Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada


ARCHIVED - Annual Report on Official Languages 2012 – 2013

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Catalogue No. BT23-1/2013E-PDF
ISSN 1486-9683
Volume 2

Table of Contents

Message From the President of the Treasury Board

As President of the Treasury Board, I am pleased to submit this 25th annual report to Parliament on official languages for the fiscal year 2012–13, in accordance with section 48 of the Official Languages Act (the Act).

Our government believes that continually striving to improve how it manages the public service and human resources translates into tangible benefits for Canadians, particularly in terms of implementing the Official Languages Act in federal institutions.

A brief comparison between the current situation and that of 25 years ago shows that considerable progress has been made. In 1988, one in three employees was bilingual. Now, the public service has a pool of bilingual employees that makes up 45 per cent of its workforce, enabling the government to communicate with and serve Canadians more effectively in the official language of their choice. This comparison also highlights the fact that significant changes have taken place in the work environment and in the way public servants work. We have moved from a paper-based world centred on written reports and publications to a virtual world focused on instantaneous communication. Canadians expect their government to adapt to this changing environment as well.

Deputy heads hold primary responsibility for human resources management in their organizations, and now more than ever, they must ensure their institutions are able to communicate with public service employees and the Canadian public in both official languages, effectively and rapidly. They must also ensure their workforce continues to represent the population of Canada. Effective human resources management is paramount in the public service, and the progress made over the past 25 years must be kept in mind. It is also important to build on this progress and continue improving the management of official languages policies and programs. The new official languages policy suite that came into effect on November 19, 2012, represents a step in this direction. The policies reaffirm the importance of good governance in the area of official languages by requiring every institution to establish an appropriate governance structure. Further, they will improve institutions' delivery of services in both official languages by increasing accountability and supporting more consistent implementation of official languages requirements by government organizations.

In a climate in which Canadians expect the government to deliver effective services while managing taxpayers' money wisely and responsibly, the government is focusing on improving implementation of the Act in a way that yields results for Canadians. Over the next few years, we will communicate with Canadians and keep them informed of the results of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise. Once the exercise has been completed, Canadians will be advised in a timely and effective manner as to which offices and service locations offer services in both official languages.

As President of the Treasury Board, I am proud of the results obtained thus far. The following pages attest to the efforts and leadership of federal institutions, which will help them continue to advance linguistic duality in a changing environment.

Original signed by

The Honourable Tony Clement,
President of the Treasury Board

Introduction

The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) supports approximately 200 federal institutions See footnote 1 subject to the Official Languages Act (the Act) in order to ensure they fulfill their linguistic obligations under Parts IV, V and VI of the Act. OCHRO provides institutions with guidance, coordination and the tools they need to achieve their official languages objectives.

This 25th annual report covers the application of Parts IV, V and VI of the Act for the 2012–13 fiscal year, with a focus on the results of the Official Languages Program as a whole.

This marks the second year of the three-year cycle that started in 2011–12. It coincides with the second year in implementing the coordinated approach to official languages reporting adopted by OCHRO and Canadian Heritage. Once again, the 78 organizations See footnote 2 required to submit an Annual Review on Official Languages (review) provided updates on the elements related to the application of Parts IV, V and VI of the Act for OCHRO and of Part VII of the Act for Canadian Heritage, thereby enabling the two ministers responsible for the implementation of the Act to meet their respective legislative requirements. Institutions were required to report to OCHRO on the following elements of the Official Languages Program: communications with and services to the public in both official languages, language of work, human resources management, governance, and monitoring of the Official Languages Program. These five elements were assessed primarily through multiple choice questions. OCHRO again asked seven other narrative-type questions to facilitate the collection of more detailed information about various elements. Regarding communications with and services to the public, OCHRO continued its focus on the issue of implementing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in DesRochers (CALDECH), See footnote 3 as well as the presence of institutions on various social media platforms. In terms of human resources management, governance and oversight of the Official Languages Program, OCHRO assessed institutions' official languages capacity, See footnote 4 notably in the context of workforce adjustment and the implementation of Budget 2012.

The information collected is also being used for other OCHRO activities. The highlights that follow provide an overview of the implementation of the Official Languages Program in 2012–13. The statistical tables presented in this report reflect the results for all federal institutions. See footnote 5

Implementation of the Official Languages Program

In fiscal year 2012–2013, federal institutions continued to work to implement the Official Languages Program, which is a central part of human resources management and services delivered to the Canadian public. The following sections of the report outline the status of the Official Languages Program within the 77 institutions that submitted a review.

Implementation of the CALDECH Decision

Since the principle of substantive equality must be taken into consideration when government programs or services intended for the Canadian public are changed, eliminated or created, OCHRO considered it important to continue to assess the implementation of the CALDECH decision. The principle of substantive equality is an integral part of the requirements of the new official languages policy suite that came into effect in November 2012. Based on the responses provided in the reviews, OCHRO has found that implementation of the CALDECH decision continues to advance, overall. The majority of institutions indicated they had adjusted their programs and services in light of the results obtained from the analytical grid. Some institutions indicated they had examined the grid and determined it did not apply or no adjustments were needed to their programs and services, because they already complied with the principle of substantive equality.  That said, the observations made by institutions show there remain some interpretation challenges in distinguishing between the principle of substantive equality as applied in the context of Part IV of the Act and the principle of advancement of English and French that applies under Part VII of the Act.

Communications With and Services to the Public (including social media)

The use of new methods of communication such as social media continued to generate considerable interest in the public and among federal institutions. In its response to the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled Internet, New Media and Social Media: Respect for Language Rights!, the government indicated the new official languages policy suite that came into effect in November 2012 took into consideration the rapid development of new information technologies. See footnote 6, Social media are among the methods of communicating with the public covered in the new official languages policy suite.

As indicated in the Government Response, OCHRO has continued to take an interest in the use of social media by federal institutions. A growing number of federal institutions are using social media as a means to communicate instantly and directly with the public. Of the 77 federal institutions that submitted an annual review for 2012–13, 55 indicated they have a presence on at least one type of social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Of these 55 institutions, 53 use Twitter, 31 use Facebook and 30 use YouTube. A smaller number of institutions stated they also use other social media such as Flickr and LinkedIn. See footnote 7

During the year under review, OCHRO was called upon to make a number of presentations on official languages obligations, including those in the Guideline for External Use of Web 2.0, and to support the Office of the Chief Information Officer in its work on Web 2.0. A number of institutions shared questions and good practices on this subject through Clearspace, the online platform used by the official languages community.

The responses institutions gave in their reviews reflect their desire to meet the requirements for communications with and services to the public in their use of social media. Although most consider that they are complying with their obligations regarding communications with and services to the public in their use of social media, a few acknowledged again this year that the fact that other entities tend to use English more on these media may present challenges in terms of production and may affect their ability to hyperlink to French-language information sources.

As federal institutions strive to meet their official languages obligations for social media, they continue to meet the requirements for traditional means of communication. As of March 31, 2013, there were 11,521 federal offices and service locations, of which 3,930 (34.1 per cent) were obliged to offer bilingual services to the public. The linguistic designation of offices and service locations may change in the coming years depending on the outcome of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise, triggered by Statistics Canada's release on October 24, 2012, of the language data from the 2011 Census. During the past year, OCHRO focused on the provision of training for institutions required to take measures in response to the census results and apply the Directive on the Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. OCHRO also endeavoured to complete the preparatory work that will enable it to coordinate this exercise and to support institutions in carrying it out.

Based on the annual reviews, a large majority of institutions have taken effective measures to ensure the availability and the quality of communications and services provided to the public in both official languages in oral, written and electronic communications. Almost all of the institutions questioned stated that their electronic communications and website content are available in both official languages and are posted simultaneously and that the English and French versions are nearly always and very often of equal quality.

The institutions indicated, again this year, that they have implemented effective measures to greet the public in both official languages on the telephone and in their use of displays, posters and recorded messages. However, they recognized they must continue to improve their results for in-person active offer. To that end, a number of institutions reported they introduced telephone or in-person checks at some offices during the year to verify aspects of active offer. See footnote 8

A majority of the institutions questioned indicated that they had included language provisions in contracts and agreements signed with third parties acting on their behalf. However, they acknowledged some areas of weakness remain in terms of verifying the implementation of these language provisions. Given that service delivery mechanisms are evolving and becoming more complex, institutions must continue to be vigilant.

Language of Work

Once again, the annual reviews indicate that a number of institutions have taken into account their organization's results for the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). The reviews also show that, when there is no PSES, some institutions conduct an internal survey of their employees that includes indicators relating to language of work or official languages. The results of the internal surveys helped these institutions identify challenges, take appropriate measures and support their review results. Some institutions indicated that the PSES results prompted them to develop an action plan for the PSES that included official languages. OCHRO has conducted a more in-depth analysis of the PSES data on official languages and has shared the results with institutions through its departmental advisory committee on official languages and the official languages champions. Some institutions stated they had analyzed their own results in order to take the necessary corrective action.

Based on the annual reviews, institutions continue to identify bilingual meetings as a challenge. They acknowledged their results in this area are not as high as in other areas that foster a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. Fifty-nine institutions that submitted a review stated that meetings are held in both official languages and employees are able to use the official language of their choice during meetings in designated bilingual regions in over 70 per cent of cases.

A majority of institutions indicated that documents can be written in employees' official language of choice and that effective measures are being taken to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. The situation remained stable in most institutions in terms of the availability of documentation, regularly and widely used work instruments, and computer systems in both official languages, as well as the availability of personal and central services in the preferred official language, even in unilingual regions. The situation described by institutions for access to training and professional development in employees' official language of choice is the same, with the majority of them indicating that staff can access training and professional development in their preferred language.

A strong majority of institutions (71 and 72 institutions that submitted a review, respectively) stated that senior management communicates effectively with employees in both official languages and encourages them to use the official language of their choice in the workplace in over 70 per cent of cases. A majority stated that regularly and widely used work instruments are available in both official languages for staff required to offer bilingual services to the public or to employees in a designated bilingual region. Institutions' responses also indicate they consider an appropriate number of designated bilingual positions to be key to ensuring the bilingual capacity to meet their linguistic obligations for communications with and services to the public and language of work. Although human resources is a determining factor in ensuring institutions fulfill their linguistic obligations, it is important to take into account all of the key elements for institutional capacity. See footnote 9

The information obtained from the institutions' reviews reveals results similar to last year's for supervision of the incumbents of bilingual or reversible positions in the official language of their choice regardless of whether the supervisor is located in a bilingual or a unilingual region. The extension of the right to be supervised in the preferred official language, as set out in the new official languages policy suite, nonetheless elicited a number of questions from institutions at information sessions held in Ottawa and in the regions, on Clearspace and during official languages advisory committee meetings.

Human Resources Management (including equitable participation)

Sound human resources management is paramount in an environment where institutions are required to examine how they can deliver their programs and services effectively while meeting the changing needs of individuals. During the year under review, OCHRO continued to work closely with the Public Service Commission (PSC) through its advisory committees and its online platform, Clearspace, to address matters of interest to all institutions. OCHRO and the PSC also worked together to provide institutions with clear direction on the monitoring and coding of the transition measure on the validity of Second Language Evaluation test results for workforce adjustment situations. See footnote 10 Quite a few institutions indicated in their reviews that they were monitoring implementation of this transition measure and had reported as such to the PSC. The collaborative work begun last year continued to focus on the following matters, also addressed in the institutions' annual reviews: objective identification of the language requirements for bilingual positions; the match between the linguistic profiles of positions and the work performed, whether to meet service-to-the-public or language-of-work obligations; and staffing of bilingual positions by bilingual candidates at the time of appointment, as well as the administrative measures taken in situations where that was not the case. According to the information obtained from the annual reviews, these official language requirements are being addressed effectively by a large majority of institutions (over 70 institutions that submitted a review).

A majority of institutions indicated they provide language training to employees for career advancement and to meet position requirements prior to taking on the related duties. Most institutions provide a work environment that is conducive to the use and improvement of second language skills so that employees who return from language training are able to maintain their skills. All of the elements mentioned pertain to sound human resources management and will remain important throughout next year.

With regard to equitable participation, the participation rate of Anglophones in federal institutions subject to the Act was 73.3 per cent. The participation of Francophones was at 26.6 per cent. In the core public administration, the rate of participation was 68.1 per cent for Anglophones and 31.9 per cent for Francophones. The data from the 2011 Census indicate that English is the first official language for 75 per cent of Canada's population, and French for 23.2 per cent, and OCHRO notes that employees from both official language communities are well represented across federal institutions subject to the Act. OCHRO also finds that participation rates for the two language groups have remained stable. See footnote 11

Governance and Monitoring

In the context of a changing public service, governance and accountability remain current issues. Two years of a coordinated approach to reporting and the inclusion of governance requirements in the new official languages policy suite are having an impact on governance in federal institutions, notably by fostering collaboration between those responsible for different parts of the Act and official languages champions and by encouraging institutions to look at their official languages governance.

According to the data provided in the reviews, a majority of institutions have an official languages action plan (or have incorporated official languages objectives into another planning instrument) and have established a committee, network or working group on official languages. A smaller majority of institutions have included clear performance objectives for implementing different parts of the Act in executives' and managers' performance agreements or have indicated that the Key Leadership Competencies profile, which refers to official languages, is the preferred way to proceed. The institutions' responses also indicate that the governance requirement raises a number of questions. For this reason, OCHRO will continue to work with institutions to provide horizontal support through its advisory committees and Clearspace. A larger majority of institutions (89 per cent and 93 per cent, respectively) indicated that official languages issues are regularly or sometimes on the agenda of their senior management committee and that the champion and persons responsible for the different parts of the Act get together regularly or sometimes to discuss the official languages file. OCHRO will continue to work with institutions to promote the exchange of good practices among institutions subject to the Act.

Almost all institutions (95 per cent) maintain they take measures to improve or correct a situation when monitoring activities or measures reveal shortcomings or areas of weakness. There are three reasons they have been able to identify such shortcomings: first, a large majority of institutions (91 per cent) have put in place mechanisms to help them regularly monitor implementation of the Act to keep the deputy head informed of the results; second, a majority (71 per cent) periodically conduct activities designed to determine whether employees feel they are able to use the language of work of their choice in designated bilingual regions; and, third, a majority (80 per cent) also periodically conduct activities to assess the availability and quality of services offered in both official languages. Almost all of the institutions stated they have mechanisms in place to determine and document the impact of their decisions on the implementation of the various parts of the Act. Mechanisms include analytical grids, reviews of memoranda to Cabinet and Treasury Board submissions, guides and analytical frameworks on official languages. A smaller number of institutions stated they carried out audit activities (whether through the internal audit unit or other units) to assess the extent to which official languages obligations are implemented. See footnote 12

OCHRO Activities and Follow-Up

To help institutions improve their outcomes in certain areas, OCHRO has been working with all institutions, through the activities of its departmental and Crown corporation advisory committees on official languages and its official languages champions, on the following matters:

  • Active offer;
  • Bilingual meetings; and
  • The possibility for employees to be supervised in the official language of their choice.

These discussions, as well as others in the official languages community through Clearspace and the information sessions on the new official languages policy suite held in Ottawa and in the regions, See footnote 13 have facilitated the exchange of good practices and have contributed to improving results and increasing the understanding of these requirements. OCHRO plans to continue working horizontally with institutions on the first two points, as well as on fostering the creation and maintenance of a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages, using the mechanisms previously mentioned.

Regarding the activities it conducts through its advisory committees and official language champions, OCHRO has continued to look at the issue of governance. As a result, the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions (supported by OCHRO) has created a working group of official languages champions responsible for developing a tool on governance for deputy heads. In concrete terms, the purpose of this tool is to help official languages champions support deputy heads in meeting their official languages obligations within their institutions, particularly with respect to governance. The results of the working group's efforts will be available in 2013–14.

Conclusion and Trends

As previously indicated, the year 2012–13 is the second in the three-year cycle of annual reviews on official languages. The government strategy on official languages, the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, 2008–2013, has been renewed up to 2018; See footnote 14 the parliamentary committees have completed their studies on social media and the Roadmap, as well as on linguistic duality in connection with the celebrations in 2017 of the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation; and the government has supported Bill C-419, which provides that persons appointed to certain positions must have the ability to speak and clearly understand both official languages.

Statistics Canada's release on October 24, 2012, of the data from the 2011 Census on first official language spoken has triggered the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations reapplication exercise. This exercise will take place over the coming years and will require that some 10,000 federal offices review their linguistic obligations in light of the most recent data. OCHRO will continue to support institutions in carrying out this exercise, which is occurring at a time when service delivery to the public is changing and differs quite a bit from the approach taken 25 years ago, when the first annual report on official languages was tabled. Canadians expect the federal government to adapt to today's reality, and they expect to be able to continue communicating and obtaining services in the official language of their choice, quickly and effectively in both official languages. Moreover, they expect the federal government to have the institutional capacity needed to achieve this. Institutions must also continue their efforts in creating a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages, while maintaining a public service whose composition accurately reflects the English- and French-speaking communities.

The public service has had to manage considerable changes, including a restructuring of the mechanisms through which a number of internal and external services are offered. It is important for institutions subject to the Act to stay the course and ensure that official languages remain at the centre of these decisions and their implementation. As the results in this report attest, institutions have the tools to achieve this. Institutions also need to remember that having a qualified, effective and capable workforce is only one of the elements needed to ensure the capacity to properly serve the Canadian public and their employees for years to come. Deputy heads play a key role in maintaining and training a qualified and capable workforce that is engaged, talented and able to respond to the needs of the Canadian population in the coming years. Public servants also expect to be equipped to collaborate more effectively, regardless of where their workplace is, and to continue serving Canadians with excellence. For this reason, OCHRO encourages institutions to actively participate in building the public service of tomorrow by affirming the importance of our two official languages at every opportunity.

The new official languages policy suite that came into effect on November 19, 2012, gives deputy heads the tools they need by clarifying official languages obligations, while allowing them the flexibility to put in place practices and procedures suited to their institutions and to the public they serve. Institutions must continue taking into account the principle of substantive equality when making changes to the ways in which services or programs are provided to the public. During this period of change, OCHRO urges deputy heads to continue to exercise leadership and to be vigilant in fulfilling their official languages obligations by relying on a variety of human resources and official languages tools, mechanisms and data sources, which will help them ensure the capacity of their institutions to serve and communicate with the Canadian public and their employees in both official languages.

To that end, OCHRO believes institutions must continue to strive for increased rigour in performance measurement, monitoring and governance by focusing on best practices. OCHRO encourages institutions to continue their thinking on and their work toward putting in place an appropriate governance structure and to maximize the use of existing monitoring tools and mechanisms in order to advance communications and service delivery to the public, foster the creation and maintenance of a workplace conducive to the use of both official languages and build a public service whose composition accurately reflects the English- and French-speaking communities.

Appendix

Sources of Statistical Data

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

The reference year for the data in the tables varies depending on the system: March 31, 2013, for PCIS and Burolis, and December 31, 2012, for OLIS II.

Although the reference years may be different, the data used for reporting are based on the same fiscal year. To simplify the presentation of the tables and make comparison easier, the two data systems use the same fiscal year.

Notes

Percentages in the tables may not add up to 100 per cent because of rounding to the closest decimal point.

The data in this report that pertain to positions in the core public administration are compiled from the PCIS and differ slightly from the data in the Incumbent Data System.

Pursuant to the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, incumbents who do not meet the language requirements of their position would fall into one of the following two categories:

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

The linguistic profile of a bilingual position is determined using three levels of second-language proficiency:

  • Level A: Minimum proficiency;
  • Level B: Intermediate proficiency; and
  • Level C: Superior proficiency.

Definitions

"Position"
means a position filled for an indeterminate period or a determinate period of three months or more, according to the information in the PCIS.
"Resources"
means the resources required to meet obligations on a regular basis, according to the information available in OLIS II.
"Bilingual position"
means a position in which all or part of the duties must be performed in both English and French.
"Reversible position"
means a position in which all the duties can be performed in English or French, depending on the employee's preference.
"Incomplete record"
means a position for which data on language requirements is incorrect or missing.
"Linguistic capacity outside Canada"
means all rotational positions outside Canada (rotational employees)—most of which are in Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada See footnote 15—that are staffed from a pool of employees with similar skills.
In Tables 5, 7, 9 and 11,
the levels required in second language proficiency refer only to oral interaction (understanding and speaking). The "Other" category refers to positions either requiring code P (specialized proficiency) or not requiring any second language oral interaction skills.
The terms "Anglophone" and "Francophone"
refer to employees on the basis of their first official language. The first official language is the language declared by the employee as the one with which he or she has a primary personal identification.

Statistical Tables

Table 1
Bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration

Bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration

Table 1. Bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration - Text Version


Table 2
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration
Year Bilingual English Essential French Essential English or French Essential Incomplete Records Total
1978 52,300 24.7% 128,196 60.5% 17,260 8.1% 14,129 6.7% 0 0.0% 211,885
2000 50,535 35.3% 75,552 52.8% 8,355 5.8% 7,132 5.0% 1,478 1.0% 143,052
2012 83,998 42.5% 98,451 49.9% 7,396 3.7% 7,349 3.7% 292 0.1% 197,486
2013 80,008 42.8% 93,314 49.9% 6,979 3.7% 6,254 3.3% 550 0.3% 187,105


Table 3
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration by province, territory or region
  Unilingual Positions  
Province, Territory or Region Bilingual English Essential French Essential English or French Essential Incomplete Records Total
British Columbia 1,213 6.9% 16,312 92.2% 34 0.2% 74 0.4% 52 0.3% 17,685
Alberta 381 4.0% 9,009 94.9% 0 0.0% 33 0.3% 69 0.7% 9,492
Saskatchewan 159 3.4% 4,461 96.4% 3 0.1% 5 0.1% 1 0.0% 4,629
Manitoba 562 8.4% 6,110 91.0% 3 0.0% 25 0.4% 11 0.2% 6,711
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 2,711 11.2% 21,240 87.9% 12 0.0% 153 0.6% 56 0.2% 24,172
National Capital Region (NCR) 54,750 67.5% 20,424 25.2% 163 0.2% 5,634 6.9% 164 0.2% 81,135
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 13,684 65.9% 134 0.6% 6,728 32.4% 155 0.7% 61 0.3% 20,762
New Brunswick 3,410 53.6% 2,834 44.6% 21 0.3% 89 1.4% 7 0.1% 6,361
Prince Edward Island 509 28.9% 1,253 71.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 1,764
Nova Scotia 929 10.9% 7,442 87.3% 12 0.1% 44 0.5% 102 1.2% 8,529
Newfoundland and Labrador 266 8.1% 2,969 90.6% 0 0.0% 23 0.7% 20 0.6% 3,278
Yukon 20 6.1% 303 92.9% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 1 0.3% 326
Northwest Territories 10 1.9% 521 97.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 533
Nunavut 16 7.0% 208 91.6% 0 0.0% 2 0.9% 1 0.4% 227
Outside Canada 1,387 92.5% 94 6.3% 3 0.2% 13 0.9% 3 0.2% 1,500
Total 80,008 42.8% 93,314 49.9% 6,979 3.7% 6,254 3.3% 550 0.3% 187,105


Table 4
Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
  Do Not Meet  
Year Meet Exempted Must Meet Incomplete Records Total
1978 36,446 69.7% 14,462 27.7% 1,392 2.7% 0 0.0% 52,300
2000 41,832 82.8% 5,030 10.0% 968 1.9% 2,705 5.4% 50,535
2012 79,869 95.1% 2,869 3.4% 406 0.5% 854 1.0% 83,998
2013 76,332 95.4% 2,867 3.6% 268 0.3% 541 0.7% 80,008


Table 5
Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second-language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total
1978 3,771 7.2% 30,983 59.2% 13,816 26.4% 3,730 7.1% 52,300
2000 12,836 25.4% 34,677 68.6% 1,085 2.1% 1,937 3.8% 50,535
2012 27,463 32.7% 54,182 64.5% 699 0.8% 1,654 2.0% 83,998
2013 26,302 32.9% 51,478 64.3% 621 0.8% 1,607 2.0% 80,008


Table 6
Service to the public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
  Do Not Meet  
Year Meet Exempted Must Meet Incomplete Records Total
1978 20,888 70.4% 8,016 27.0% 756 2.5% 0 0.0% 29,660
2000 26,766 82.3% 3,429 10.5% 690 2.1% 1,631 5.0% 32,516
2012 46,641 94.9% 1,705 3.5% 268 0.5% 514 1.0% 49,128
2013 43,916 95.9% 1,438 3.1% 157 0.3% 265 0.6% 45,776



Table 7
Service to the public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second-language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total
1978 2,491 8.4% 19,353 65.2% 7,201 24.3% 615 2.1% 29,660
2000 9,088 27.9% 22,421 69.0% 587 1.8% 420 1.3% 32,516
2012 18,210 37.1% 30,498 62.1% 341 0.7% 79 0.2% 49,128
2013 17,141 37.4% 28,270 61.8% 290 0.6% 75 0.2% 45,776


Table 8
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
  Do Not Meet  
Year Meet Exempted Must Meet Incomplete Records Total
2012 56,746 95.2% 2,019 3.4% 277 0.5% 572 1.0% 59,614
2013 53,595 95.4% 2,038 3.6% 174 0.3% 372 0.7% 56,179


Table 9
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second-language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total
2012 20,055 33.6% 38,063 63.8% 311 0.5% 1,185 2.0% 59,614
2013 19,122 34.0% 35,659 63.5% 272 0.5% 1,126 2.0% 56,179


Table 10
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Linguistic status of incumbents
  Do Not Meet  
Year Meet Exempted Must Meet Incomplete Records Total
2012 22,728 95.2% 716 3.0% 219 0.9% 216 0.9% 23,879
2013 21,922 95.4% 786 3.4% 135 0.6% 125 0.5% 22,968


Table 11
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration – Level of second-language proficiency required (oral interaction)
Year Level C Level B Level A Other Total
2012 12,209 51.1% 11,576 48.5% 46 0.2% 48 0.2% 23,879
2013 11,962 52.1% 10,923 47.6% 45 0.2% 38 0.2% 22,968


Table 12
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration by province, territory or region
Province, Territory or Region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
British Columbia 16,870 95.4% 815 4.6% 0 0.0% 17,685
Alberta 9,209 97.0% 283 3.0% 0 0.0% 9,492
Saskatchewan 4,555 98.4% 74 1.6% 0 0.0% 4,629
Manitoba 6,454 96.2% 257 3.8% 0 0.0% 6,711
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 22,848 94.5% 1,323 5.5% 1 0.0% 24,172
National Capital Region (NCR) 47,494 58.5% 33,641 41.5% 0 0.0% 81,135
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 1,844 8.9% 18,918 91.1% 0 0.0% 20,762
New Brunswick 3,485 54.8% 2,876 45.2% 0 0.0% 6,361
Prince Edward Island 1,564 88.7% 200 11.3% 0 0.0% 1,764
Nova Scotia 8,018 94.0% 511 6.0% 0 0.0% 8,529
Newfoundland and Labrador 3,118 95.1% 160 4.9% 0 0.0% 3,278
Yukon 314 96.3% 12 3.7% 0 0.0% 326
Northwest Territories 526 98.7% 7 1.3% 0 0.0% 533
Nunavut 204 89.9% 23 10.1% 0 0.0% 227
Outside Canada 1,008 67.2% 492 32.8% 0 0.0% 1,500
All regions 127,511 68.1% 59,593 31.9% 1 0.0% 187,105


Table 13
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration by occupational category
Category Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
Management (EX) 3,499 67.5% 1,684 32.5% 0 0.0% 5,183
Scientific and Professional 24,250 74.2% 8,429 25.8% 0 0.0% 32,679
Administrative and Foreign Service 51,744 61.2% 32,739 38.8% 0 0.0% 84,483
Technical 10,019 76.6% 3,058 23.4% 0 0.0% 13,077
Administrative Support 15,207 68.2% 7,078 31.8% 0 0.0% 22,285
Operations 22,792 77.5% 6,605 22.5% 1 0.0% 29,398
All categories 127,511 68.1% 59,593 31.9% 1 0.0% 187,105


Table 14
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration by province, territory or region
Province, Territory or Region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
British Columbia 34,114 96.1% 1,370 3.9% 18 0.1% 35,502
Alberta 26,748 95.1% 1,332 4.7% 36 0.1% 28,116
Saskatchewan 7,530 96.2% 282 3.6% 13 0.2% 7,825
Manitoba 14,439 95.6% 653 4.3% 14 0.1% 15,106
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 74,611 94.5% 4,292 5.4% 61 0.1% 78,964
National Capital Region (NCR) 32,317 68.2% 14,982 31.6% 91 0.2% 47,390
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 7,751 15.5% 42,251 84.4% 73 0.1% 50,075
New Brunswick 7,365 74.4% 2,523 25.5% 12 0.1% 9,900
Prince Edward Island 1,770 95.0% 81 4.3% 13 0.7% 1,864
Nova Scotia 14,725 91.4% 1,374 8.5% 3 0.0% 16,102
Newfoundland and Labrador 5,635 98.0% 117 2.0% 0 0.0% 5,752
Yukon 345 94.0% 22 6.0% 0 0.0% 367
Northwest Territories 550 90.5% 58 9.5% 0 0.0% 608
Nunavut 222 88.1% 30 11.9% 0 0.0% 252
Outside Canada 1,226 76.7% 372 23.3% 0 0.0% 1,598
All regions 229,348 76.6% 69,739 23.3% 334 0.1% 299,421


Table 15
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions that are not part of the core public administration by occupational category or equivalent category
Category Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
Management 10,778 75.4% 3,508 24.5% 7 0.0% 14,293
Professionals 26,091 72.9% 9,610 26.8% 101 0.3% 35,802
Specialists and Technicians 19,139 75.0% 6,219 24.4% 157 0.6% 25,515
Administrative Support 34,581 75.5% 11,166 24.4% 54 0.1% 45,801
Operations 75,161 80.0% 18,803 20.0% 15 0.0% 93,979
Canadian Forces and Regular Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 63,598 75.7% 20,433 24.3% 0 0.0% 84,031
All categories 229,348 76.6% 69,739 23.3% 334 0.1% 299,421


Table 16
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act by province, territory or region
Province, Territory or Region Anglophones Francophones Unknown Total
British Columbia 50,984 95.9% 2,185 4.1% 18 0.0% 53,187
Alberta 35,957 95.6% 1,615 4.3% 36 0.1% 37,608
Saskatchewan 12,085 97.0% 356 2.9% 13 0.1% 12,454
Manitoba 20,893 95.8% 910 4.2% 14 0.1% 21,817
Ontario (excluding the NCR) 97,459 94.5% 5,615 5.4% 62 0.1% 103,136
National Capital Region (NCR) 79,811 62.1% 48,623 37.8% 91 0.1% 128,525
Quebec (excluding the NCR) 9,595 13.5% 61,169 86.4% 73 0.1% 70,837
New Brunswick 10,850 66.7% 5,399 33.2% 12 0.1% 16,261
Prince Edward Island 3,334 91.9% 281 7.7% 13 0.4% 3,628
Nova Scotia 22,743 92.3% 1,885 7.7% 3 0.0% 24,631
Newfoundland and Labrador 8,753 96.9% 277 3.1% 0 0.0% 9,030
Yukon 659 95.1% 34 4.9% 0 0.0% 693
Northwest Territories 1,076 94.3% 65 5.7% 0 0.0% 1,141
Nunavut 426 88.9% 53 11.1% 0 0.0% 479
Outside Canada 2,234 72.1% 864 27.9% 0 0.0% 3,098
All regions 356,859 73.3% 129,332 26.6% 335 0.1% 486,526


Footnotes

Return to footnote reference 1. The number breaks down as 80 core public administration institutions and 120 Crown corporations, privatized entities, separate agencies and departmental corporations.

Return to footnote reference 2. Only one of the 78 institutions concerned (the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal) did not submit an annual review to OCHRO because it was dissolved during the year.

Return to footnote reference 3. DesRochers v. Canada (Industry), 2009 SCC 8, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 194 (hereafter "CALDECH").

Return to footnote reference 4. "Capacity" is defined in the Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services as follows: "Through an appropriate mix of financial, material and human resources, including bilingual and unilingual positions, the office is able to provide communications and services in both official languages."

Return to footnote reference 5. The statistics for the core public administration are from the Position and Classification Information System (PCIS), and the statistics for institutions that are not part of the core public administration are from the Official Languages Information System II (OLIS II). For the five institutions that did not provide any information, the statistical tables at the end of this report reflect data provided by these institutions for the previous year.

Return to footnote reference 6. The Government Response to the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is available on the Committee's website.

Return to footnote reference 7. Ten institutions use Flickr, and eight use LinkedIn.

Return to footnote reference 8. The institutions include the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Service Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, the Canada School of Public Service, Industry Canada, Telefilm Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Transport Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada and Western Economic Diversification Canada.

Return to footnote reference 9. "Capacity" is defined in the Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services.

Return to footnote reference 10. For further detail, see Letters to Heads of Human Resources 12-09 and 12-19, available on the Public Service Commission's website.

Return to footnote reference 11. Based on the comparison between OCHRO’s workforce data with the latest census data on first official language within the Canadian population.

Return to footnote reference 12. Of particular note is Public Prosecution Service of Canada, whose internal audit branch makes official languages a regular component of its audits.

Return to footnote reference 13. Sessions were held in Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.

Return to footnote reference 14. This initiative has been continued under a new name, the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018: Education, Immigration, Communities.

Return to footnote reference 15. In July 2013, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada changed its name to Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.

Current year

Previous Years