2022 show that 69% of institutions (down from 73% in the previous cycle) have an internal committee or network that meets frequently to help them fulfill their language obligations and responsibilities effectively.

4.4 Monitoring

Establishing monitoring mechanisms enables federal institutions to track their official languages actions, identify shortcomings to be remedied or areas for improvement, and ensure rigorous accountability. While some monitoring practices are well established in institutions, others are not sufficiently ingrained.

The reviews for the last two cycles (Table 5) show that 90% of federal institutions regularly take steps to ensure that their employees are aware of their linguistic obligations (cited as a best practice in the Borbey-Mendelsohn report on bilingualism in the workplace). In 2016–19 and 2019–22, more than 9 out of 10 institutions also kept the deputy head informed of official languages monitoring activities and took prompt action when shortcomings were uncovered.

However, the 2019–22 reviews show that many institutions are still slow to adopt some highly desirable monitoring practices. Specifically, only 66% of federal institutions conduct activities (such as informal evaluations, spot checks and surveys) to measure the availability and quality of the services they offer to the public in English and French, and 76% do so to measure whether employees can use the official language of their choice at work. Both of these figures are a few percentage points lower than in the 2016–19 cycle.

Similarly, only 69% of institutions have mechanisms (such as completing the checklist created by the Treasury Board) to define the nature and extent of the impact of their decisions on official languages (for example, to review a policy or close an office). Again, the results are down slightly from the previous cycle.

Lastly, only one in two institutions (54%) in 2019–22, compared with two out of three (66%) in 2016–19, used audits or evaluations to measure the level of compliance with official languages obligations.

4.5 Conclusion

Institutions are using some of the mechanisms or processes required to ensure compliance with the various parts of the Act. More than 90% of them apply some of the human resources management, governance and monitoring best practices that support the advancement of English and French. For example, almost all institutions report conducting the language designation exercise for positions objectively and ensuring that the deputy head is informed of the results of monitoring activities. However, some official languages management practices are not sufficiently widespread, which contributes to the shortcomings noted in the various sections of this report.

5.1 Institutional measures

Federal institutions have an obligation to comply fully with the provisions of the Act both during crises and in normal circumstances. Marked by the pandemic, 2021–22, like the previous year, presented significant challenges for many institutions, either because there was higher demand for their digital or telephone services or because remote work and virtual meetings became the norm.

As shown in Table 6, most institutions surveyed that year reported that they had taken steps to address the pandemic while meeting their linguistic obligations.

Ninety-two percent say they have incorporated official languages into their emergency preparedness and their crisis management plan, a 19 percentage-point improvement over 2020–21, when the issue was first addressed.

In addition, 100% of the federal institutions that submitted a review in 2021–22 say they have taken various measures to ensure compliance with the part of the Act regarding communications with and services to the public or the part on language of work. Those institutions made sure that notices and alerts were in both official languages, that their news conferences were held in English and French, and that more staff were assigned to bilingual front-line services, to name just a few measures. They also communicated in both languages with equal care, held their meetings concerning the pandemic in both English and French, and posted bilingual signage in their workplaces.

In 2021–22, the Public Service Commission (PSC) continued to deal with the pandemic by working to facilitate institutions’ second-language evaluation efforts. In particular, it extended the validity period of existing evaluation results. It administered Level B and C tests remotely. Where the use of videoconferencing was an accessibility barrier for the test taker, the PSC provided an alternative evaluation mechanism. It also created unsupervised online tests to measure the reading and writing proficiency of many applicants.

5.2 Leadership

These positive results, it should be noted, are largely due to the efforts of the interdepartmental working group on bilingual communications in emergency or crisis situations that was established in 2020–21.

Piloted by TBS with the support of representatives from the Privy Council Office, Canadian Heritage, Public Safety Canada and the Translation Bureau, the group developed a multi-pronged strategy that includes strengthening instruments for official languages governance in emergencies, enhancing the bilingualism of positions responsible for crisis communications, and sharing knowledge on linguistic best practices in difficult times.

5.3 Conclusion

Because of the pandemic, the last few years have been difficult ones for Canadians and for federal employees. There were definite shortcomings in the area of official languages at the beginning of the crisis. However, the leadership shown by TBS and the strong collaboration it developed with its partners ensured that, on the whole, those shortcomings were remedied.

6.1 Ensuring public access to bilingual services

TBS’s work on implementing the Directive on the Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations is representative of the significant efforts the institution has made to ensure that the public has access to quality services in English and French.

In the fall and winter of 2021–22, experts from TBS’s Official Languages Centre of Excellence met with various key players in the federal public administration, including the persons responsible for official languages in institutions (PROLs) and members of the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages (CADMOL), TBS’s Policy Committee, the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions, and the Human Resources Council to discuss the new Directive, its effects and its application. The team of specialists from the Centre of Excellence also held discussions on the issue with external stakeholders, including representatives of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) and the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie.

6.2 Enhancing bilingualism and diversity and inclusion in the public service

In 2021–22, TBS took determined action to strengthen bilingualism in the workplace.

In collaboration with Canadian Heritage and the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions, TBS co-led the work of organizing the Best Practices Forum on Official Languages, which considered language training in the federal public service. It also organized an awareness and training event for PROLs on non-imperative staffing. In addition, it held an official languages bootcamp to help participants better understand the central agencies’ role in bilingualism matters.

The OL Connection newsletter also documents TBS’s work to support the creation of bilingual workplaces. In 2021–22, it included the following topics:

• Amendment of the Directive on Official Languages for People Management
• Extension of the temporary second-language evaluation measures
• Publication of the Guide for Drafting Memoranda to Cabinet – Official Languages Impact Analysis
• Launch of the new System for Official Languages Obligations (SOLO)
• Language rights of employees in the context of telework
• Results of the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey
• Decision tree for staffing executive positions

In 2021–22, TBS’s actions were focused on promoting linguistic duality in federal workplaces and working to make the public service more diverse and more inclusive.

TBS supported the organization of Linguistic Duality Day, an event piloted by the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions and the Canada School of Public Service that demonstrated that the promotion of English and French can go hand-in-hand with the promotion of diversity and inclusion.

In particular, TBS revised Appendix 2 of the Directive on Official Languages for People Management. The changes will allow for the appointment of executives to bilingual positions even if, because of a long-term or recurring disability (for example, a physical or mental disability), they do not meet the second-language requirements. A presentation was held in April 2021 to provide Champions and PROLs with the necessary information about the amendment and assist them in implementing the Directive.

TBS is also developing a new second-language training framework that will ensure quality instruction for learners. The framework will take into account the specific needs of Indigenous people and persons with disabilities. It will also allow for remote learning.

6.3 Contributing to communities’ development

To help federal institutions meet their obligations under the Act to promote official language communities, TBS participated in various activities, such as the virtual meetings of the Official Languages Community of Practice, where it gave a presentation on the Gascon decision (a 2022 decision in which the Federal Court of Appeal found that the government failed to consider “the importance of the role that Francophone organizations played in the provision of employment assistance services for B.C.’s fragile French-speaking minority community” when it transferred certain employment assistance responsibilities to the British Columbia government) and its likely impact.

Most importantly, TBS issued a new Directive on the Management of Real Property in May 2021. An institution’s real property specialists are now responsible for notifying the Canada Lands Company Limited and official language minority communities of the institution’s intent to dispose of real property. This measure will give Anglophone or Francophone communities the opportunity to quickly inform the government of a province, territory or city of their interest in purchasing a property whose acquisition could further their development.

6.4 Strengthening coordination and accountability

In April 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-13, which contains important amendments to the Act, notably to better protect and promote the French language by recognizing its status as a minority language in Canada and North America. With the passage of the bill, a series of administrative measures aimed at strengthening official languages coordination and accountability will be taken.

Those measures include the following:

• Create an accountability and reporting framework to guide the federal government’s official languages actions and the implementation of the Act
• Examine official language qualification standards for potential bias and barriers to diversity and inclusion
• Review the minimum second-language requirements for bilingual supervisory positions in regions designated bilingual
• Include official languages requirements for emergency situations in Treasury Board policy instruments
• Strengthen the role of translation and interpretation functions in the federal government, including the role of the Translation Bureau

6.5 Conclusion

TBS plays a central role in the implementation of the various parts of the Act. This includes in 2021–22 the review of over 400 Treasury Board submissions under the lens of “Parts IV, V and VI of the Act.”

TBS is expected to play a greater role in official languages in the coming years. It is already planning all the internal and external measures it will have to take to ensure that it fulfills its role and supports federal institutions effectively so that they can collectively contribute to strengthening linguistic duality in Canada.

Table 1

The previous sections outline the status of official languages programs in the 88 institutions that submitted a review this year or, as the case may be, the most recent results from the 168 institutions that submitted a review over the 2019–22 cycle. The statistical tables in Appendix D of this report outline the results^{Footnote 14} for all federal institutions.

Large institutions

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Air Canada
• Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
• Canada Post
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canada School of Public Service
• Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• Canadian Heritage
• Correctional Service Canada
• Canadian Space Agency
• Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
• Department of Finance Canada
• Department of Justice Canada
• Employment and Social Development Canada
• Environment and Climate Change Canada
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Global Affairs Canada
• Health Canada
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
• Indigenous Services Canada
• Infrastructure Canada
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• Library and Archives Canada
• National Defence
• National Research Council Canada
• Natural Resources Canada
• NAV CANADA
• Privy Council Office
• Public Prosecution Service of Canada
• Public Service Commission of Canada
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Shared Services Canada
• Transport Canada
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Veterans Affairs Canada
• VIA Rail Canada Inc.

Small institutions

• Canada Council for the Arts
• Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
• Canada Infrastructure Bank
• Canadian Museum for Human Rights
• Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
• Canadian Race Relations Foundation
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service
• Canadian Transportation Agency
• Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
• Copyright Board Canada
• Destination Canada
• Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada
• Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
• Military Grievances External Review Committee
• Montréal Port Authority
• National Capital Commission
• National Film Board of Canada
• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
• Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada
• Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
• Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
• PortsToronto
• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
• Supreme Court of Canada
• Telefilm Canada
• The Correctional Investigator Canada
• The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
• Trois-Rivières Port Authority
• Western Economic Diversification Canada^{Footnote 15}
• Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority
• Women and Gender Equality Canada

Airport authorities^{Footnote 16}

• Aéroport de Québec Inc.
• Aéroports de Montréal
• Calgary Airport Authority
• Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc.
• Edmonton Regional Airports Authority
• Fredericton International Airport Authority
• Greater Moncton International Airport Authority Inc.
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• Halifax International Airport Authority
• Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority
• Regina Airport Authority
• Saint John Airport Inc.
• Saskatoon Airport Authority
• St. John’s International Airport Authority
• Vancouver International Airport Authority
• Victoria Airport Authority
• Winnipeg Airport Authority Inc.

Notes

Percentage totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

The data in this report relating to positions in the core public administration are compiled from the PCIS, except for Tables 15 to 18, which also use the EEDB. Because the data related to official languages are based on the PCIS, they do not match those included in the annual report on Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service. The sum of the designated employment groups does not equal the total of all employees because employees may have chosen to self-identify in more than one group and because employees who identified as male were added to the total.

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

• They are exempted
• 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

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24