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This page has been archived on the Web.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%)
2) Service to the Public – Part IV of the Official Languages Act (30%)
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%)
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.
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
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
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
5) Development of Official Language Minority Communities and Promotion of Linguistic Duality – Part VII of the Official Languages Act (25%)
Bonus points (5%)
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
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.
||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
|Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency||B||B||B||B||A||B|
|Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec
|Western Economic Diversification Canada||A||B||B||A||A||B|
|Cultural||Canada Council for the Arts||B||B||B||A||A||B|
|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.
|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
|National Research Council Canada||94||39||88||85||83||67||23|
|Natural Sciences and Engineering
|Social Sciences and Humanities
|Economic development||Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
|Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency||97||63||98||96||81||57||35|
|Economic Development Agency of
Canada for the Regions of Quebec
|Western Economic Diversification
|Cultural||Canada Council for the Arts||100||43||100||100||100||**||**|
|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.
The report cards are presented by institution in the 2010-2011 Annual Report.