Archived - Report Cards 2010-2011

This page has been archived on the Web.

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages issues report cards to a number of federal institutions. The report cards evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of federal institutions in terms of their various obligations under the Official Languages Act.

 
Rating Guide 2010-2011

Rating Guide 2010-2011

1) Official Languages Program Management (10%)

  1. The institution has an updated action plan that includes targeted and appropriate measures to address the shortcomings identified in investigations, previous report cards or audits by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The targeted measures to correct these shortcomings are being implemented. Senior management is monitoring the situation to ensure progress is being made. (4%)

  2. The institution always provides the documentation required to process complaints without delay. The institution fully cooperates with the Office of the Commissioner during investigations. (2 %)

  3. The institution has developed tools or procedures to take into account the impact of its major decisions, such as the addition, abolishment or modification of policies or programs (permanent mechanism, Part VII reflex) for official language minority communities and for the promotion of linguistic duality. (4%)

2) Service to the Public Part IV of the Official Languages Act (30%)

  1. The results of the observations of in-person service made by the Office of the Commissioner confirm the presence of an active visual offer and an active offer by staff in both official languages and the availability of service in the language of the linguistic minority. (10%)
    • Active visual offer (2%)
    • Active offer in person (2%)
    • Availability of service (6%)

  2. The results of the Office of the Commissioner’s observations regarding service on the telephone confirm the presence of an active offer in both official languages by staff or by an automated telephone system and the availability of such service in the language of the linguistic minority. (10%)
    • Active offer (4%)
    • Availability of service (6%)

  3. The results of the Office of the Commissioner’s observations regarding service by e-mail confirm that the response rate is proportional in both official languages, and is provided within comparable timeframes for both linguistic groups. (5%)
    • Proportional response rate (2.5%)
    • Comparable timeframes (2.5%)

  4. The institution makes services of equal quality available to the public in both official languages. Bearing in mind the nature of the service and its purpose, the institution considers the particular needs of official language communities in delivering its services. (5%)

Note - Services of equal quality are not necessarily identical services but services that are tailored to the needs of official language communities, as applicable.

3) Language of Work Part V of the Official Languages Act (25%)

  1. Measures have been put in place in regions designated bilingual for language of work purposes to promote use of the official language of the linguistic minority in the workplace (for example, a registry of employees' language preferences, language training and maintenance, reminders on language rights, etc.). (25%)

4) Participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians Part VI of the Official Languages Act (10%)

The institution demonstrates that Anglophones and Francophones are represented equitably, taking into account its mandate, the public it serves and the location of its offices.

The results of the 2006 census were used as a reference for evaluating the institution against the criteria of this part.

  1. Percentage of Francophone participation outside Quebec and the National Capital Region (NCR) (1.5%)

The Francophone population outside Quebec and the National Capital Region represents 4.2% of the total population. The participation of Francophones in the institution tends to reflect the presence of the Francophone community in this part of Canada.

    A – Exemplary          3.8% and above 

    B - Good                   Between 3.4% and 3.8%

    C – Fair                    Between 2.9% and 3.4%

    D – Poor                   Between 2.5% and 2.9%

    E - Very Poor            2.5% and below  

  1. Percentage of Anglophone participation in Quebec, NCR excluded (3%)

The Anglophone population of Quebec represents 13.4% of the total population. The participation of Anglophones in the institution tends to reflect the presence of the Anglophone community in this part of Canada.

    A – Exemplary          12.1% and above 

    B - Good                   Between 10.7% and 12.1%

    C - Fair                     Between 9.4% and 10.7%

    D - Poor                   Between 8% and 9.4%

    E – Very Poor           8% and below  

  1. Percentage of Francophone participation in the National Capital Region (1.5%)

The Francophone population of the NCR represents 34.9% of the total population. The participation of Francophones in the institution tends to reflect the presence of the Francophone community in this part of Canada.

    A - Exemplary           31.4% and above

    B - Good                   Between 27.9% and 31.4%

    C - Fair                     Between 24.4% and 27.9%

    D - Poor                   Between 20.9% and 24.4%

    E - Very Poor            20.9% and below

  1. The institution demonstrates that all appropriate measures have been taken so that its workforce tends to reflect the makeup of Canada's two language communities, taking into account its mandate, the location of its offices and the public it serves. In particular, it ensures that all necessary efforts are made to encourage English and French linguistic minority communities to take part in its recruitment campaigns. (4 %)

5) Development of Official Language Minority Communities and Promotion of Linguistic Duality – Part VII of the Official Languages Act (25%)

  1. The institution has:
    • Identified the official language communities;
    • Consulted with these communities;
    • Identified the needs of these communities. (5%)
  1. The institution’s programs integrate the development of official language communities. (3.5%)

  2. The institution’s programs integrate the promotion of both official languages. (3.5%)

  3. The institution has taken positive measures to foster the development of official language communities. (5%)

  4. The institution has taken positive measures to promote the equal status and use of both English and French in Canadian society. (5%)

  5. The institution assesses the impact of the positive measures that have been taken to foster the development of official language communities. (1.5%)

  6. The institution assesses the impact of the positive measures that have been taken to promote the equal status and use of English and French in Canadian society. (1.5%)

Bonus points (5%)

  1. Five percent (5%) can be awarded to one or several best practices put in place by the institution if they do not fall within with the Office of the Commissioner's parameters for evaluation, or if they exceed the above-mentioned criteria.

The following scale was used to assign a rating to each institution regarding each qualitative criterion:

9-10 :  All the expected elements are present

7-8:         Almost all the expected elements are present

5-6:         Some expected elements are present

3-4:         Most of the expected elements are missing

2:         No expected elements are present

 

Rating scale used for the five sections of the report card and the overall rating:

Exemplary      A          90% – 100% 

Good              B          80% – 89%

Fair                C          70% – 79%

Poor               D          60% – 69%

Very Poor       E         59% and under

 
The results of the 2010-2011 report card

2010–2011 report cards

Evaluation process

Each year, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages evaluates a selection of the 200 institutions subject to the Official Languages Act that have never received a report card or that need to be re-assessed.

The 2010–2011 report cards comprise evaluations of 13 federal institutions selected on the basis of their providing significant funding to Canadians and volunteer organizations. One of the factors in evaluating the performance of these institutions was how well they complied with Part VII of the Act when providing funding.

This year, some changes were made to the evaluation and presentation methods used in the report cards for federal institutions:

  • The most recent Public Service Employee Survey dates back to 2008. Therefore, the results of this survey pertaining to the satisfaction of federal employees regarding language of work—specifically, the satisfaction of French-speaking employees in the designated bilingual regions of Ontario, in the National Capital Region and in New Brunswick, as well as the satisfaction of English-speaking employees in the designated bilingual regions of Quebec—were not used. Instead, the Office of the Commissioner asked federal institutions to provide information on the measures they had implemented to promote the use of both official languages in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes (Part V of the Act).
  • To evaluate compliance with Part VI of the Act, the proportion of federal employees from official language communities was compared with data from the 2006 Census, notably the proportion of Francophones in the National Capital Region, Francophones outside Quebec excluding the National Capital Region, and Anglophones in Quebec. The measures that federal institutions had taken to recruit members of official language communities were also taken into consideration.
Ratings Table


Program
management
Service to
the public
Language
of work
Equitable
participation
Advancement
and support
Overall
rating
Scientific and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada B B A B B B
Canadian Institutes of Health Research D C C B A C
National Research Council Canada D C B A E D
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council C B B A D C
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council C B B A B B
Economic development Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada
C E B C D D
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency B B B B A B
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec
B B B D A B
Infrastructure Canada D B B A C B
Western Economic Diversification Canada A B B A A B
Cultural Canada Council for the Arts B B B A A B
Canadian Heritage C B A A A A
Central
agency
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat B A C A C B

N.B.: The federal institutions’ results are given as letters that correspond to the following scale:
A = Exemplary, B = Good, C = Fair, D = Poor, E = Very poor.
For more information on how institutions were evaluated, please see the rating guide on the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages Web site.

Results of observations

The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages made observations in person, by telephone and by e-mail of the institutions that it evaluated.

Most of the observations were made between January and March 2011. Each institution provided the Office of the Commissioner with a list of its bilingual offices from which a random sample was chosen by Statistics Canada for observation.

The observations in person assessed the availability of bilingual visual active offer (posters, pictograms, publications), verbal active offer in person (bilingual greeting such as "Hello, bonjour") and service in the language of members of the official language community.

The observations by telephone assessed the availability of bilingual active offer by an automated system or an employee ("Hello, bonjour"), and the availability of service in the language of members of the official language community.

The observations by e-mail assessed the availability of service in both official languages, based on the number of e-mails sent. The number of replies in one language was compared to the number of replies in the other language, for the same number of requests. Also observed was the average time taken to reply in one language as compared to the other, in order to determine whether the response time was similar.

Results of observations on service 2010-2011
In Person By Telephone By E-mail
Visual active offer (%) Active offer (%) Availability of service (%) Active offer (%) Availability of service (%) Availability of service (%) Appropriate response time (%)
Scientific and technical Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 90 37 75 88 100 90 59
Canadian Institutes of Health
Research
93 57 98 100 100 57 13
National Research Council Canada 94 39 88 85 83 67 23
Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council
100 33 100 100 100 38 67
Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council
100 35 100 53 100 ** **
Economic development Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada
71 22 51 83 78 ** **
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency 97 63 98 96 81 57 35
Economic Development Agency of
Canada for the Regions of Quebec
92 65 98 96 100 90 35
Infrastructure Canada * * * 100 100 80 51
Western Economic Diversification
Canada
86 40 93 100 100 67 59
Cultural Canada Council for the Arts 100 43 100 100 100 ** **
Canadian Heritage 92 52 100 100 97 78 44
Central
agency
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat * * * 100 100 ** **

* The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was not able to make observations in person for this institution, because it does not provide service to the public in person.
** Given the low number of responses obtained during the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ e-mail observations, the results of these observations are not available.
N.B.: For more information on how institutions were evaluated, please see the rating guide on the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages Web site.

 

Report cards

The report cards are presented by institution in the 2010-2011 Annual Report.