Annual Report on Official Languages 2023-24

1.1 Modernized legislation, new responsibilities

The modernized Official Languages Act (the Act) was adopted on June 20, 2023. One of its key changes is the reinforcement of provisions regarding the promotion of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canada. To help Canada advance towards this equality, the modernized Act has two new objectives:

1. to promote and protect the French language
2. to strengthen support to OLMCs

Within the government, the modernized Act also seeks to ensure greater compliance by federal institutions with their obligations (both ongoing and new), and greater oversight of this compliance by a central agency: TBS. The modernized Act gives TBS and its President a greater role in the implementation, coordination, and governance of the legislation.

Some previously discretionary powers of the Treasury Board are now powers that must be exercised. The Treasury Board is now required to:

• establish policies and directives to federal institutions on the implementation of parts of the Act for which Treasury Board was already responsible: communications with and services to the public (Part IV); language of work (Part V); and equitable participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service (Part VI)
• monitor and audit federal institutions for compliance with official languages policies, directives, and regulations
• evaluate and audit the official languages policies and programs of these institutions
• inform the public and employees of federal institutions about policies and directives that apply to them

The Treasury Board’s responsibilities have also broadened. They now include monitoring and auditing federal institutions for compliance with requirements to take positive measures to support the advancement of equality of status and use of both official languages, and for including language clauses in federal–provincial–territorial agreements.

The Treasury Board is also responsible for establishing policies for the application of the Act in this area and has the authority to develop regulations for the application of Part VII of the Act, in consultation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The modernized Act also has implications for the disposal of surplus federal real property, since institutions now have a legislative obligation to consider the interests of OLMCs in the disposal process. In January 2024, TBS updated its Directive on the Management of Real Property and related guidelines to reflect this new obligation.

To better guide the federal government’s official languages initiatives and provide a framework for the application of the Act, TBS has been developing a new Official Languages Accountability and Reporting Framework.

The framework clarifies and reiterates the roles and responsibilities of the key players in official languages governance—both government-wide and in federal institutions—and sets out TBS’s accountability expectations. This will help federal institutions establish their own official languages governance framework. TBS consulted key federal partners (including the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL)) to draft this framework.

To fully assume its strengthened monitoring, audit and evaluation responsibilities, TBS also revised its annual OL review exercise. The purpose of this exercise is to gather information from federal institutions to, for example, monitor their level of compliance with their official languages obligations.

The OL review exercise also provides a diagnostic tool for identifying institutional strengths and challenges, which enables TBS to identify trends and best practices as well as effective support activities.

Changes to the OL review exercise include updating the questions that federal institutions are asked (for example, introducing questions about positive measures and language clauses in federal–provincial–territorial agreements), and requiring institutions to provide additional evidence or clarification to support their responses. To help institutions answer these new questions, TBS created an instruction sheet and organized information sessions.

The new process also requires federal institutions to respond to the OL review questions every two years, rather than every three years. Some thirty institutions, selected based on their size or mandate, will continue to submit their OL reviews annually.

1.2 Expanding public access to federal services

In September 2023, as part of the implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (the Part IV Regulations), TBS launched the OLRRE.

Undertaken every ten years, the OLRRE is an exercise through which some 200 federal institutions use the most recent census data to confirm the linguistic designation of nearly 10,000 offices and service locations by re-applying the criteria set out in the Part IV Regulations. The OLRRE will be carried out in several stages, and full implementation of the new linguistic obligations is expected in 2027.

TBS offered information sessions on OLRRE implementation to the institutions concerned. The information sessions covered:

• the validation of results for offices subject to automatic rules (offices subject to rules that do not require additional tasks, such as holding consultations, defining service areas and measuring demand)
• the principle of proportionality and the holding of consultations
• the definition of service areas
• the measurement of demand for services in English and in French

TBS also created tools, which are available in the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations Toolbox, to support institutions. These tools include a glossary of terms commonly used in the context of the OLRRE and fact sheets on the application of various rules.

TBS also developed a new online application—the System for Official Languages Obligations (SOLO)—to coordinate the OLRRE and manage the application of the Part IV Regulations.

TBS anticipates that the OLRRE will result in increased access to bilingual services across Canada, estimating that an additional 700 federal offices and service locations will be designated bilingual by 2027.

1.3 Strengthen bilingualism and equity, diversity and inclusion in the public service

TBS’s efforts to promote bilingualism in federal workplaces while increasing equity, diversity and inclusion in the public service continued in 2023–24.

Amendments to the Act include two provisions designed to promote bilingualism in the public service:

• the right of employees working in designated bilingual regions to be supervised in the official language of their choice as of June 20, 2025, regardless of the linguistic identification of their position
• the requirement for newly appointed deputy heads, deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, and people appointed at an equivalent level, to take the language training that is necessary to be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages

To support employees and deputy heads in learning their second official language, TBS worked on two initiatives during the reporting period. The first, launched in February 2024, is the Language Training Hub, a one-stop shop for language training needs.

As a first step, it includes three new guidance tools:

1. a guide to help institutions and managers plan and prioritize language training activities
2. a compilation of best practices that managers can apply to create a workplace conducive to learning English or French as a second language
3. a guide for learners, directing them to free self-directed learning tools

The second initiative involves the creation of a second official language training framework. This framework is designed to support federal government employee training by providing learning options that are effective, flexible, accessible, learner-centred, and responsive to the needs of equity-seeking groups. The framework will include:

• guidelines to ensure equitable access to training and promote learner success
• a handbook that will include best practices and recommendations for implementing these guidelines
• a playbook containing various learning paths, tools, and resources, tailored to the needs of learners in a variety of organizational contexts

The second official language training framework will also present various training options to meet the needs of employees who belong to equity-seeking groups. To this end, in May 2023, TBS created an advisory committee on second official language training for equity-seeking groups. This committee considered the tools in the language training framework to determine how they could be used to eliminate barriers that could hinder the learning journey of people belonging to equity-seeking groups.

In fiscal year 2023–24, TBS published the Guide to Official Languages in Federal Procurement to help federal institutions meet their linguistic obligations when acquiring goods and services. It also produced the Manager’s Guide: Key Considerations When Procuring Professional Services, designed to support managers in making informed decisions about contracting.

1.4 Supporting the official languages community of practice

Over the course of 2023–24, TBS organized a number of activities to inform and equip those responsible for official languages.

In June 2023, over 70 federal institutions participated in the Conference of Official Languages Champions. Entitled “Dare to Lead,” this event gave participants the opportunity to discuss questions such as:

• How can we encourage the use of both official languages in a hybrid work environment?
• How can we ensure that official languages remain an institutional priority?
• What tools are available to help those who promote official languages play their role more effectively?

In February 2024, TBS once again organized the Best Practices Forum on Official Languages in collaboration with the Official Languages Branch at Canadian Heritage and the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions. The week-long event mobilized more public servants than ever: 2,000 people viewed the webcast and 1,390 participated in the workshops. During the Forum, participants were able to:

• visit virtual and in-person kiosks to discover the tools available online through the Language Portal of Canada and the Language Training Hub
• take part in virtual workshops, such as the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation’s effective management of a mentoring language program and Farm Credit Canada’s bilingual coaching circles
• attend a discussion on the modernization of the Official Languages Act and its impact on the public service and Canadians

TBS organized an introductory workshop on official languages (“Official Languages 101”) and an information session on updates to the Second Official Language Training Framework.

In collaboration with Canadian Heritage, Farm Credit Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canada School of Public Service, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, TBS also held the “Bringing Together the Community of Practice” hybrid learning and networking event. This targeted initiative, restricted to persons responsible for official languages (PROLs), champions and section 41^{Footnote 2} coordinators, created a dynamic space for participants to exchange best practices.

From April 2023 to March 2024, TBS also organized more than a dozen events for the official languages community of practice. These covered topics such as the modernization of the Act, Part VII of the Act, the OLRRE, the OL review exercise, and the Second Official Language Learning Framework.^{Footnote 3}

Finally, in January 2024, TBS provided the Commissioner of Official Languages with an overview of initiatives undertaken to implement recommendations, including:

• an action plan on the application of section 91 of the Act, which involves staffing and the objective consideration of language requirements
• a conference on “Emergency Preparedness in a Diverse Federation” organized by the Canada School of Public Service in February 2024 as part of its series on Canadian federalism
• the integration of some questions from OCOL’s Official Languages Maturity Model into the questionnaires used by institutions for their OL reviews
• guidelines on optimizing a hybrid workforce, including those relating to official languages

1.5 Supporting the advancement of equality of status and use of English and French

The modernized Act gives the President of the Treasury Board the authority to develop regulations on Part VII of the Act, in consultation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The purpose of these regulations is to specify how federal institutions are to fulfill their obligations to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society, and to ensure compliance with the commitments made by the Government of Canada.

As part of the work to develop new regulations for Part VII of the Official Languages Act, TBS held regular meetings with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, TALQ (Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec, formerly the Quebec Community Groups Network), the OCOL, and federal institutions.

In fall 2023, TBS conducted a preliminary analysis of existing documentation (documents prepared as part of the modernization of the Act, reports submitted by stakeholders on issues related to Part VII) and the expectations identified by stakeholders to guide the development of the regulations. This analysis enabled TBS to identify recurring themes that needed to be explored in greater depth:

• The ability of organizations to take part in OLMC consultations with federal institutions
• The importance of clarifying certain concepts in Part VII
• The importance of including language clauses in federal–provincial–territorial agreements to ensure greater transparency and accountability
• The importance of transparency and accountability in taking positive measures

Finally, in winter 2024, TBS launched a series of pre-consultations with OLMCs; organizations whose mandates involve the promotion of bilingualism in Canadian society; the OCOL; and federal institutions. These pre-consultations enabled TBS to address four main themes:

1. consultation with OLMCs and other stakeholders, and understanding their needs
2. agreements between federal institutions and provincial and territorial governments
3. accountability of federal institutions
4. possible clarification of certain elements of Part VII. This work was intended to guide TBS in the preparation of regulatory proposals for the subsequent statutory consultations in fall 2024.

1.6 Conclusion

TBS has assumed its new responsibilities following the modernization of the Act.

In the subsequent reporting period, TBS will work with Canadian Heritage to develop Part VII regulations that will guide federal institutions in their new responsibilities—particularly with regard to taking positive measures to ensure the equal status and use of English and French in Canadian society. Within the limits of the powers granted by the Act, these regulations will consider the needs and realities of OLMCs and the operational context of federal institutions.

In addition, TBS will continue to support institutions in their efforts to promote bilingualism in their workforce, which include enabling employees to be supervised in the official language of their choice, or by helping them to take training and maintain their second official language skills.

2.1 Summary

Federal services must be accessible to the entire population. To achieve this goal, federal institutions operate a vast network of offices and service locations across Canada and abroad.

This network, whose geographic distribution is detailed in Appendix F, comprises 10,861 locations.^{Footnote 4} Nearly a third of these (32.9%, or 3,572) were required to offer services and communicate with the public in both official languages as of March 31, 2024.

These customer service points offer support and information via channels including service counters, call centres, websites, onboard staff on airplanes, ferries, and trains, and interactive digital kiosks.

As shown in table 1, the majority of federal institutions indicate that they “always” or “almost always” comply with their obligations related to communications with and services to the public (see definition in Appendix C). This positive trend is based largely on the operational capacity of institutions to provide services in both official languages.

For example, data as of March 31, 2024, reveals that, of the 123,112 positions dedicated to serving the public in the core public administration, 41% are held by employees capable of offering services in both English and French, and that 95.2% of these 50,517 public servants actually have the language skills required for their position.

However, action is still required to reach the 90% target set by TBS. Currently, this target is achieved for 7 of the 14 statements in table 1. Although this represents significant progress from the previous OL review cycle (when the 90% threshold was reached for only 4 of 12 statements), work remains to be done.

2.2 Oral and written communications

Federal institutions must make efforts to ensure that their oral communications (for example, press conferences, events and public consultations they organize) are in both official languages or in the official language chosen by the target audience. In 2021–24, only 84% of institutions stated that they “always” or “almost always” did this—a drop of 3 percentage points compared to the previous OL review cycle.

That said, institutions continued to perform well overall when it comes to written communications. Between 2021 and 2024, 91% stated that written material intended for the public (for example, press releases and newsletters) was “always” or “almost always” produced in both official languages, or in the official language chosen by the specific target audience. This result is the same as for the 2018–21 cycle.

2.3 Active offer

Active offer is a way of signalling to members of the public that they have the right, from their very first contact, to interact with and receive services from federal institutions in either English or French, without having to make an explicit request. Through, for example, bilingual greetings (in person or over the phone) such as “Welcome! Bienvenue!,” bilingual signature blocks in email communications, or recorded messages in both official languages, institutions encourage customers to use the official language of their choice from the start of an interaction.

This practice is key to respecting the public’s language rights, since, as the Commissioner of Official Languages has pointed out, “clients who are not immediately offered service in the official language of their choice may assume that service is not available in that language, or that asking for it may cause delays or embarrassment.”^{Footnote 5}

However, the results of OL reviews over the last three years show that the active offer is not yet used systematically by federal institutions: in the 2021–24 OL review period, only 86% of institutions said that they “always” or “almost always” use appropriate measures (such as using the phrase “Hello! Bonjour!”) to inform people who come to their offices that they have the choice of using English or French. The result is the same (86%) for the active offer by phone. This is, however, a slight increase (3 and 2 percentage points, respectively) compared to the results of the 2018–21 OL reviews.

2.4 Dissemination of information and advertising

To ensure that the public has access to federal information in the official language of their choice, institutions must ensure that information or advertising is disseminated equitably.

This means that all communications material from a designated bilingual office must be produced and distributed simultaneously and in full in both official languages. The same applies to website content and social media posts.

Institutions have made progress in these three areas. With regard to communications material from designated bilingual offices, 91% of institutions said they “almost always” or “always” met their obligations between 2021 and 2024. This represents an increase of 8 percentage points over the 2018–21 figure. A more modest, but still notable, increase was also observed with regard to website content: 96% of institutions reported meeting language requirements in this area, compared to 93% in the previous cycle.

The question of social media was asked for the first time in the 2021–24 OL reviews: 94% of institutions confirmed that, with rare exceptions, they publish full English and French versions of all their content simultaneously, while guaranteeing equal quality in both languages.

Finally, it is worth noting that 100% of institutions said they choose and use the advertising media most likely to reach their target audience in their preferred official language (newspapers, radio or social media, for example), an increase of 6 percentage points from the previous cycle.

2.5 Contracts and agreements with third parties

Under the Act, federal institutions are responsible for ensuring that any partner organization that communicates information or offers services to the public on their behalf respects the official languages rights of the public. Although the results obtained for 2021–24 represent a marked improvement over 2018–21, the 90% target has still not been reached.

Table 1 shows that 85% of institutions that enter into contracts or agreements with third parties to provide services on their behalf always or almost always include clauses specifying the linguistic obligations these third parties must meet (compared with 76% in the previous cycle). Of these same institutions, only 81% report that these clauses are always or almost always respected by third parties. While still insufficient, this result represents an improvement of 10 percentage points compared to 2018–21.

2.6 Respecting the principle of substantive equality

According to the principle of substantive equality, official language minority communities (OLMCs) have the right to receive government services that are equal in quality to those offered to the majority. Access to these services must also be equal for both official language communities (the principle is not respected if, for example, the choice of one language over the other has a substantial impact on wait times on the telephone, or on the distance to travel to reach a point of service).

To achieve substantive equality, federal institutions must adapt their practices (for example, by changing their mode of delivery or offering distinct content) to consider the specific needs and characteristics of local OLMCs.

Institutions achieved the weakest result in respect for substantive equality in the 2021–24 cycle. The OL reviews submitted show that only 77% of federal institutions “always” or “almost always” respect this principle when communicating with or providing services to the public. This represents a slight drop (1 percentage point) compared to 2018–21.

2.7 External communications in crisis or emergency situations

The clearest improvement in this OL review cycle was measures taken by institutions in crisis or emergency situations to ensure that external communications are in both official languages or in the public’s preferred official language. The result for 2021–24, 99%, represents a major leap of 65 percentage points over 2018–21 results.

It should be noted that TBS has deployed significant efforts following the publication in 2020, by the OCOL, of the report “A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages,” to improve the institutional performance with respect to official languages during crisis or emergency situations. In collaboration with other institutions, TBS has for example created and made available to all federal institutions a bank of pre-translated messages on recurring issues relating to emergency and crisis communications.

An interdepartmental working group led by TBS has also developed a strategy and an integrated action plan. The main measures implemented included the revision of relevant policy instruments and the Information Sharing Protocol on Significant Events (which establishes for staff members an integrated process for the dissemination of bilingual information on security and safety matters); awareness and mobilization efforts targeting stakeholders in emergency and crisis communications; and, finally, the strengthening of accountability mechanisms based on annual official languages reports.

This work has no doubt contributed to the marked improvement observed in crisis or emergency situations for the 2023–24 fiscal year.

2.8 Conclusion

Federal institutions have made great strides in certain areas of bilingual communications and services to the public, such as emergency response, the use of advertising media, and the simultaneous distribution of communications material. They also achieved a remarkable level of excellence in, for example, the use of French and English in their written communications, web activities, and social media interactions.

That said, nearly a quarter of federal institutions must improve efforts to respect the principle of substantive equality when their employees communicate with or provide services to the public. In addition, as in the previous cycle, still too few institutions use the active offer in person and on the telephone, include language clauses in their agreements with third parties, or verify that existing clauses are respected. Finally, too few federal institutions take their linguistic obligations into account at public events—whether as organizers or participants.

3.1 Summary

In order to foster full recognition of both official languages in federal institutions, Part V of the Act sets out the obligations they must respect regarding the language of work. The amended text of the Act provides new provisions concerning the use of French and English in the professional environment of public servants. For example, in regions designated bilingual for language of work purposes, federal employees can now be supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of their position’s linguistic designation.

Institutions must intensify their efforts to ensure that the language rights of employees are respected. Despite some progress observed for the 2021–24 period, the 90% compliance target is met for only one of the 13 statements in table 2.

The most concerning results relate to the language of meetings: fewer than one institution in two (47%) says it “always” or “almost always” conducts meetings in both official languages and offers employees the opportunity to use the official language of their choice during these meetings. Furthermore, too many institutions still do not systematically provide their employees the opportunity to draft documents in the official language of their choice, and do not ensure that senior management regularly communicates with staff in both official languages.

As in the previous cycle, a high proportion of bilingual supervisory positions (96%) appears to be filled by employees who meet the linguistic requirements attached to them. Similarly, 95% of employees who provide personal and central services in both official languages meet, in principle, the linguistic requirements of their position.

Therefore, something other than the lack of mastery of both official languages by employees likely explains the poor results of institutions regarding the language of meetings, the creation of a climate that promotes writing documents in both languages, and the use of French and English by senior officials when they interact with employees.

One probable contributing factor is linguistic insecurity, which may discourage employees from using their second official language—even when they meet the required proficiency levels.

TBS has implemented several initiatives to address this issue, such as the development of workshops for employees on linguistic security and the creation of an interdepartmental working group.

This group, which includes representatives from the OCOL, has a mandate to analyze, understand and raise awareness among federal public servants of the phenomenon of linguistic insecurity. This report also highlights good practices adopted by certain institutions to enhance linguistic security in their organization.

3.2 Language of written communications

Work remains to be done in terms of respecting the right of employees in bilingual regions to use their preferred official language when drafting documents: only two thirds (67%) of institutions said they “always” or “almost always” give their employees in designated bilingual regions the opportunity to draft documents in the official language of their choice. This is up from 59% in 2018–21, but still unsatisfactory.

3.3 Language of meetings

Particular attention must be paid to the issue of the language spoken at employee-only meetings. Only 47% of institutions indicate that meetings in designated bilingual regions are “always” or “almost always” held in both official languages, and that their employees feel comfortable speaking in the official language of their choice.

This is the lowest result recorded in this OL review period. It is essential for every institution to create conditions conducive to the use of both official languages during meetings.

3.4 Language of employee supervision

Prior to the new dispositions that came into effect on June 20, 2025, only employees in bilingual or either/or positions in bilingual regions could choose the official language they were supervised in. Between 2021 and 2024, only 75% of institutions “always” or “almost always” respected this right—a slightly higher result than in 2018–21 (72%).

In the core public administration, the language requirements of bilingual supervisory positions are met by almost all (96%) of their incumbents.^{Footnote 6} However, in institutions that are not part of the core public administration but have offices in regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, only 79.3% of managers required to be bilingual actually meet the requirements to perform their supervisory duties in both official languages.

3.5 Personal and central services

In bilingual regions, employees have the right to receive personal and central services (such as help with their pay or with their information systems) in the official language of their choice. However, 2021–24 OL review results indicate that only 85% of federal institutions meet their obligations in this area—a drop of 2 percentage points from the previous OL review cycle.

The language skills of public servants do not seem to be at issue here: 95% of employees required to provide bilingual personal and central services in the central public administration meet the language requirements of their position.

3.6 Computer systems and work tools

Under the Act, federal institutions must provide employees working in bilingual regions with access to regularly and widely used computer systems (such as word processing and presentation software) in the official language of their choice. From 2021 to 2024, 82% of employees in bilingual regions indicated that they “always” or “almost always” had such access, an improvement of 5 percentage points over 2018–21.

In addition, in unilingual regions, employees required to communicate with or provide services to the public or to employees in both official languages have the right to obtain regularly and widely used documents and work tools in both official languages. The latest OL reviews show that 85% of institutions respected this right, a modest improvement of 2 percentage points over the previous cycle.

3.7 Training and professional development

According to the Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for People Management, employees in designated bilingual regions can receive training or professional development in their preferred official language. The data compiled for 2021–24 indicates that 83% of institutions ensured that this right was respected, representing a significant improvement of 8 percentage points over 2018–21.

3.8 Communicating with staff and promoting the use of both official languages

The results achieved in 2018–21 for senior management communicating with their staff in both official languages improved slightly in the 2021–24 period.

In the previous cycle, only 63% of federal institutions had affirmed that their senior management “almost always” communicated with employees in both official languages. In 2021–24, this figure increased to 69%—a result still well below expectations, but an improvement of 6 percentage points.

That said, when it comes to crisis or emergency communications, institutions report having produced materials and defined the processes required to meet employees’ needs in English and French (a remarkable leap of 62 percentage points over the previous cycle). The work carried out by TBS to address the Official Languages Commissioner’s recommendations in his report “A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages” no doubt played a role in the progress achieved.

A new question for the fiscal year 2023–24 aimed to confirm whether institutions had analyzed the Public Service Employee Survey results and communicated the findings to their employees. A large majority of institutions (86%) confirmed that they had done so.

Furthermore, for the first time, the 2021–24 OL reviews asked institutions to indicate whether senior management in designated bilingual regions showed leadership in promoting the use of both official languages in the workplace: 87% of institutions replied that this is “always” or “almost always” the case.

3.9 Measures to support linguistic security

To help employees maintain and improve their official language skills, federal institutions must create environments where everyone feels comfortable using the official language of their choice, without fear of being judged or discriminated against. This is called linguistic security. However, from 2021 to 2024, only 74% of institutions confirmed that they had taken measures to create a work environment conducive to language security and to public servants’ use of their first or second official language.

3.10 Conclusion

Clearly, much work remains to be done to ensure that the language-of-work rights of employees are respected. Although more institutions now offer their employees in designated bilingual regions access to training, computer systems, and tools in the official language of their choice, not all employees in bilingual regions have such access.

As in the previous cycle, the results indicate that some supervisors and senior managers lack leadership in communicating bilingually with their employees. In particular, institutions need to increase efforts to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages, to encourage bilingual meetings, and to allow their employees to draft documents in their preferred official language.

Finally, in institutions that are not part of the core public administration, steps must be taken to ensure that managers who are required to be bilingual have a sufficient level of proficiency in their second official language to carry out their supervisory functions in both English and French.

4.1 General situation

According to Part VI of the Act, federal institutions must ensure equal employment and advancement opportunities for English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, without compromising the merit principle that guides human resources management. Part VI also stipulates that the composition of the workforce in federal institutions must tend to reflect the composition of the country’s two official language communities, while taking into account factors such as the institution’s mandate, its target audience, and the location of its offices.

Institutions can take various measures to meet representation commitments, including:

• developing evidence-based recruitment decision-making tools
• establishing partnerships with universities in English- or French-speaking minority communities
• expanding the geographic area of selection for some recruitment processes to achieve a more balanced representation of candidates from both linguistic communities

Graphic 3 - Text version

Linguistic representation in the federal public service:

• Canadian population in 2021: Anglophones, 75.5%; Francophones, 21.4%; and 1.3% who reported both English and French as their first official languages
• Core public administration: Anglophones, 69.9%; and Francophones, 30.1%
• Institutions that are not part of the core public administration: Anglophones, 78.1%; and Francophones, 21.0%
• In all the institutions: Anglophones, 74.5%; and Francophones, 25.0%

Sources: Census 2021; Positions and Classification Information System and System for Official Languages Obligations as of March 31, 2024.

Whereas 90% of large federal institutions took steps during the 2018–21 cycle to ensure that the composition of their workforce tended to reflect that of the Canadian population, only 77% did so for the current cycle—a decline of 13 percentage points.

Graphic 1 shows that the representation of Anglophones and Francophones in the public service is relatively consistent with that of the Canadian population. Statistics from the 2021 population census show that 75.5% of the population reported English as their first official language, and 21.4% French (1.3% of those surveyed reported both English and French as their first official languages). As of March 31, 2024, 69.9% of employees working for the core public administration were Anglophones and 30.1% were Francophones. In federal institutions outside the core public administration, these rates were 78.1% and 21.0% respectively. In all institutions subject to the Act, Anglophones represented 74.5% of the workforce, and Francophones, 25.0%.

The OL reviews for the 2021–24 three-year cycle included a new question concerning Part VI. It asked institutions to indicate whether they had put in place measures to ensure that all Canadians have equal opportunities for employment and advancement, regardless of their first official language. A total of 93% of institutions reported having such measures in place.

4.2 Situation of specific groups

Official language communities are well represented in federal institutions and federal offices across provinces and territories. That said, some employment equity groups have fewer members in bilingual positions than the federal average.

Currently, 41.7% of all public servants in the core public administration are bilingual. This proportion is the same for people with disabilities, but slightly lower for certain groups. For example, 33.0% of Indigenous people and 35.4% of visible minorities hold bilingual positions. Of note, 95.3% of Indigenous people, 94.4% of visible minorities and 95.0% of people with disabilities meet the language requirements of their position. These results mirror those of the public service as a whole.

4.3 Conclusion

The participation of Canada’s two official language communities in the workforce of federal institutions is an undeniable success. It is important that, in the context of significant demographic transformation, these efforts are maintained so that Canadians continue to recognize themselves in their public service.

5.1 Summary

Part VII of the Official Languages Act was substantially changed when the Act was amended in 2023. Previously entitled “Advancement of English and French,” this part of the legislation contained the following commitment on the part of the federal government: “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.”

Section 41 of Part VII of the modernized Act now sets out three distinct commitments. The Government of Canada shall take measures to:

• enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and support and assist their development, taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society, and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society
• protect and promote the French language, taking into account its minority status in Canada and North America
• advance formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education

Institutions must take these three commitments into account when taking positive measures under Part VII.

The modernized Act provides greater detail on the nature of positive measures. It stipulates that these measures must be concrete and intend to produce a favourable effect on the implementation of the three commitments. The Act also establishes that positive measures must respect the need to protect and promote French in each province and territory.

Finally, positive measures must be based on analyses and implemented by institutions by taking into account the specific needs of English- and French-speaking communities. The analyses must be founded, to the extent possible, on the results of dialogue and consultation activities, research and evidence.

These dialogue and consultation activities are an opportunity for federal institutions to gather information that enables them to analyze community needs, obtain the opinion of OLMCs and other partners regarding the positive measures they plan to take, and present OLMCs with the information on which these measures are based.

A variety of positive measures can be taken, including:

• promoting the learning of both official languages
• promoting public acceptance of English and French
• encouraging organizations to reflect Canada’s bilingual character
• contributing to the demographic recovery and growth of French-speaking minorities
• supporting the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French
• supporting sectors essential to the vitality of official language minorities, such as culture, education, health, justice, employment and immigration

Action can take many forms, such as:

• financial support for a community development project
• supporting a non-governmental organization with human resources (loan of service) for the purpose of imparting knowledge or providing specific expertise
• incentives to help private, pan-Canadian organizations reflect and promote Canada’s bilingual character at home and abroad

Since the modernization of the Act, federal institutions have also had to promote the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with the provinces and territories, where such agreements can contribute to the federal commitment to the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

Finally, institutions must consult the OLMCs of the province or territory concerned when they plan to sell or dispose of a federal building or land that is no longer in use. This consultation is mandatory in order to ensure that strategies for disposing of surplus federal properties or buildings take into account the needs and priorities of OLMCs.

It is important to note that the commitments and obligations of federal institutions under Part VII of the Act must be taken into account at all stages: from strategic planning; through the development of policies, programs and initiatives; to the monitoring and evaluation of these policies, programs and initiatives.

If the analyses carried out at any stage reveal the potential for negative impacts on official languages, institutions must study the possibilities of eliminating or, at least, mitigating these risks, and take action.

The powers of the Treasury Board have been expanded so that it can support federal institutions in complying with the new Part VII requirements. TBS’s compliance monitoring now includes questions on how federal institutions meet their Part VII commitments.^{Footnote 7}

5.2 Institutions and advancement of equality of status and use of English and French

Table 4 lists the questions asked in the Part VII OL reviews about:

• positive measures
• the inclusion of language clauses in agreements
• the consultation of OLMCs when an institution develops an asset disposal strategy

The institutions surveyed were asked to indicate how often, in 2023–24, they had fulfilled the obligation described in each of the bolded statements in table 4. They were also asked to indicate the statements that best corresponded to the nature of the positive measures they had taken. Finally, as mentioned in Chapter 1 of this report, institutions were asked to provide TBS with an explanation and, where appropriate, documents to support their responses.

Table 5 shows the proportion of institutions surveyed that indicated, in 2023–24, that their mandate and the services they provide would enable them to meet the government’s Part VII commitments.

About two-thirds of the institutions that responded to the questions in the Part VII OL reviews for the 2023–24 fiscal year report that they “always” or “almost always”:

• take positive measures to advance the equality of status and use of both official languages (63%)
• ensure that they have a mechanism in place to include official language provisions in agreements with provincial or territorial governments (65%)
• consult with OLMCs and other stakeholders to take OLMC needs and priorities into account when disposing of real property (61%)

Of the institutions that report taking positive measures, over three-quarters report that the measures taken were designed to promote Canada’s bilingual character at home and abroad (76%), or foster acceptance and appreciation of both official languages (80%).

In addition, 58% of institutions indicated that the positive measures taken were aimed at promoting and supporting the learning of English and French, 47% maintain that the measures served to protect and promote the presence of strong institutions serving OLMCs, and just over a third (37%) indicated that they were intended to support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

To have a positive impact on OLMCs with respect to their mandate or the implementation of their programs, institutions must first take the time to identify stakeholders from these communities. The 2023–24 OL reviews reveal that 74% of the institutions surveyed had done this—an encouraging result.

Overall, institutions that report taking positive measures indicate that these measures have an impact primarily on promoting the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society (76%), and on protecting and promoting the French language (71%).

To a lesser extent, they also believe that these positive measures enable them to support the development of OLMCs (59%) and strengthen opportunities for individuals in OLMCs to learn in their own language (46%).

5.3 Conclusion

A number of federal institutions have taken positive measures to advance the status and use of English and French in Canadian society. Close to two thirds of institutions declare they “always” or “almost always” ensure that they have a mechanism in place to include official language provisions in agreements with provincial or territorial governments and consult with OLMCs and other stakeholders to take OLMC needs and priorities into account when disposing of real property (61%).

It should be noted that the results presented in tables 4 and 5 do not yet provide a complete picture, as almost half the institutions will answer those questions for the first time in 2024–25. Still, some observations can be made.

First, considering that federal institutions were already required to take positive measures to promote the full recognition and use of both official languages, enhance the vitality of OLMCs, and support their development before the modernization of the Act, the number of institutions reporting that they are “always,” or “almost always” taking positive measures to support the advancement of the equality of status and use of both official languages still needs to be improved.

Second, in the 2023–24 OL review exercise, a third of institutions responded “not applicable” to the request to provide one or two examples of good practices they had put in place as part of their commitment to Part VII of the Act. This result seems to indicate that more orientation is needed from TBS to help institutions understand the role they are called upon to play in advancing the equality of status and use of English and French in the country.

Therefore, increased and sustained awareness on the part of institutions of the implications of Part VII of the Act will be critical. TBS will review existing tools related to Part VII and will develop new ones to support federal institutions. Paired with the forthcoming Part VII regulations, these resources should enable institutions to better understand the nature of their obligations and what constitutes a positive measure.

6.1 Summary

Federal institutions must establish rigorous and sustainable official languages management processes to ensure compliance with the Act. This section presents the institutional measures taken in this regard in the areas of human resources management, governance and monitoring.

According to TBS’s analysis of institutions’ OL reviews, of the 26 management processes listed in tables 6, 7 and 8, only 6 are “almost always” implemented by at least 90% of institutions.

Of the 20 processes that only a small number of institutions engage in systematically, 7 indicate particularly low results (below 70%):

• Half of all institutions do not carry out audit or evaluation activities to assess the extent to which official language requirements are being applied
• About a third of institutions:
  • still have no mechanisms in place to systematically determine the impact of their decisions on Parts IV, V, VI and VII (where applicable) of the Act
  • do not regularly include language issues on the agenda of senior management meetings
  • do not systematically establish specific language objectives in performance agreements or planning instruments such as action plans
  • do not offer regular language training to promote career advancement
  • do not take sustained measures to create an environment conducive to second-language practice once language training has been completed

6.2 Official languages governance

In addition to ensuring compliance with legislative obligations relating to official languages, institutions subject to Parts IV, V and VI and section 91 of the Act must comply with the requirements of the Policy on Official Languages (the policy) and related directives in an effective and timely manner. Deputy heads must provide leadership in this area.

Among other things, the policy requires deputy heads to establish governance structures, mechanisms, and resources “to ensure coherent management of [their] institution’s official languages obligations.”

Thus, taking into account the size and mandate of their organization, deputy heads are required to create a unit dedicated to coordinating official languages responsibilities. They must also appoint an official languages champion and designate a senior manager as the person responsible for official languages.

Finally, deputy heads are expected to integrate compliance with the policy, directives, and related standards into employees’ annual performance assessments.

Table 6 presents the results of the OL reviews regarding practices aimed at ensuring good governance in the area of official languages. While some progress has been made since the last cycle, the results also indicate persistent shortcomings.

For example, only 62% of institutions (61% in 2018–21) report that institutional obligations under Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act were “regularly” included on the agenda of their senior management committee from 2021 to 2024. This practice is important to ensure that language issues are taken into account at all levels of the organization.

In addition, one-third of institutions only “sometimes” include objectives relating to official languages in performance agreements. Institutions must be more consistent in this area to indicate to all employees the importance of official languages in the institution, and to better define the role of each employee in official languages matters.

Additional efforts are also needed to ensure that every institution adopts an official languages–specific action plan or adds specific and comprehensive official languages objectives to their existing planning tools (such as their strategic plan). The objectives chosen should cover 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)
• advancement towards the equality of status and use of English and French (Part VII)

OL reviews from 2021 to 2024 reveal that just under a third (31%) of institutions have not incorporated such language objectives into their planning, compared with 43% in the previous cycle. This is a cause for concern, as the inclusion of specific official language objectives in planning helps to set a clear direction for the organization, coordinate efforts, and effectively measure institutional progress in this area.

That said, the 2021–24 OL reviews show an encouraging improvement in the number of meetings held in institutions to discuss official languages issues. In fact, the champion (and/or co-champion) and the person(s) responsible for Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act met “regularly” in 79% of institutions during this period (a jump of 8 percentage points compared to 2018–21).

In addition, 82% of institutions reported that an official languages committee, network, or working group comprised of representatives from different sectors or regions met periodically to deal horizontally with issues relating to Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act. This result represents a significant increase of 21 percentage points over the previous cycle.

A new question in the 2021–24 OL reviews concerned the means taken by institutions to comply with official languages requirements. Most institutions (87%) stated that they had taken various steps to comply with this obligation, such as referring to the Official Languages Act and its regulations, Treasury Board– and institution-specific policies, or the OCOL Maturity Model.

6.3 Human resources management

Human resources (HR) management plays an important role in ensuring that the language rights of the public and of federal public servants are respected. In addition to being responsible for (along with other managers) the linguistic identification of positions, staffing, training, and employee development, all managers must also ensure that their institution complies with the Directive on Official Languages for People Management.

There is still room for improvement in this area: at the end of the 2021–24 OL review period, federal institutions met only 2 of the 8 obligations and practices listed in table 7.

The data collected indicates, for example, that only 75% of federal institutions feel they “always” or “almost always” have the necessary resources to meet their official language obligations, in terms of both service to the public and language of work, when required. This result, which represents an increase of 7 percentage points over the previous cycle, remains insufficient.

In order to offer Canadians quality services in both official languages, the public service must objectively establish language requirements for each position, taking into account the nature of the work to be performed and the obligations relating to service to the public and/or language of work.

Positions requiring the use of both English and French (either orally or in writing) must be filled by employees who are genuinely comfortable in both languages. The results of the OL reviews show that 83% of institutions “always” or “almost always” comply with this requirement, exactly the same proportion as in the previous cycle.

In the same vein, 92% of institutions indicate they “always” or “almost always” objectively re-examine the linguistic identification of a position when staffing, reclassifying or reorganizing—a very good result, albeit slightly lower than in 2018–21 (96%).

It is also important to confirm that candidates recruited for bilingual positions meet the language requirements of their position at the time of hiring. This ensures that language skills are assessed with the same rigour as the candidates’ other professional qualifications. However, the OL reviews filed from 2021 to 2024 reveal that only 74% of institutions (1 percentage point less than in 2018–21) “always” or “almost always” comply with this important practice.

If candidates do not meet the language requirements of their position from the start, the institution must provide them with the means to achieve the required level of proficiency in their second official language.

At the end of the 2021–24 OL reviews, 64% of institutions stated that newly-hired employees had been able to take the necessary language training to meet the language requirements of their position before starting work, or as soon as possible.

After completing language training, federal public servants need to benefit from working conditions and tools (for example, software for second-language writing) that encourage them to maintain their second official language skills. However, over a third of institutions still do not systematically offer such support to their employees.

To address situations where an employee does not meet the language requirements of their position, 91% of the institutions surveyed between 2021 and 2024 confirmed taking appropriate administrative measures to ensure quality service in both official languages for both the public and employees.

The new Second Language Training Framework is helping institutions address gaps in this area by providing a guide to second official language training and a playbook for all federal public servants.

6.4 Monitoring

Monitoring is instrumental to the vitality and respect of Canada’s official languages. By establishing monitoring mechanisms, federal institutions can measure their progress in applying language policies, identify problem areas, and make any necessary adjustments.

The effectiveness of these monitoring processes is therefore a determining factor in the ability of institutions to serve all Canadians equitably, regardless of their preferred official language.

As table 8 shows, between 2021 and 2024, 90% of federal institutions periodically ensured that their employees were aware of the requirements imposed on them by the Act (compared with 89% in 2018–21).

In addition, 89% of institutions have taken the necessary steps to inform the deputy head—the person responsible for applying official languages policies—of any issues. From 2021 to 2024, 94% of institutions have also ensured that corrective measures are taken as soon as possible in the event of shortcomings or failures detected through monitoring mechanisms in place.

Two of the four new monitoring questions included in the latest OL review cycle addressed the consideration of official languages in the technological context. In this area, institutions are well within the 90% compliance target. In fact, 96% indicate that they “always” or “almost always” take into account linguistic obligations when developing or acquiring common use technologies.

Similarly, 98% report having mechanisms in place to ensure that information published using technology (for example, web tools or mobile applications) is accessible simultaneously and of equal quality in both official languages.

The OL reviews reveal several areas where institutions need to strengthen their monitoring efforts. For example, only 70% of federal institutions carry out activities (such as informal evaluations, random checks and surveys) to measure the availability and quality of services to the public in English and French. Furthermore, only 72% carry out activities to determine whether the linguistic preferences of staff are respected in the workplace (in bilingual regions). These two results represent a slight decrease from the results of the previous cycle.

Additionally, 67% of institutions reported that they have mechanisms in place (such as completing the checklist created for Treasury Board submissions) to assess and document the impact of their decisions on official languages (such as, the decision to review a policy or close an office). This result is virtually unchanged from the previous cycle (68%).

To respond to the specific needs of OLMCs, it is essential to understand those needs and to systematically monitor their evolution. However, only 79% of institutions indicate that they are taking steps to do so (down 2 percentage points from 2018–21).

In addition, only 1 in 2 institutions reports assessing official language requirements through audits or other evaluation activities—a drop of 9 percentage points from the previous cycle.

The 2021–24 OL reviews included two new questions about the implementation of mechanisms to monitor active offer and the inclusion of language clauses in contracts and agreements with third parties.

The results indicate that 30% of federal institutions have yet to establish mechanisms to monitor active offer in designated bilingual offices, and that 22% have yet to set up control systems to ensure that contracts and agreements with third parties providing services to the public on behalf of the institution contain language clauses where required.

6.5 Conclusion

To comply with the various provisions of the Act, federal institutions have adopted a wide range of mechanisms and processes.

Nearly 90% have adopted human resources and monitoring practices that contribute to the promotion of English and French. The data collected indicates, for example, that almost all institutions surveyed implement appropriate corrective measures when an employee is unable to offer services in the official language chosen by a member of the public, or when their monitoring systems identify deficiencies. In addition, many regularly take steps to ensure that their employees are aware of their obligations under the Act.

Nevertheless, some practices have yet to be adopted more systematically. In particular, institutions should strengthen their language training offerings for the professional advancement of their employees, and take measures that allow the employees to maintain their second official language skills.

More frequent auditing and evaluation activities are also needed to provide a clearer picture of the language challenges to be addressed. Implementing these practices and including language issues on the agenda of senior management committees would help resolve many of the shortcomings identified in this report.

Large institutions

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Air Canada
• Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency*
• Bank of Canada
• Business Development Bank of Canada
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Energy Regulator
• Canada Lands Company
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
• Canada Post Corporation
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canada School of Public Service
• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation*
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
• Canadian Heritage
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
• Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
• Correctional Service Canada
• Courts Administration Service
• Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada*
• Defence Construction Canada
• Department of Justice Canada
• Employment and Social Development Canada
• Environment and Climate Change Canada*
• Export Development Canada
• Farm Credit Canada
• Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Global Affairs Canada
• Health Canada
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• National Arts Centre Corporation
• National Defence
• Natural Resources Canada
• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada*
• Office of the Auditor General of Canada
• Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
• Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
• Parks Canada
• Parole Board of Canada
• Privy Council Office*
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Public Safety Canada
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mint
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Shared Services Canada
• Statistics Canada
• Transport Canada
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Veterans Affairs Canada
• VIA Rail Canada Inc.

Small institutions

• Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
• Belledune Port Authority
• Canada Council for the Arts*
• Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions*
• Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
• Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction
• Canadian Grain Commission
• Canadian Human Rights Commission
• Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
• Canadian Museum for Human Rights*
• Canadian Museum of History
• Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
• Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
• Destination Canada*
• Farm Products Council of Canada
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario*
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
• Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
• Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada*
• Halifax Port Authority
• Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority
• Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada*
• National Capital Commission*
• National Film Board*
• National Gallery of Canada
• Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages*
• Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
• Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
• Pacific Economic Development Canada*
• Port Alberni Port Authority
• Prairies Economic Development Canada*
• Prince Rupert Port Authority
• RCMP External Review Committee
• Saint John Port Authority
• Sept-Îles Port Authority
• St. John’s Port Authority
• Telefilm Canada*
• Thunder Bay Port Authority
• Transportation Safety Board of Canada
• Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
• Women and Gender Equality Canada*

Airport authorities^{Footnote 9}

• 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

Bilingual positions and pool of bilingual employees in the core public administration as of March 31

Year	Bilingual positions	Superior proficiency	Intermediate proficiency	Minimum proficiency	Pool of bilingual employees
2000	35%	21%	11%	3%	35%
2010	41%	27%	12%	2%	41%
2020	42%	26%	15%	2%	43%
2023	41%	23%	14%	2%	38%
2024	42%	23%	13%	2%	38%