Annual Report on Official Languages 2014-15

Methodology

Institutions were required to report on the following elements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2014–15, institutions continued to review the application of the Regulations, which began following the release of the language data from the 2011 Census on October 24, 2012.

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

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

The first phase of the Regulations Exercise, which involved a systematic review of the language obligations of 10,240 federal offices subject to the Regulations, was completed in January 2014. Phase II of the exercise, which affected about 1,500 offices from 48 institutions, was completed in summer 2014, and the results were released on September 3, 2014.

Activities

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

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

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

Results

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

Figure 1 - Text version

Phase 1 – Automatic rules (completed in January 2014): 7,880 offices and service points; Phase 2 – Service areas (completed in September 2014): 1,223 offices; Phase 3 – Measure of demand (in progress until fall 2016): 1,035 offices; 1,277 offices are not included in the Regulations reapplication exercise and are automatically bilingual; and 102 offices have been removed from the exercise.

As of September 19, 2014, no change has been made to the linguistic designation of 8,944 offices, or 98.3 per cent of the 9,102 offices reviewed:

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

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

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

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

Figure 2 - Text version

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

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

Next Steps

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

• the deadline for offices with new obligations following Phase I was January 10, 2015; and
• the deadline for offices with new obligations following Phase II was September 3, 2015.

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

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

• as of August 1, 2013, Phase III began for 853 offices providing services to a restricted or identifiable clientele, such as veterans or the inmate population, or that are subject to special circumstances in the Regulations, for example the travelling public—several offices have completed this phase;
• following Phase II results, 182 additional offices began assessing the demand for services in both official languages on September 3, 2014;
• federal offices have a two-year period to complete Phase III; and
• the final results for the entire exercise should be known early in 2017.

As of June 30, 2015, Burolis is being updated quarterly to reflect changes in the language obligations of offices and service locations.

Communications With and Services to the Public

As of March 31, 2015, federal institutions had 11,383 offices and service locations, of which 3,986 (35 per cent) were required to offer services to the public in both official languages.^{Footnote 4}

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

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

Figure 3a - Text version

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

Figure 3b - Text version

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

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

Figure 4 - Text version

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

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

Figure 5 - Text version

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

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

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

Figure 6 - Text version

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

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

Figure 7 - Text version

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

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

Figure 8 - Text version

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

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

Figure 9 - Text version

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

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

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

Language of Work

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

Figure 10 - Text version

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

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

Figure 11 - Text version

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

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

Figure 12 - Text version

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

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

Figure 13 - Text version

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

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

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

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

Figure 14 - Text version

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

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

Figure 15 - Text version

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

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

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

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

Public Service Employee Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Resources Management (including equitable participation)

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

On March 31, 2015, the participation rate of Anglophones in all federal institutions subject to the Act was 73.6 per cent. The participation rate of Francophones was 26.3 per cent. In the core public administration, the participation rate was 68.4 per cent for Anglophones and 31.6 per cent for Francophones.

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

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

Figure 16 - Text version

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

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

Figure 17 - Text version

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

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

Figure 18 - Text version

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

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

To meet these obligations:

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

Governance and Monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 19 - Text version

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

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

Figure 20 - Text version

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

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

Figure 21 - Text version.

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

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

Figure 22 - Text version

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

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

Figure 23 - Text version

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

Large and Key Institutions

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

Small Institutions

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

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

• Canadian Wheat Board

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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