Annual Report on Official Languages for Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017

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
• monitoring of official languages programs

These five elements were evaluated, mainly through the use of multiple-choice questions. To reduce the administrative burden on small institutions, they^{Footnote 3} , were asked fewer questions than large and key institutions. Deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that their institution’s responses are supported by facts and evidence. The response scales used in the Review on Official Languages are shown in Table 1.

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

• institutions’ official languages capacity
• activities undertaken by large and key institutions^{Footnote 4} to measure the availability and quality of services offered in both official languages

The information collected is also used for other activities of OCHRO.

The following sections provide an overview of the status of the official languages programs in the 55 institutions that submitted reviews. The statistical tables in Appendix D of this report show the results for all federal institutions.^{Footnote 5}

Communications with and services to the public

As of March 31, 2017, federal institutions had 11,330 offices,^{Footnote 6} , 3,867 (34.1%) of which were required to offer services to and communicate with the public in both official languages.

Map - Text version

British Columbia: 261 bilingual offices, 1,017 unilingual; Alberta: 220 bilingual offices, 810 unilingual; Saskatchewan: 118 bilingual offices, 734 unilingual; Manitoba: 161 bilingual offices, 503 unilingual; Ontario: 648 bilingual offices, 1,507 unilingual; National Capital Region: 381 bilingual offices, none unilingual; Quebec: 704 bilingual offices, 1,344 unilingual; New Brunswick: 334 bilingual offices, 165 unilingual; Prince Edward Island: 45 bilingual offices, 77 unilingual; Nova Scotia: 215 bilingual offices, 384 unilingual; Newfoundland and Labrador: 75 bilingual offices, 557 unilingual; Yukon: 36 bilingual offices, 35 unilingual; Northwest Territories: 36 bilingual offices, 63 unilingual; Nunavut: 23 bilingual offices, 53 unilingual; Offices outside Canada: 219 bilingual, 60 unilingual (Consulates and embassies are automatically bilingual. Other offices must measure the demand (for example, Public Services and Procurement Canada, International Development Research Centre)); 182 bilingual toll free lines, none are unilingual; Routes: 209 bilingual, 154 unilingual (include air, train and ferry routes). Sources: Data from the Regulatory Management System and from Canada Post as of March 31, 2017.

Frequency of oral and written communications

Based on the reviews for fiscal year 2016 to 2017, almost all of the institutions that were assessed (96%) reported that, in offices that are bilingual 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. For small institutions, this percentage is also 96%.

Ninety-eight percent of the institutions said that written communications nearly always or very often occur in the official language chosen by the public. In small institutions, the percentage is 96%.

Figure 1. Institutions’ responses for the frequency of oral and written communications in the official language chosen by the public when the office is bilingual

Figure 1a - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	47	6	1	1	0
Percentage (%)	85%	11%	2%	2%	0%

Figure 1b - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	53	1	1	0	0
Percentage (%)	96%	2%	2%	0%	0%

As part of the cross-Canada official languages consultations, which aimed at developing a new multi-year action plan for official languages, Canadian Heritage conducted online public consultations from June to December 2016. One general survey question dealt specifically with official language minority communities, in other words, Francophone communities outside Quebec and English-speaking communities in Quebec, and asked the 6,375 participants how best to promote the vitality of these communities. “Ensure access to quality federal services in the official language of their choice” ranked third of eight possible responses, just after “ensure access to public services justice, health, etc.) in the official language of their choice” (second) and “support access to quality minority-language education from early childhood to the post-secondary level” (first).

Communications material

Ninety-eight percent of all institutions surveyed said that in their 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 for 97%.

Figure 2 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	45	9	0	1	0
Percentage (%)	82%	16%	0%	2%	0%

Signs identifying the institution’s offices or facilities

Federal institutions put in place various measures 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.” Ninety-three percent of all institutions stated that the signs identifying their offices are nearly always in both official languages. This is the case for 89% of small institutions that submitted a review.

Figure 3 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	51	3	1	0	0
Percentage (%)	93%	5%	2%	0%	0%

Greeting the public in person

A smaller percentage of all institutions indicated that they take appropriate measures to greet the public in person in both official languages. It is nearly always the case for 79% of them (89% for small institutions), and it is very often the case for 11% of them (4% of small institutions).

Figure 4 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	42	6	4	1	0
Percentage (%)	79%	11%	8%	2%	0%

Review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations

On November 17, 2016 , the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that the government would be reviewing the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (the regulations).

The regulations implement important provisions of Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which covers communications with the public and the delivery of services in English and French.

For example, the regulations specify the circumstances under which the nature or mandate of a federal office or institution is such that services must be delivered in both official languages. They also set out the criteria used to determine, using the most recent decennial census, whether the demand for services in both official languages is sufficient for the office to offer bilingual services.

The regulatory review is part of the commitment to ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act. The review mainly seeks to:

• develop a new calculation method for estimating demand for services in the minority official language that will reflect the needs and interests of minority language communities, correspond to current demographic realities and be adaptable to future demographic changes
• explore opportunities offered by new technologies to improve service delivery in both official languages
• improve bilingual services in the transportation sector, including in airports
• adjust certain provisions of the regulations to reflect, among other things, government restructuring and new means of service delivery

As part of this review, the government is committed to consulting parliamentarians, interested parties and the public, including members of official language minority communities. The announcement of the regulatory review was well received by key stakeholders and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Quebec Community Groups Network, as well as parliamentary sponsors of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Communications with and Services to the Public).

Language of work

Bilingual meetings

In regions designated bilingual for language of work purposes, 82% of all the institutions reporting in fiscal year 2016 to 2017 stated that meetings are nearly always (45%) or very often (37%) conducted in both official languages and that employees may use the official language of their choice. However, among small institutions, 68% indicated that this is nearly always the case, and 18% stated that this is very often the case. Eight institutions do not have offices in bilingual regions, and six indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 5 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	22	18	4	3	2
Percentage (%)	45%	37%	8%	6%	4%

Bilingual supervision

Seventy-one percent of institutions stated that incumbents of bilingual or either/or positions^{Footnote 10} are nearly always supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of whether the supervisors are located in bilingual or unilingual regions; 23% reported that this is very often the case. For small institutions, this is nearly always the case for 81% and very often the case for 19%. Eight institutions do not have offices in bilingual regions, and seven indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 6 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	34	11	2	0	1
Percentage (%)	71%	23%	4%	0%	2%

Personal and central services

Almost all institutions that submitted a review stated that personal and central services are nearly always (85%) or very often (15%) provided to employees in bilingual regions in the official language of their choice. For small institutions, 95% of them indicated that this is nearly always the case. Eight institutions indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 7 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	40	7	0	0	0
Percentage (%)	85%	15%	0%	0%	0%

Training and professional development

Large and key institutions^{Footnote 11} reported that employees nearly always (78%) or very often (15%) obtain training or professional development in the official language of their choice.

Figure 8 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	21	4	0	1	1
Percentage (%)	78%	15%	0%	4%	4%

Documentation and work instruments

In the majority of large and key institutions, documentation and regularly and widely used work instruments and electronic systems are nearly always (85%) or very often (11%) available to employees in the official language of their choice.

Figure 9 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	23	3	0	0	1
Percentage (%)	85%	11%	0%	0%	4%

Drafting documents

Among large and key institutions, 56% stated that employees can nearly always draft documents in the official language of their choice; 37% of them stated that they can do so very often.

Figure 10 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	15	10	1	0	1
Percentage (%)	56%	37%	4%	0%	4%

Work instruments in unilingual regions

In unilingual regions, 96% of large and key institutions stated that regularly and widely used work instruments are nearly always available in both official languages for employees who provide bilingual services to the public or to employees in a bilingual region. For 4% of these institutions, this is often the case. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat indicated that this question did not apply to it since it has offices in the National Capital Region only.^{Footnote 14}

Figure 11 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	25	1	0	0	0
Percentage (%)	96%	4%	0%	0%	0%

Human resources management (including equitable participation)

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

On March 31, 2017 , the participation rate of Anglophones in all federal institutions subject to the act was 73.7%. The participation rate of Francophones was 26.3%. In the core public administration, the participation rate was 69.0% for Anglophones and 31.0% for Francophones.

According to data from the 2016 Census, 75.4% of the Canadian population have English as their first official language and 22.8%, French. Based on a comparison of the workforce data and the most recent data from the 2016 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 six years.

Administrative measures to perform bilingual functions

Institutions that submitted a review for fiscal year 2016 to 2017 stated that administrative measures are nearly always (92%) or very often (8%) 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, when required by Treasury Board policies. This was nearly always the case for all small institutions (100%). For two other institutions, the Pacific Pilotage Authority and the Windsor Port Authority, the question did not apply.^{Footnote 15}

Figure 12 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	49	4	0	0	0
Percentage (%)	92%	8%	0%	0%	0%

Establishing language requirements of bilingual positions

Almost all of the institutions stated that the language requirements of bilingual positions are nearly always (82%) or very often (18%) established objectively. Linguistic profiles reflect the duties of employees or their work units and take into account the obligations related to service to the public and language of work. Small institutions reported that for 92% of them, this is nearly always the case; for 8% of them, it is very often the case. Four small institutions indicated that the question did not apply to them: the Nanaimo Port Authority, the Windsor Port Authority, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority and the Pacific Pilotage Authority.

Figure 13 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	42	9	0	0	0
Percentage (%)	82%	18%	0%	0%	0%

Staffing bilingual positions

In all institutions where there are bilingual positions, these positions are nearly always (80%) or very often (18%) staffed by candidates who are bilingual upon appointment. This is nearly always the case for 83% of small institutions with bilingual positions and very often the case for 17% of them. The same four institutions as in the previous question indicated that the question did not apply to them.

Figure 14 - Text version

	Nearly always	Very often	Often	Sometimes	Almost never
Amount	41	9	1	0	0
Percentage (%)	80%	18%	2%	0%	0%

Governance and monitoring

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 52% of institutions that have instituted performance agreements with their employees included performance objectives for implementing the various parts of the act. In the case of small institutions, the proportion is 39%. One institution, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, indicated that this did not apply to it.^{Footnote 16}

For almost all large and key institutions, language obligations regularly (59%) or sometimes (37%) appear as items on senior management committee agendas, as needed.

In large and key institutions, the champion or co-champions and the persons responsible for Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act meet regularly (96%) or sometimes (4%) to discuss the official languages file.

Of the 27 large and key institutions, 25 have established an official languages committee, a network, or a working group made up of representatives from the different sectors or regional offices that meets regularly (84%) or sometimes (12%) to deal horizontally with questions related to language obligations. One institution, Marine Atlantic Inc., does not have such a committee, and the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada argued that this question does not apply to it because any initiative or issue that has an impact on official languages is discussed by the senior management committee.

Of all the institutions that submitted a review, 50 (91%) stated that they regularly take measures to ensure that employees are well aware of the obligations related to various parts of the act. Of all the small institutions, 82% stated that this was the case for them.

Activities to measure availability and quality of services

Sixty-one percent of all institutions conducted activities during the fiscal year to measure the availability and quality of services offered to the public in both official languages. This was the case in 72% of large and key institutions and in 50% of small institutions.

The following types of activities were conducted: quarterly monitoring of performance indicators on language of service, use of a mystery client to ensure that services were actively offered in both official languages, telephone surveys with clients, audits by a private company, monitoring of the allocation of human resources, random checks, in-person observations, and reviews of the quality and consistency of information on the institution’s website in both official languages.

Figure 15 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	31	13	18
Percentage (%)	61%	50%	72%

Activities to measure the use of official languages in the workplace

Seventy-eight percent of all institutions, 63% of small institutions, and 88% of large and key institutions carried out activities to periodically measure whether employees in regions designated bilingual for the purposes of language of work can use the official language of their choice in the workplace. Some institutions indicated that they used the results of the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey in their reviews for fiscal year 2016 to 2017 to support their responses regarding language of work.

Figure 16 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	35	12	23
Percentage (%)	78%	63%	88%

Mechanisms to determine and document impact of decisions

Eighty percent of all institutions, 63% of small institutions, and 96% of large and key 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 an office. Of the 55 institutions that submitted a review, 10 (including 9 small institutions) stated that they do not have such mechanisms, and 4 small institutions indicated that this question did not apply to them.

Figure 17 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	41	15	26
Percentage (%)	80%	63%	96%

Audit or evaluation activities

Sixty-four percent of institutions stated that audit or evaluation activities are undertaken by their internal audit or other units to evaluate to what extent official language requirements are being implemented. Among small institutions, 50% said that this was the case, and two of them indicated that this does not apply to them, namely, the Nanaimo Port Authority and the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.

Figure 18 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	34	13	21
Percentage (%)	64%	50%	78%

Shortcomings or deficiencies

When monitoring activities or mechanisms reveal shortcomings or deficiencies, almost all of the institutions (94%) stated that steps are taken and documented to improve or rectify the situation in a timely manner. This is the case for 88% of small institutions.

Figure 19 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	34	13	21
Percentage (%)	94%	88%	100%

Informing the deputy head

Of all institutions, 92% stated that their deputy head is informed of the results of monitoring activities. The rate is 88% for small institutions.

Figure 20 - Text version

	All institutions	Small institutions	Large institutions
Amount	46	21	25
Percentage (%)	92%	88%	96%

Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer activities and follow-up

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, OCHRO continued to provide horizontal support to federal institutions on key issues. To help institutions improve their outcomes in certain areas, OCHRO undertook the following activities:

• managed Clearspace, an online platform for sharing information and advice among members of the official languages functional community
• convened the departmental and Crown corporation advisory committees on official languages for workshops, case studies, and discussions
• supported the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions by contributing to the organization of its annual conference, attending the Council’s regular meetings, and hosting a good practices forum
• participated in meetings of the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages and the Directors General Forum, chaired by Canadian Heritage

The Official Languages Centre of Excellence continues to be solicited for advice and interpretation of official languages requirements. Among the 160 requests received last year, key issues were the identification of the language requirements of positions in various staffing situations, the bilingualism bonus, official languages performance objectives, bilingualism in institutional emails and websites, as well as reference tools for addressing official languages requirements when drafting memorandums to Cabinet or Treasury Board submissions.

Along with Canadian Heritage, OCHRO participated in the Conference of Official Languages Champions on June 2, 2016, an activity that drew 99 participants from across government. On November 4, 2016, an information session was held in Ottawa for approximately 30 newly appointed official languages champions.

Table 2 shows activities led by OCHRO in fiscal year 2016 to 2017.

OCHRO continues to play a leadership role by supporting the Official Languages Good Practices Forum. The November 2016 forum drew 186 participants from various federal institutions, who met in Ottawa to share good practices relating to official languages. The format chosen for the forum consisted of short Dragon’s Den-style promotional pitches about good practices that have been successful in some institutions with a view to others adopting them. Certain resources developed by OCHRO can be found in the 2017 Collection of Official Languages Resources, published by the Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions.

Conclusion and trends

Linguistic duality is a core value for Canada and for the public service. The capacity to use both official languages is essential to providing services to Canadians in the official language of their choice. That is why bilingualism remains a key government priority. The review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, which was launched in November 2016, is an opportunity to update the provisions that govern the circumstances under which federal services must be made available in either or both official languages.

Consultations with key stakeholders have enriched the government’s thinking on the best possible approach to service delivery in a connected, inclusive, diverse and bilingual society. Work on the modernization of the Official Languages Regulations is ongoing. Parliamentarians and citizens are invited to comment on proposed regulations to help ensure that they are adapted to the needs of all Canadians, support the vibrancy of both of our official languages and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities across the country.

To have the capacity to provide quality services externally, the public service must remain vigilant internally. The use of English and French enriches the public service work environment. Managers and supervisors, in particular, have a role to play in promoting bilingualism and in fostering a workplace that is conducive to the use of both official languages in designated bilingual regions.

The report The Next Level: Normalizing a Culture of Inclusive Linguistic Duality in the Federal Public Service Workplace, which was presented to the Clerk of the Privy Council in September 2017, is a reminder of the efforts that still need to be made to create an exemplary bilingual work environment. The Government of Canada is determined to build on the momentum created by the release of this report. OCHRO, in collaboration with its partners at Canadian Heritage, the Department of Justice Canada and the Privy Council Office, is taking concrete steps toward implementing the report’s recommendations in order to promote both official languages as part of a respectful, inclusive and diverse workplace.

Evidence-based accountability is a critical component of taking action. An analysis of the results of the 2017 Public Service Employee Survey will provide fresh insight into public servants’ perceptions of the use of official languages in the workplace. In order for more effective actions to be taken, the governance of official languages has been strengthened. The mandate of the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, which is co-chaired by OCHRO, has been revised: the committee will now provide high-level advice and guidance across the entire official languages program. OCHRO will continue its collaboration with and support to key partners, including official languages champions and persons responsible for official languages in departments, Crown corporations and agencies.

Looking ahead, 2018 marks the beginning of a new chapter with the launch of the Action Plan for Official Languages (2018 to 2023) by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The action plan is an opportunity for a comprehensive renewal of Canada’s commitment to official languages. OCHRO’s work on modernizing the Official Languages Regulations is designed to improve access to services in both official languages in a way that is sensitive to and supportive of the vitality of official language minority communities. At the same time, creating a work environment that encourages the use of both official languages every day strengthens an inclusive, creative and high-performing public service dedicated to serving Canadians. Our linguistic duality thrives on the enthusiasm and countless initiatives in the public service and beyond. It is the government’s firm commitment to maintain and strengthen the conditions that will allow both official languages to flourish.

Appendix A: Federal institutions required to submit a review for fiscal year 2016 to 2017

Fifty-five federal institutions submitted a review for fiscal year 2016 to 2017. The distinction between small institutions and large and key institutions was based on size and mandate in relation to official languages. Large and key institutions were required to respond to a longer questionnaire. In general, small institutions are those with fewer than 500 employees.

• In this section

  • Large and key institutions
  • Small institutions

Appendix B: Definitions

"Position"

means a position filled for an indeterminate period or a determinate period of three months or more, according to the information in the Position and Classification Information System (PCIS).

"Resources"

refers to the resources required to meet obligations on a regular basis, according to the information available in the Official Languages Information System II (OLIS II). Resources can consist of a combination of full-time and part-time employees, as well as contract resources. Some cases involve automated functions, hence the need to use the term “resources” in this report.

"Bilingual position"

is a position in which all or part of the duties must be performed in both English and French.

"Reversible" or "either/or position"

is a position in which all the duties can be performed in English or French, depending on the employee's preference.

"Incomplete record"

means a position for which data on language requirements is incorrect or missing.

"Linguistic capacity outside Canada"

refers to all rotational positions outside Canada (for example, rotational employees) that are staffed from a pool of employees with similar skills. Most of these positions are with Global Affairs Canada.

In statistical tables 5, 7, 10 and 12 in Appendix D, 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.

Appendix C: Sources of statistical data

• In this section

  • Notes

There are three main sources of statistical data in Appendix D:

• Burolis is the official inventory of offices that indicates whether they have an obligation to communicate with the public in both official languages
• The PCIS covers the positions and employees of institutions that are part of the core public administration
• The OLIS II provides information on the resources of institutions that are not part of the core public administration (in other words, Crown corporations and separate agencies)

The reference date for the data in the statistical tables is the same for the data systems (Burolis, the PCIS and OLIS II): March 31, 2017.

One institution, Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services, was unable to provide complete information on the allocation of their resources by occupational category or on their resources serving the public in English or French for all their designated bilingual offices. The Vancouver International Airport Authority provided no data on this subject.

Appendix D: Statistical tables

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

From fiscal year 2015 to 2016 to fiscal year 2016 to 2017, the percentages of bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration decreased slightly, by 0.2% and 0.1%, respectively, to 43.0% and 44.8%.

Figure 21 - Text version

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

Year	Bilingual positions	Superior proficiency	Intermediate proficiency	Minimum proficiency	Pool of bilingual employees
1978	25%	6%	11%	4%	21%
2000	35%	21%	11%	3%	35%
2016	43%	28%	14%	2%	45%
2017	43%	28%	14%	2%	45%

Table 2
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration

From fiscal year 2015 to 2016 to fiscal year 2016 to 2017, the number and proportion of bilingual positions in the core public administration declined slightly, as did once again the total number of positions.

Table 3
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration, by province, territory or region

Of the 181,140 positions in the core public administration in fiscal year 2016 to 2017, a total of 77,889 positions were bilingual. Most of the bilingual positions were in the National Capital Region (NCR) (67.9%), Quebec (excluding the NCR) (67.0%) and New Brunswick (52.2%).

Table 4
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents

The percentage of employees in bilingual positions in the core public administration who meet the language requirements of their position rose slightly by 0.3% from fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 5
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)

The percentage of bilingual positions in the core public administration that require Level C proficiency for oral interaction has increased by 1.0% since fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 6
Service to the public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents

From fiscal year 2015 to 2016 to fiscal year 2016 to 2017, the percentage of employees in the core public administration who provide services to the public and who meet the language requirements of their position rose slightly, by 0.3%. This increase is an indication that institutions have the necessary capacity to serve the public in both official languages.

Table 7
Service to the public: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)

Although the number of positions in the core public administration has decreased since fiscal year 2013 to 2014, the percentage of bilingual positions offering services to the public and requiring Level C proficiency for oral interaction increased to 40.3% in fiscal year 2016 to 2017.

Table 8
Service to the public: Positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents, by region

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, of the 98,107 positions in the core public administration that provide services to the public, 42,194 offer services both in English and in French; 40,500 of the incumbents of the 42,194 bilingual positions met the language requirements of these positions.

Table 9
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 95.7% of the 54,752 employees who occupied positions in the core public administration that offer personal and central services met the language requirements of their positions. This result is a small increase of 0.1% in comparison with the result for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 10
Personal and central services: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 36.4% of the 54,752 positions in the core public administration that offer personal and central services required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which is an increase of 1.2% from fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 11
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 95.4% of incumbents in the core public administration's 23,183 bilingual supervisory positions met the language requirements of their positions.

Table 12
Supervision: Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction)

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 56.2% of the core public administration's 23,183 bilingual supervisory positions required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which is an increase of 0.3% from fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 13
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration, by province, territory or region

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.5%) and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (90.2%) working in the core public administration. These results are similar to those for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 14
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration, by occupational category

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (79.1%) working in the core public administration, and the Administration and Foreign Service category had the highest percentage of Francophones (38.3%). These results are similar to those for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 15
Service to the public: Number of resources serving the public, by region or method of delivery, in bilingual offices in institutions not part of the core public administration

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, 79,875 resources offered services to the public in bilingual offices of federal institutions that are not part of the core public administration. Of these resources, 30,184 provided services in English and French.

Table 16
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration, by province, territory or region

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (97.7%) and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (80.5%) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration. These results are similar to those for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 17
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration, by occupational category or equivalent category

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (80.0%) and the Professionals category had the highest percentage of Francophones (27.1%) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration. These results are similar to those for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

Table 18
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in all federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, by province, territory or region

In fiscal year 2016 to 2017, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.0%) and Quebec (excluding the NCR) had the highest percentage of Francophones (83.2%) working in all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. These results are similar to those for fiscal year 2015 to 2016.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2018,
Catalogue No. BT23-1E-PDF, ISSN: 1486-9683