Annual Report on Official Languages 2020–21

1.1. Offices and service locations

The network of public offices and service locations operated by the federal government spans all provinces and territories, and extends to Canadian offices internationally. This network provides service in person; over the telephone; aboard aircraft, ferries and trains; and through interactive kiosks.

As of March 31, 2021, institutions had 11,164 offices and service locations,^{Footnote 3} of which 3,847 (34.5%) were required to provide services to and communicate with the public in both official languages (see Appendix F for a map of the network of offices and service locations).

1.2 Oral and written communications

As shown in Figure 1, 91% and 87% of institutions, respectively, said in their last review that when communicating with the public in writing (particularly through press releases and public notices) or orally (at press conferences, in public speeches, in videos), they do so “nearly always“ in the official language chosen by the public.

Figure 1 - Text version

Written communications with the public in the official language of its choice: 91%; oral communications with the public in the official language of its choice: 87%; in-person active offer: 83%; active offer by telephone: 84%; active offer by voicemail: 90%, with a target of 90%

Although federal institutions meet the target set by TBS for written communications,^{Footnote 4} they miss the target for oral communications by three percentage points, as they did in the 2015–‍18 cycle.

The above results are largely explained by the fact that federal institutions have the ability to provide services in both languages. As of March 31, 2021, 45,830 (41.1%) of the 111,542 incumbents of positions that provided service to the public in the core public administration were required to offer services in both English and French. Of these 45,830 incumbents, 96.9% met the language requirements of their position. A similar situation existed in institutions subject to the Act that are not part of the core public administration. Accordingly, 21,763 employees out of the 66,076 (32.9%) that provided service to the public were able to do so in both official languages in the offices of these institutions.^{Footnote 5}

1.3 Active offer

In bilingual offices, federal institutions are required to take measures to ensure an active offer of services to the public in both official languages. According to the Policy on Official Languages, active offer means to “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.“ It is important for institutions and their staff to practise the active offer, as research has shown that it strongly encourages^{Footnote 6} the public to use their own official language when communicating with or seeking services from the government.

Among all institutions that have submitted a review in the past three years, 83% indicate that they nearly always take appropriate measures to use both official languages to greet members of the public who visit their offices in person, an increase of four percentage points since 2015–‍18 (Figure 1).

The telephone is the preferred means for many citizens to contact federal institutions. Reviews gathered by TBS for the 2020–21 fiscal year show that 84% of federal institutions nearly always practise active offer over the telephone, including in their recorded messages. Lastly, reviews now take into account the fact that citizens can sometimes get the information or federal services they are seeking without human interaction. According to the reviews, 90% of federal institutions nearly always implement measures so that the active offer is provided on the digital devices they use.^{Footnote 7}

Some federal institutions react quickly when they realize that their staff are not practising the active offer the way they should.

1.4 Outreach

Over time, the Web has become the primary means of outreach used by federal institutions. Federal institutions’ websites, like www.canada.ca, must be consistently accessible in both official languages.

This is currently the case for most federal websites. In fact, 93% of institutions indicated in their last review that the English and French content on their website is nearly always posted simultaneously (there is no significant time lag between the time the French and English versions are posted online) and published in full (for example, the French version is not a mere summary of the English version). This is a major leap of nine percentage points since the 2015–18 cycle.

While the Web is becoming increasingly important in our society, it is still important that federal institutions continue to communicate effectively with citizens through other means. In this regard, 83% of institutions stated in their latest review that communication materials^{Footnote 8} released from their designated bilingual offices are nearly always produced and disseminated simultaneously and in full in both English and French.^{Footnote 9}

1.5 Contracts and agreements with third parties

The Act provides that federal institutions must ensure that the information or services provided by a third party on their behalf to members of the public are indeed provided in the official language preferred by members of the public. Federal institutions do not always do so. In fact, only 76% ensure that contracts and agreements with third parties acting on behalf of bilingual offices nearly always include clauses that set out the language obligations that these third parties must meet. This situation has remained virtually unchanged since 2015–18, when the proportion was 75%.

1.6 Upholding the principle of substantive equality

“Substantive equality is achieved when one takes into account, where necessary, the differences in characteristics and circumstances of minority communities and provides services with distinct content or using a different method of delivery to ensure that the minority receives services of the same quality as the majority. This approach is the norm in Canadian law.“^{Footnote 10}

According to the reviews submitted in the past three years, 78% of federal institutions nearly always respect the principle of substantive equality when communicating with or providing services to the public. This leaves room for improvement.

To ensure that substantively equal services are provided in both English and French, federal institutions use the Analytical Grid for Analysing Federal Services and Programs in Light of the Principle of Substantive Equality. The grid includes a series of questions to help federal institutions consider the impact of new initiatives on official languages issues. The questions relate to Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act and will ensure that official languages duties and considerations are taken into account early in the process of developing a Treasury Board submission.

During the 2020–21 fiscal year, TBS undertook a review of its Guidance for Drafters of Treasury Board Submissions, including the official languages impact analysis. TBS consulted with the community of practice on the draft of the new version of the guide. The guide was released in June 2021. The Department of Canadian Heritage also drafted a new guide to facilitate the analysis of official languages when preparing a Memorandum to Cabinet. Its title is Guide for Drafting Memoranda to Cabinet — Official Languages Impact Analysis. TBS promoted it in its April 2021 OL Connection newsletter for the official languages community of practice.

1.7 Conclusion

The reviews submitted to TBS over the past three years show that many federal institutions are complying with obligations under Part IV of the Official Languages Act or are adopting certain practices deemed to be best practice. As a result, written communications and government websites are at a high level of compliance.

However, there is still room for improvement in some areas.

In particular, many federal institutions have shortcomings when it comes to in-person active offer, which could make some members of the public (particularly those belonging to minority language communities) feel less secure. This insecurity can result in Canadians or travellers not daring to ask to be served in the official language of their choice, even though they should be able to exercise this right.

The omission by some institutions of language clauses in agreements with third parties is also an issue that needs to be addressed, since, in the absence of such clauses, some third parties may not offer the services in English or French that members of the public expect. Federal institutions must respect the same language obligation whether they provide a service directly or through a partner.

2.1 Language of writing

According to Figure 2, only 59% of federal institutions (up from 51% in 2015–18) reported in their last review that their staff are “nearly always“ able to draft documents in the official language of their choice.

2.2 Languages at meetings

Figure 2 also shows that only 42% of federal institutions reported in their last review that meetings in designated bilingual regions are nearly always conducted in both official languages. This is a decrease of three percentage points from 2015–18. Most federal institutions must do more to respect the right of public servants to use English or French in face‑to-face or virtual meetings.

Figure 2 - Text version

Employees can draft documents in the official language of their choice, 59%; meetings are conducted in both official languages, 42%; employees are supervised in the official language of their choice, 72%; personal and central services are provided to employees in the official language of their choice, 87%; employees can access both professional and language training in the official language of their choice, 75%; work instruments are available in the official language of an employee’s choice, 77%; senior management promotes bilingualism in the workplace, 63%, with a target of 90%.

2.3 Language of employee supervision

In accordance with the Directive on Official Languages for People Management, managers and supervisors are required to supervise “employees located in bilingual regions in the official language of the employee’s choice when they occupy bilingual or either/or positions^{Footnote 11} and in the language of the position when they occupy unilingual positions.“

However, only 72% of federal institutions indicated in their last review that incumbents of bilingual or either/or positions are nearly always supervised in the official language of their choice (Figure 2).

These results do not appear to be due to the supervisors having poor language skills. As of March 31, 2021, 96.1% of the incumbents of the 28,811 bilingual supervisory positions in the core public administration^{Footnote 12} met the language requirements of their position — these are high requirements, since 62% of bilingual supervisory positions require a C level for oral interaction, which is the highest standard.

2.4 Personal and central services

As shown in Figure 2, 87% of institutions that have submitted a review in the past three years reported that the personal and central services they provide to employees in designated bilingual regions are nearly always in their preferred official language. This means, for example, that employees who want help to resolve a problem with their pay or computer can do so in either English or French.

As of March 31, 2021, 96.4% of the 68,581 incumbents of bilingual positions who provide personal and central services within the core public administration met the linguistic requirements of their position, and 37.1% of these incumbents had a Level C proficiency for oral interaction.

2.5 Training and professional development

In bilingual regions, institutions must provide training and professional development services in the official language preferred by the employee. Three quarters (75%) of large federal institutions,^{Footnote 13} the only ones required to address this particular issue in the review, indicated that they nearly always did so (Figure 2).

2.6 Work tools

Employees located in bilingual regions and employees who are required to provide services to the public in both official languages in a unilingual region have the right to access regularly and widely used work instruments, work tools and information systems (such as a spreadsheet or a collaborative cloud-based application) in the official language of their choice. Based on the reviews examined by TBS for this cycle, 77% of federal institutions, a decrease of 4 percentage points since 2015–18 (Figure 2), believe that their staff are nearly always able to exercise this right, which is of particular importance in this era of remote work.

However, the data from the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey^{Footnote 14} , somewhat qualify this result. In fact, 94% of public servants responded affirmatively in 2020 to the statement: “The material and tools provided for my work, including software and other automated tools, are available in the official language of my choice.“

Figure 3 - Text version

In the National Capital Region, 89% of Francophones provided positive answers; 5%, neutral answers; and 6%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 90% of Francophones provided positive answers; 5%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 94% of Francophones provided positive answers; 2%, neutral answers; and 4%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 91% of Francophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 93% of Francophones provided positive answers; 3%, neutral answers; and 4%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 92% of Francophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 4%, negative answers.

In the National Capital Region, 96% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 2%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 92% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 3%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 96% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 2%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 93% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 2%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 96% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 1%, neutral answers; and 3%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 95% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 3%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers.

2.7 Leadership

The Policy on Official Languages emphasizes that, in designated bilingual regions, it is the responsibility of the deputy head to set the appropriate tone in terms of respecting both English and French. While only 63% of institutions stated in their review that senior management nearly always exercises the leadership necessary to foster a workplace conducive to the effective use of both official languages (Figure 2), 80% of federal employees in designated bilingual regions for language-of-work purposes stated in the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey that “senior executives in their department or agency use both official languages in their interactions with employees.“

Figure 4 - Text version

In the National Capital Region, 73% of Francophones provided positive answers; 16%, neutral answers; and 11%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 78% of Francophones provided positive answers; 11%, neutral answers; and 11%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 74% of Francophones provided positive answers; 16%, neutral answers; and 10%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 82% of Francophones provided positive answers; 12%, neutral answers; and 6%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 81% of Francophones provided positive answers; 13%, neutral answers; and 6%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 86% of Francophones provided positive answers; 9%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers.

In the National Capital Region, 83% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 13%, neutral answers; and 4%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 75% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 13%, neutral answers; and 12%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 84% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 10%, neutral answers; and 6%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 81% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 12%, neutral answers; and 7%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 62% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 26%, neutral answers; and 12%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 86% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 9%, neutral answers; and 5%, negative answers.

2.8 Conclusion

To create truly bilingual workplaces more work is needed in many institutions. Two shortcomings stand out. Nearly five years after the Borbey-Mendelsohn report was tabled, too many public servants are not given the opportunity to draft documents in the official language of their choice or to participate in English or French in meetings. Institutions are doing better, though, in terms of providing bilingual personal and central services to employees.

As shown in Chapter 6, TBS took various steps in 2020–21 to encourage federal institutions to address these issues.

TBS will increase the number of interventions in the years to come in order to bring about a significant improvement in terms of drafting documents in the language of choice and bilingual meetings.

3.1 Analysis

While providing that the merit principle should guide the federal government’s human resources approaches, Part VI of the Act states that the federal government must ensure that “English‑speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians . . . have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions.“ The government must also ensure that “the composition of the workforce of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both the official language communities of Canada, taking into account the characteristics of individual institutions, including their mandates, the public they serve and their location.“

Ninety percent of large institutions reported that they took steps during the 2018–21 cycle to ensure that their workforce tended to reflect the composition of the two official language communities in Canada, based on their mandate, target audience and the location of their offices.

For example, federal institutions reported taking part in job fairs at postsecondary institutions frequented by members of official language minority communities. Some institutions ensure that job advertisements appear in Anglophone and Francophone community media, and others use social media and recruitment platforms in both languages to reach all potential candidates across the country.

As of March 31, 2021, in the core public administration, the participation rate was 69.2% for Anglophones^{Footnote 16} and 30.8% for Francophones. In all institutions subject to the Act, Anglophones accounted for 73.9% of the workforce and Francophones for 25.9% (an increase of 0.3% in one year).

These percentages are in line with those of the 2016 census, which indicated that 75.4% spoke English as their first official language and 22.8% spoke French.

Anglophones and Francophones are well represented in all federal institutions and offices across Canada’s provinces and territories. Nonetheless, English-speaking Quebecers outside the National Capital Region make up only 11.4% of the employees of the core public administration, despite representing 13.7% of the Quebec population.

3.2 Conclusion

While continual awareness regarding the representation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions will always be required, current indicators are generally satisfactory, except in the core public administration in Quebec, where Anglophones are underrepresented.

In addition, the reviews show that a large percentage of institutions take targeted measures every year to ensure that Anglophones and Francophones are adequately represented.

4.1 Human resources management

The Policy on Official Languages states that federal institutions shall adopt a variety of human resources management practices to ensure that they are fully able to provide quality services in both English and French to the public and their employees.

After examining the reviews, TBS found that, in 2018–21, only 68% of large institutions nearly always had the necessary human resources to meet their language obligations to members of the public and to their employees. In other words, they had enough bilingual staff to communicate with, supervise and assess employees in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes, offer employees internal services in the official language of their choice and have sufficient qualified personnel in each of the two official languages to provide services to the public in the language of their choice in full compliance with the Act.

Figure 5 shows the various means used by federal institutions, according to their latest review, to ensure that they can rely on employees who are able to respect their colleagues’ and the public’s language rights. To start, it shows that as few as 58% of large institutions indicated that they nearly always allow their employees to take French or English courses to advance their careers.

Figure 5 - Text version

Measures are regularly taken to ensure that employees are aware of their linguistic obligations: 94%; bilingual positions are nearly always staffed by candidates who are bilingual upon appointment: 74%; the evaluation of a position’s language requirements is nearly always conducted objectively: 83%; employees can nearly always access language training in English or French for career advancement: 58%, with a target of 90%.

Conducting an objective assessment of the language requirements associated with a position, as set out in section 91 of the Act, is another step that institutions must take to ensure that their staff are fully able to use both English and French at the required level. A study of the latest reviews of federal institutions shows that 83% of them nearly always implement this practice (Figure 5).

The hiring of candidates who are already bilingual to fill bilingual positions is another key human resources management measure. Of all the institutions that submitted a review and that have bilingual positions, 76% nearly always recruit candidates for those positions who are already bilingual at the time of their appointment (Figure 5). For example, in 2020–21, 366 out of 368 bilingual positions were filled in this manner by Public Safety Canada.

Finally, much of the strengthening of official bilingualism depends on the awareness and training of employees, who need to know what is expected of them. Of all the institutions that submitted a review, 89% stated that they regularly take measures to ensure that employees are aware of obligations related to various parts of the Act.

4.2 Governance of official languages

The Policy on Official Languages requires that each federal institution have an official languages unit, a person responsible for official languages and a champion of official languages. It is thanks in large part to these teams and individuals that institutions are able to meet their official languages obligations.

An analysis of the reviews submitted over the past three years reveals that the champion (or co‑champion) and the persons responsible for Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act meet regularly to discuss language issues (Figure 6) in 71% of large institutions.

An internal official languages committee or network is another mechanism that many institutions use to foster coordinated awareness of their official languages program (Figure 4). Based on the reviews received from 2018 to 2021, 75% of large institutions have such a committee or network. And 61% of institutions that have one ensure that it meets regularly.

Figure 6 - Text version

Champions and persons responsible for official languages meet regularly: 71%; internal official languages committees or networks are established: 75%; linguistic obligations are on the senior management committee’s agenda: 61%; executive performance agreements include official languages performance objectives: 60%.

Senior management leadership is crucial in official languages matters. It is important that language issues regularly be placed on the agenda of management committee meetings. According to the latest reviews received by TBS, this is the case in 61% of large institutions (Figure 6).

Setting performance targets is another key component of the governance structure that institutions must establish. These objectives often involve executives and sometimes managers and supervisors. Of the institutions that filed a review between 2018 and 2021, 60% have performance agreements that set targets for executives to implement Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act (Figure 6). Since an amendment to the Directive on Performance and Talent Management for Executives was adopted, these targets have included maintaining the second language skills of executives.

4.3 Monitoring

In official languages, as in other areas, establishing monitoring mechanisms allows institutions to take note of their progress (or their setbacks), report on them and, ultimately, strengthen their achievements or correct their shortcomings.

Based on the reviews of the 2018–21 cycle, 71% of federal institutions conducted activities to measure the availability and quality of services offered to the public in English and French (Figure 7). These activities include conducting informal assessments (49%), spot checks by supervisors (52%) and client surveys (20%).

Figure 7 - Text version

The deputy head is informed of the results of monitoring activities related to bilingualism: 94%; audits or evaluations related to official languages are conducted: 66%; mechanisms are in place to determine the nature and impact of decisions on official languages: 68%; activities are undertaken to measure the availability and quality of services offered in French and English: 74%

In addition, one third of institutions use the results of surveys of federal public servants to measure the level of use of official languages in the workplace. Others use other measures to do this, such as informal assessments, spot checks, monitoring activities and internal surveys.

Based on the reviews received by TBS, 68% of institutions have also established mechanisms to determine the nature and extent to which their decisions have an impact on official languages, when those decisions relate to the adoption or revision of a policy, the creation or abolition of a program, or the establishment or elimination of an office (Figure 7). These mechanisms may include consulting the Treasury Board’s Official Languages Requirements and Checklist.

Two other monitoring mechanisms that institutions may also use are audits and evaluations. Based on the reviews received by TBS, 59% of institutions used either approach during the three-year cycle — through their internal audit unit or through other units — to measure the level of compliance with their official languages obligations (Figure 7).

Finally, it is the responsibility of deputy heads to implement official languages policies. Federal institutions should have processes in place to ensure that their leadership is informed promptly of any challenges. According to the reviews, almost all institutions, or 91% of them, indicate that their deputy head is informed of the results of monitoring activities regarding bilingualism in a timely manner.

4.4 Conclusion

Many mechanisms or processes that promote the Government of Canada’s compliance with the Official Languages Act are already in place in a high proportion of federal institutions. For example, it is encouraging to see that three quarters of federal institutions undertake a variety of activities to establish the level of availability and quality, both in English and French, of the services they provide to the public. Indeed, as the saying goes, what is not measured cannot be improved.

However, some official languages management practices should be more generalized than they currently are in order to produce the expected results for members of the public and federal employees. Employee access to training in English or French, for example, should be improved; meetings between official languages officials should be more frequent; and language issues should be more prominent on the agenda of meetings held by senior management.

What is notable, though, is that institutions conduct awareness activities so that employees know their official languages rights and obligations and they include official languages objectives in performance agreements.

5.1 Crisis planning

Most institutions, or 73%, had endeavoured to be prepared for the COVID‑19 crisis by ensuring that official languages were taken into account in their emergency planning and crisis management plans.^{Footnote 17}

5.2 Measures taken during the COVID‑19 pandemic

Many of the organizations that submitted a review in 2020–21 described the steps they took during the pandemic to ensure that their obligations in terms of communications with and services to the public as well as in terms of language of work were met.

Overall, federal public servants are satisfied with the measures taken by their employer to inform them during the COVID‑19 crisis. According to a question in the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey, 95% of Anglophones and 94% of Francophones in designated bilingual regions for language-of-work purposes feel that the information on the pandemic was properly received in both official languages.

Figure 8 - Text version

In the National Capital Region, 94% of Francophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 91% of Francophones provided positive answers; 6%, neutral answers; and 3%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 93% of Francophones provided positive answers; 5%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 94% of Francophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 93% of Francophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 3%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 96% of Francophones provided positive answers; 2%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers.

In the National Capital Region, 96% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 3%, neutral answers; and 1%, negative answers. In Eastern Ontario, 91% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 7%, neutral answers; and 2%, negative answers. In Northern Ontario, 93% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 6%, neutral answers; and 1%, negative answers. In the Montréal region, 93% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 4%, neutral answers; and 3%, negative answers. In other Quebec bilingual regions, 94% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 3%, neutral answers; and 3%, negative answers. In New Brunswick, 93% of Anglophones provided positive answers; 6%, neutral answers; and 1%, negative answers.

5.3 Crisis and Emergency Communications Working Group

In October 2020, the Commissioner of Official Languages released a special report, A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages, that discusses shortcomings at press conferences, in alert messages, during communications from government agencies, and when communicating with federal employees in bilingual regions. The report recommends that TBS review and amend emergency communication plans and procedures, train public servants who collaborate on emergency communications and assess the effectiveness of the measures taken.

In early 2020–21, TBS created an interdepartmental working group on bilingual communications in emergency or crisis situations with the mandate of examining the Commissioner’s recommendations, identifying practices and challenges in federal institutions, and developing a strategy and an action plan. The working group includes representatives from TBS, the Privy Council Office, Canadian Heritage, Public Safety Canada and the Translation Bureau.

The group has developed a strategy for 2022–24 that will:

• improve governance by:
  • strengthening governance tools used to address language obligations in emergency/crisis communications
  • strengthening leadership and accountability for communications in emergencies/crises
  • enhancing the bilingualism of positions involved in emergency/crisis communications
• equip and empower federal institutions to help them meet their official languages obligations in crisis or emergency situations by:
  • strengthening the role and capacity of the Translation Bureau to provide translation and interpretation services during emergency or crisis situations
  • increasing the effective use of both official languages within the federal government by strengthening language security and modernizing the language training framework
  • developing, promoting and sharing best practice in emergency communications
• strengthen accountability and oversight by optimizing existing monitoring and accountability mechanisms and the use of self-diagnosis tools to effectively integrate official languages in strategic priority planning

5.4 Conclusion

2020–21 was a year unlike any other, including for federal institutions. For the most part, institutions coped well with the official languages challenges brought on by the pandemic. Going forward, it is clear that strong planning and implementation measures will be required to ensure that both in normal and crisis times institutions fully comply with the Act and fully meet the expectations of the public and federal employees.

6.1 Application of the official languages program and policies

In 2020–21, as in each fiscal year, TBS took steps to strengthen the place of English and French in the sectors under its responsibility. In particular, it has endeavoured, through its actions, to remedy some of the shortcomings identified in the preceding pages.

Much of TBS’s efforts have focused on helping institutions deal with the pandemic, as it became clear that it would lead to accelerated workplace transformation and increased use of information technology.

From the beginning of the crisis, TBS worked closely with federal institutions to help them adjust to the new realities of work while fully complying with their official languages obligations. A particular focus was on the use of both English and French in virtual meetings. There was also a need to ensure that the language skills of staff were maintained in order to promote good human resources management.

As a result, shortly after pandemic health measures were imposed, TBS held a virtual meeting with official languages experts to discuss two issues: government communications in crisis situations and adaptations of the Public Service Commission of Canada’s measures on language testing and the validity of second language evaluation results.

It is also in this context that, at the start of the pandemic, TBS made available information to public servants on bilingualism in the remote workplace, reminding them via a Web‑based publication of the rules to follow when holding meetings at a distance. TBS also used a dedicated wiki page and a newsletter to inform federal institutions about respecting official languages rights and obligations in a virtual workplace. In October 2020, TBS issued a toolkit on bilingualism in meetings.

In addition, TBS worked with many stakeholders in 2020–21 to adapt its policies and ensure that they are better aligned with the government’s intention to create a diverse and inclusive public service and foster reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Among other things, these changes now allow qualified public servants who have a disability affecting their ability to learn a second official language to hold executive positions at the EX-02 to EX-05 levels. This approach, which already exists for all other levels, aims to increase the representation of persons with disabilities without eroding linguistic duality. Institutions that appoint these individuals to executive positions must put in place administrative measures to ensure that their duties can be carried out in both official languages.

In 2020–21, TBS also continued its efforts to engage with federal institutions to prepare for the implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations (Regulations) that were amended in 2019. This engagement strategy includes developing policy tools, training sessions for official languages experts in federal institutions and simulations to show how provisions of the new Regulations are applied in federal offices. TBS also started discussions with stakeholder groups to update the Directive on the Implementation of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.

To address concerns about the equitable participation of English-speaking Quebecers in federal institutions in Quebec in accordance with Part ;VI of the Act, TBS will work with the Quebec Community Groups Network, other stakeholders and federal institutions to develop a strategy to increase the recruitment of English-speaking Quebecers in federal institutions located in Quebec.

6.2 Support to federal institutions and knowledge sharing

In 2020–21, TBS intensified its work with federal institutions to help them comply with the Act. Specifically, it:

• provided over 229 interpretations
• organized 20 meetings and events with communities of practice on official languages
• participated in 46 meetings with federal institutions
• published 8 newsletters

In addition, TBS analysts reviewed over 400 Treasury Board submissions with a particular focus on Parts IV, V and VI of the Act.

The numerous meetings organized or co-organized by TBS to discuss official languages issues (Appendix E) brought together some 1,100 people to discuss:

• the legislative obligations of institutions
• their application of official languages policies
• maintenance of second language skills
• language training
• the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on linguistic duality
• the future of work
• leadership
• the challenges of implementing the section of the Act that requires that language requirements of positions be established objectively (section 91)
• the linguistic insecurity of public servants, who often hesitate to use their first or second official language in the workplace
• the modernization the Act
• changes to the Regulations
• new approaches, practices and tools to better support official languages in institutions

In particular, TBS organized 30 training sessions to help persons responsible for official languages increase their knowledge of legislative and practical aspects of the Act and of Treasury Board policy instruments. These learning activities were intended to give officials the tools that will allow them to fully carry out their role as coordinators for official languages program implementation within their institution.

Finally, TBS coordinated efforts across the public service to address a variety of horizontal issues related to observations by the Commissioner of Official Languages and to find solutions to new realities. The issues of leadership, linguistic insecurity and communication protocols between officials from different regions headlined the Best Practice Forum on Official Languages held in March 2021.

TBS held meetings with federal institutions to address issues associated with the shift to open government, especially with launching or strengthening initiatives, such as open science. TBS also created a working group to examine a series of tools that will help reduce linguistic insecurity. Specifically, it started to adapt for public servants a linguistic risk-taking passport created by the University of Ottawa. It also created coaching circles and conducted video interviews with exemplary leaders to better understand and explain how authentic leadership promotes sustained risk-taking in a second language and has a positive effect on organizations.

6.3 Modernization of the Act  

The September 23, 2020, Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to modernize and strengthen the Official Languages Act. On January 15, 2021, the Prime Minister mandated the President of the Treasury Board to assist the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages in modernizing the Act and, in particular, to work to improve the government-wide oversight and coordination of the work aimed at implementing the Act within the federal government.

After extensive consultation with Canadians, the Government of Canada outlined its vision for the reform of the language regime in Canada in “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada,“ a public document released in February 2021. The government’s vision was based on three priorities:

• improving the official languages compliance of federal institutions
• strengthening Part VII of the Act
• engaging Canadians across the country to make the Act a key tool in helping the country meet the challenges of tomorrow

In March 2022, the government tabled a bill for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages, the first major modernization the Official Languages Act in 30 years.

In order to strengthen bilingualism in the public service, the government proposed to develop a new second language-training framework for the public service, which would ensure quality, accessible and adapted French and English training for all learners, including Indigenous people and persons with disabilities.

Large institutions

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Air Canada
• Bank of Canada
• Business Development Bank of Canada
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Lands Company Limited
• Canada Post
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canadian Heritage
• Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
• Correctional Service Canada
• Courts Administration Service
• Defence Construction Canada
• Employment and Social Development Canada
• Export Development Canada
• Farm Credit Canada
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Global Affairs Canada
• Health Canada
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• National Arts Centre Corporation
• National Defence
• Natural Resources Canada
• Office of the Auditor General of Canada
• Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
• Parks Canada
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Public Safety Canada
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mint
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Shared Services Canada
• Statistics Canada
• Transport Canada
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Veterans Affairs Canada
• VIA Rail Canada Inc.

Small institutions

• Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
• Belledune Port Authority
• Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Canada Energy Regulator
• Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
• Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction
• Canadian Grain Commission
• Canadian Human Rights Commission
• Farm Products Council of Canada
• Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
• Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
• Halifax Port Authority
• Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority
• National Gallery of Canada
• 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
• Saint John Port Authority
• Sept-Îles Port Authority
• St. John’s Port Authority
• Thunder Bay Port Authority
• Transportation Safety Board of Canada
• Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

Notes

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

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

It is possible that the percentages of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position in tables 4, 6, 9 and 11 are higher in reality because the Public Service Commission of Canada temporarily suspended evaluations of second language competencies during the pandemic. Despite the assessments of candidates administered by the institutions during this period, only the Commission can update the PCIS from its own evaluations. The results will be updated as the Commission formally evaluates the recruits and the promoted employees, within 12 months of their appointments being made.

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 exempted
• they have two years to meet the language requirements

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

• Level A: minimum proficiency
• Level B: intermediate proficiency
• Level C: superior proficiency

Table 1
Bilingual positions and pool of bilingual employees in the core public administration as of March 31

As of March 31, 2021, the percentages of bilingual positions and bilingual employees in the core public administration had decreased slightly, by 0.5% and 2.7%, respectively, to 41.9% and 40.7% compared to March 31, 2020.

Table 2
Language requirements of positions in the core public administration as of March 31

In the fiscal year 2020–21, the number of bilingual positions in the core public administration increased by 5.1%, but the number of bilingual positions as a percentage of the total number of positions decreased slightly, by 0.5%, compared to the fiscal year 2019–20.

Table 4
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents as of March 31

In the fiscal year 2020–21, the percentage of employees in bilingual positions in the core public administration who met the language requirements of their position slightly increased by 0.9% compared to the fiscal year 2019–20.

Table 5
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction) as of March 31^{Footnote 22}

The percentage of bilingual positions in the core public administration that require Level C proficiency for oral interaction rose 0.9% from the fiscal year 2019–20 to the fiscal year 2020–21.

Table 6
Service to the public: bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents as of March 31

From the fiscal year 2019–20 to the fiscal year 2020–21, the percentage of employees in the core public administration who provided services to the public in both English and French and who met the language requirements of their position increased by 1.3%.

Table 7
Service to the public: bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction) as of March 31^{Footnote 23}

The number of bilingual positions in the core public administration has increased since the fiscal year 2019–20. The percentage of bilingual positions that offer services to the public and require Level C proficiency for oral interaction increased 0.4% to 42.0% in the fiscal year 2020–21.

Table 9
Personal and central services: bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents as of March 31

In the fiscal year 2020–21, 96.4% of incumbents in the 68,581 bilingual positions in the core public administration that offer personal and central services met the language requirements of their position, which is an increase of 0.9% compared to the fiscal year 2019–20.

Table 10
Personal and central services: bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction) as of March 31^{Footnote 24}

In the fiscal year 2020–21, 37.1% of the 68,561 bilingual positions in the core public administration that offer personal and central services required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which is an increase of 0.6% compared to the fiscal year 2019–20.

Table 11
Supervision: bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents as of March 31

As of March 31, 2021, 96.1% of incumbents in the core public administration’s 28,811 bilingual supervisory positions met the language requirements of their position.

Table 12
Supervision: bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction) as of March 31^{Footnote 25}

In the fiscal year 2020–21, 62.0% of the core public administration’s 28,811 bilingual supervisory positions required Level C proficiency in oral interaction, which is an increase of 1.3% over the fiscal year 2019–20.

Table 13
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration, by province, territory or region as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.8%) working in the core public administration, and Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) had the highest percentage of Francophones (88.6%).

Table 14
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration, by occupational category as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (78.8%) and the Administration and foreign service category had the highest percentage of Francophones (37.2%) working in the core public administration. These results are similar to those observed as of March 31, 2020.

Table 16
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and linguistic status of incumbents, by employment equity group as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, members of visible minority groups and persons with disabilities were slightly underrepresented among incumbents of bilingual positions in the core public administration who met the language requirements of their position.

Table 17
Bilingual positions in the core public administration and level of second language proficiency required (oral interaction), by employment equity group as of March 31, 2021^{Footnote 27}

As of March 31, 2021, only members of visible minorities were underrepresented among incumbents of bilingual positions in the core public administration requiring Level C proficiency in oral interaction.

Table 18
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the core public administration, by employment equity group as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, women were underrepresented among Anglophones in the core public administration, while Indigenous people and members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities were underrepresented among Francophones.

Table 19
Service to the public: number of resources serving the public in bilingual offices in institutions not part of the core public administration, by province, territory, region or method of delivery as of March 31, 2021^{Footnote 28}

In the fiscal year 2020–21, 66,076 resources offered services to the public in the bilingual offices of federal institutions that are not part of the core public administration. Of these resources, 21,763 provided services in English and French.

Table 20
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration, by province, territory or region as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.2%) and Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) had the highest percentage of Francophones (79.3%) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration.

Table 21
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in institutions not part of the core public administration, by occupational category or equivalent category as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, the Operations category had the highest percentage of Anglophones (80.0%) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration. The categories with the highest percentage of Francophones (26.1%) working in institutions that are not part of the core public administration were the Canadian Armed Forces and regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Table 22
Participation of Anglophones and Francophones in all federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, by province, territory or region as of March 31, 2021

As of March 31, 2021, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of Anglophones (98.5%) and Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) had the highest percentage of Francophones (82.3%) working in all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act.