|
RESULT: IMMEDIATE
3.1 |
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Capacity
to provide services in both languages |
Level
of financial support from stakeholders |
|
Enhance
Justice Department partners’ ability to develop innovative solutions to
topical justice issues relating to access to justice in both official
languages |
-Status
of the situation of access to justice in both official languages -Studies
by the Commissioner of Official Languages -Treasury
Board survey on public servants’ knowledge regarding linguistic duality (Note:
These benchmarks apply only to the two performance indicators) |
Justice
Partners
and stakeholders (Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadiennes (FCFA), Quebec
Community Groups Network (QCGN)) Results-based
Management and Accountability Frameworks (RMAFs) Census
studies and analyses by Statistics Canada:
Post-census survey on the vitality of OLMCs; Other surveys to be
determined (General Social Survey) |
|
Appropriateness
of level of resources provided by partners |
Number
of initiatives supported by members of official-language minority
communities (OLMCs) |
|
|||
|
Level
and quality of services available |
Number
and nature of services available in the area of justice
|
|
|||
|
Number
and nature of complaints, level of positive reaction (by service sector) |
|
||||
|
Knowledge/awareness
of service availability in the language of choice |
Extent
to which services are (a)
sought and (b) used by stakeholders and communities |
Nature
and number of communication products and documents on service
availability; service delivery criteria |
Raise
awareness in the legal community and OLMCs of the exercise of their rights
and issues relating to access to justice in both official languages |
||
|
RESULT: IMMEDIATe
3.2
|
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Availability
of programs |
Extent
of programs and availability of teaching and learning materials:
(a) minority language (b) second language |
Number
of learning tools
|
|
|
Canadian
Heritage Health
Human
Resources and Skills Development Social
Development Partners
and stakeholders (Canadian Parents for French (CPF)) Others
(to be determined, e.g., provincial school boards, education
ministries), Statistics
Surveys
|
|
Number
and type of existing programs (level of studies and province or territory) |
|||||
|
Availability
and retention of qualified professional trainers |
Number
of qualified trainers by sector and province, territory or community |
Training
of 150 to 180 literacy specialists |
|
||
|
Access
to and participation in second-language programs |
Participation -Capacity
of programs to attract and
retain clientele (recruitment/retention) through all levels of education |
Enrolment
in official second-language programs |
To
be developed for second-language students |
%
of total school population enrolled in elementary and secondary
second-language programs (core and immersion) and enrolment trends 6,180
second-language bursaries in 2003-2004 3,543 FSL and 2,637 ESL
(preliminary data) Retention
rate of students in core and immersion second-language programs, from
elementary to secondary. |
|
|
Number
of summer second language bursaries and trend |
|||||
|
Second-language
program student retention |
|||||
|
Level
of education and distribution by occupational category in the minority
language |
|||||
|
|
Capacity
and performance -programs
offered -immersion
students’ school performance -measure
of students’ language skills (to be developed) |
Academic
achievements of immersion students |
Increase
the proportion of Canadians aged 15-19 who declare themselves bilingual
(10-year period) by 50%. |
2001:
24%
of Canadians aged 15-19 declare themselves bilingual Analysis
of school results through tests -- Provincial
and territorial tests Knowledge
of second official language (to be developed) 624
second-language monitors in 2003-2004:
523 FSL and 101 ESL (preliminary
data) |
|
|
Proportion
of secondary graduates who pass a standardized test (to be developed) |
|||||
|
Proportion
of young Canadians who declare themselves bilingual |
|||||
|
Number
of official second-language program monitors and trend |
|||||
|
Canadians’
perceptions of second-language programs |
%
of majority-language Canadians who believe that elementary/secondary
education was an excellent opportunity to learn a second official language
(PCH2002) %
of young majority-language
Canadians who believe that all secondary graduates should be bilingual (IPSOS-Reid
2004) |
||||
|
Access
to and participation in minority-language programs |
Participation -
Capacity
of minority-language education systems programs to attract
and retain eligible clientele (recruitment/retention) through all
levels of education -
Readiness of linguistic minority educational institutions |
Proportion
of eligible students enrolled in OLMC learning programs and in the
minority school system and enrolment trend |
Increase
to 80% the proportion of eligible students enrolled in minority
Francophone schools (10-year period) |
2001:
68% of eligible students enrolled in minority Francophone schools |
|
|
Number
of French enrichment bursaries and trend |
183
French enrichment bursaries in 2003-2004 (preliminary data) |
||||
|
Percentage
of minority community school graduates pursuing post-secondary studies in
their own language |
%
of Francophones outside Retention
rate of students studying in the minority language at the elementary and
secondary level |
||||
|
Minority-language
program student retention |
|||||
|
Capacity
and performance -
program offer -demographic
profile of faculty -students’
school performance -improvement
in education quality |
Demographic
profile of faculty |
|
School
principal report
to come from Stats Can, school board reports, unions and professional
associations) |
||
|
Academic
achievement of minority-language students on international pan-Canadian
assessments (elementary/secondary) |
|
To
be developed using the analysis of academic achievements on various tests
(PISA 2000-2003-2006, TIMMS 1999, SAIP 1999-2001-2004, PCEIP 2003) |
|||
|
Percentage
of postsecondary degrees obtained in OLMCs by province/territory and
comparative index with the majority-language community. |
|
%
of Canadians aged 25 to 44 from OLMCs with a postsecondary degree
- comparison with majority group counterparts
(2001 Census) |
|||
|
Number
of monitors in minority schools and trend |
|
201
monitor positions in minority school systems (preliminary data) |
|||
|
Perception
of OLMCs on progress achieved |
|
Satisfaction
rate of OLMCs with education services
(elementary/secondary, postsecondary,
- early childhood) |
|||
|
ReSULT: IMMeDIATe
3.3
|
||||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|||||
|
Capacity
to provide services in both languages |
Level
of financial support from all sources, other than federal institutions |
|
Income
Security Programs (ISPs) conduct annual surveys to ensure clients are
satisfied with the services provided in their language of choice. |
|
Health
Social
Development Partners
and stakeholders (for example: Canada Institute of Health research,
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety, Community Health and Social Services Network, Société
santé en français, Consortium national de santé en français,
Commission nationale des
parents francophones) Income
Security Programs (ISPs) Others
(to be determined) Census
studies and analyses by Statistics |
|||||
|
Appropriateness
of level of resources provided by partners
(type and area) |
Number
and nature of services available in the official language of choice (area) |
|
|
|||||||
|
Training
and retention of health professionals* |
Number
of students enrolled |
PHASE
II: 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: Medicine:
76 admissions; Professionals
(university): 934 admissions; Professionals
(college): 1,381 admissions PHASE
II: 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: Medicine:
39 graduates Professionals
(university): 346 graduates Professionals
(college): 710 graduates |
Other
benchmarks are being set by the Consortium
national de formation en santé, community organizations and |
|||||||
|
Number
of graduates |
||||||||||
|
Capacity
to provide health and/or social services in the language of choice |
Policies
reflect need to provide health/social services in OLMCs Number
of health professionals and child care workers able to provide services to
or in OLMCs |
PHASE
II : 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: Language
training for 4,000 health professionals by |
Real
figures |
|||||||
|
Access
to services in the language of choice |
Use
of services and satisfaction level |
Availability
and quality of services (including early childhood) |
Offer
of equitable services |
Child
care spaces Number
of complaints (type and area) (does
not apply to health services) |
||||||
|
Level
of participation and/or number of beneficiaries (including stakeholders
and official-language minorities) |
||||||||||
|
Communication
to public |
Number
and nature of existing and distributed documents |
|
|
|||||||
|
Number
of networks established Composition
of networks |
17
Francophone networks (target met) 10
Anglophone networks (target met) |
17
Francophone networks 10
Anglophone networks |
||||||||
|
Nature
and number of exchanges of relevant information and quantity of
information |
|
|
||||||||
|
RESULT: IMMEDIATE
3.4
|
||||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|||||
|
Community
capacity to conduct cultural activities |
Cultural
activities available to the community (type and region) |
Number
and nature of initiatives and/or activities initiated or conducted by OLMC
members |
Cultural
and community outreach Duality
is source of cultural enrichment (PCH 2002) |
|
Canadian
Heritage Partners
and stakeholders Councils,
agencies, Crown corporations, etc. Census
studies and analyses by Statistics International
Adult Literature and Skills Survey (IALSS) Decima
2004 and Createc+2005 Others
(to be determined) |
|||||
|
Number,
nature, scope of initiatives and/or activities funded by different levels
of government and other institutions and value and nature of contributions
|
Diversification
of funding sources |
Funding
level |
||||||||
|
Number
of initiatives and/or activities supported by OLMC members |
|
|
||||||||
|
Dissemination
of community cultural production: magazines, broadcasts, artists, media
(radio and TV), theatre, music, etc. |
|
|
||||||||
|
Participation
in cultural activities in support of Canadian identity |
Extent
to which cultural activities are attended by Anglophones and Francophones
(type and area) |
Level
of attendance and type of cultural activities attended by language groups
(individuals) |
|
OLMCs
feel services in the arts and culture sector (cinema, theatre, books and
literature) are fully accessible. (GPC 2002) |
||||||
|
Cultural
production and use and dissemination of cultural products |
|
|||||||||
|
Extent
of communication materials availability (area) |
Rate
or level of use or consumption of materials available in the language of
OLMCs (e.g., radio, TV, Internet, libraries). Cultural
product consumption |
|
Census/post-census
survey |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
ReSULT: IMMeDIATe 3.5
|
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Participation
in human resources development and economic development of OLMCs |
Level
of community economic development |
Socio-economic
characteristics of the population (region and community) |
Level
of education and distribution by occupational category Unemployment
rate Income |
|
Human
Resources and Skills Development Public
Works and Government Services Canada, Translation Bureau Public
Works and Government Services Canada, Acquisitions Industry
Western
Economic Diversification Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency Federal
Economic Development Initiative in Partners
and stakeholders Others
(to be determined) Census
studies and analyses by Statistics |
|
Number
of projects funded and percentage of proposals received |
Francommunauté
virtuelle: financial support for
200 projects. Internships:
financial support for 800 internships providing work opportunities in the
minority language |
Francommunauté
virtuelle funded 20% of
proposals received |
|||
|
Availability
of skills development programs (e.g., specialized and enhanced) in the
minority language |
|||||
|
Enhanced
leverage capacity of community organizations |
Foster
development and vitality of OLMCs through capacity-building in human
resources and community economic development sectors and fostering of
partnerships at all levels, especially with federal partners |
Number
of projects Number
of community profiles Number
of plans adopted or implemented |
|||
|
Use
of language at work |
Use
of language of choice at work |
|
|
||
|
Use
of minority language at work |
|||||
|
Extent
to which programs and/or services are used by OLMC members |
Number
of initiatives and/or activities supported by OLMC members (type and
region) |
|
|
||
|
Participation,
including by OLMC members (number of participants, frequency of
participation, etc.) |
Increase
number of OLMC youth with work experience through the Youth Employment
Strategy to 650 (2003-2008) |
||||
|
Development
of language industries |
Enhanced
scope and impact of language industries |
Total
value of contracts awarded to language industries |
Succession
planning for the industry (1,000 translators a year) |
|
|
|
Number
of students participating in training and development programs
(COOP, FSWEP, University Partnerships) |
151
students in 2004-2005 |
||||
|
Number
of participants in language industries
(type and sector) |
|
||||
|
Number
of jobs created in language industries |
|
||||
|
Impact
of language industries |
Impact
of Research Centre activities (translation and learning technologies) |
||||
|
RESULT:
|
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Social
capital** |
Level
of community participation |
Frequency
and intensity of participation (including by target groups:
youth, seniors, women, etc) in cultural, recreational, social,
sports activities, etc. and use of minority language in those activities |
Participation
by target groups in community life |
Access
and participation of OLMC members Language
transmission Growth
rate |
Canadian
Heritage Council,
agencies, Crown corporations, etc. Citizenship
and Immigration Human
Resources and Skills Development Social
Development Partners
and stakeholders Others
(to be determined) Census
studies and analyses by Statistics “Perception
and Attitudes Study – Official Languages in |
|
Time
devoted to voluntary community activities and possibility of using the
minority language |
|||||
|
Level
of participation by community organizations and institutions in general
society |
|||||
|
Extent
of social networks and social support |
Number
and nature of mechanisms for conveying information in the community |
Access
to information in language of choice |
|
||
|
Frequency
of media use |
|||||
|
Access
to, frequency and intensity of interactions in local networks (family,
friends, neighbours, caregivers, faith communities, professionals, etc.) |
|||||
|
Access
to, frequency and intensity of interactions in networks
and institutions of general society |
|||||
|
Outreach
capacity of individuals and communities beyond their borders |
|||||
|
Reciprocity
and trust |
Perception
of shared values in community |
Identify
attitudes to explain choices and behaviour of populations |
Canadians
believe both official languages are an important element of Canadian
identity. (PCH 2002) |
||
|
Subjective
vitality: perceptions of official languages, institutions, community
recreation and culture, civic involvement, etc.) |
|||||
|
Civic
participation and contribution |
Trust
in capacity of institutions at different levels to represent OLMCs |
Communities'
political influence and OLMCs' integration into the general community OLMCs
call for and have access to services and programs in language of choice Governance
structures and democratic processes of community organizations allow and
call for involvement and participation by members |
|
||
|
Perception
of OLMCs’ ability to influence events |
|||||
|
Frequency
of contacts with public officials or political representatives |
|||||
|
Extent
of services and programs available in the language of choice (banks,
shops, businesses, etc.) |
|||||
|
Willingness
to get involved and participate in language causes and other collective
issues |
|||||
|
Participation
by OLMC members in general society |
|||||
|
Community
services |
Presence
of infrastructures in community |
|
|
||
|
Satisfaction
level with infrastructures and services in language of choice (police,
health, early childhood, public safety, housing, etc.) |
|||||
|
Attraction,
reception and retention capacity of community |
Relative
population growth |
Better
understanding of communities' socio-demographic and socio-economic
situation Increase
proportion of Francophone immigrants outside |
|
||
|
Absolute
population growth |
|||||
|
Proportion
of groups (age, sex and other socio-demographic characteristics) in the
population |
3.1%
of immigrants settled outside 80%
of Francophone immigrants outside |
||||
|
Situation
and socio-economic characteristics of groups in the population |
|||||
|
Success
of initiatives and/or activities targeting social integration of specific
groups (e.g., newcomers, infra-/interprovincial migrants, exogamous
families, immersion students, Franco-/Anglophiles, etc.) |
Recruitment
and retention: involvement, active participation of target groups
(newcomers, exogamous families, immersion students,
Francophiles/Anglophiles, etc.) in communities |
Immigrants
represented in public institutions of OLMCs |
|||
|
Existence
of reception policies in community institutions: schools, school boards,
economic and cultural institutions |
|||||
|
Participation
(clientele
and workers) of populations (including target groups:
newcomers,
infra-/interprovincial migrants, exogamous families, immersion students,
Franco-/Anglophiles, etc.) in activities by community organizations, institutions
and businesses |
Promote
integration of specific groups Promote
integration of immigrants into the labour market through awareness;
increase number of employers that hire immigrants |
Unemployment
is twice as high among immigrants as among Canadian-born of equivalent age
and education (12.1%: 6.4 %). (Source - Statistics Schools,
health care, community services Feeling
of belonging and security |
|||
|
OLMC
members' support for government projects |
|||||
|
Perception
of newcomers |
|||||
*Several
elements contributing to community vitality are already considered in other
sectors of the performance measurement framework (e.g., justice, education,
health, cultural activities, economic development and access to services in
language of choice). This immediate result is designed to measure dimensions of
social capital, factors of vitality and community development that are not
considered elsewhere.
**
Networks and social ties based on a set of standards and values of reciprocity
(e.g., trust, feeling of belonging and obligation, community pride) that play a
role of integration and mobilization in community development. Adapted from the
OECD definition and works of Forgues (2004), Lesemann (2001), Putman (1993) by
Corbeil (2005)
|
RESULT: IMMEDIATE 3.7 |
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Canadian
institutions and organizations reflect linguistic duality and provide
services in both languages |
Recognition
of linguistic duality and business sense reflecting |
Proportion/number
of Canadian institutions and organizations with signage in both official
languages |
|
|
Census
studies and analyses by Statistics Canadian
Heritage Councils,
agencies, Crown corporations, etc. Foreign
Affairs Citizenship
and Immigration Human
Resources and Skills Development Partners
and stakeholders Office
of the Commissioner of Official Languages Audits Others
(to be determined) |
|
Proportion/number
of Canadian institutions and organizations that provide their services in
both official languages |
|||||
|
Proportion/number
of Canadian institutions and organizations that have integrated human
resources practices that reflect linguistic duality |
|||||
|
Canadians
have access to services in the language of choice |
Services
are available in language of choice |
Number
and nature of services available (sector and region) |
|
|
|
|
Appropriateness
of services available in the language of choice |
Types
of services requested and received by Canadians |
|
|
||
|
Level
of use of available services and range of services used (type, frequency
by sector and region) |
|||||
* The
concept of Canadian institutions/organizations includes businesses, employer and
labour organizations and voluntary organizations, Canadian associations,
municipalities and provincial and territorial governments.
|
RESULT: IMMeDIATE 3.8
|
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES |
CRITERIA
(PARTIAL LIST) |
TARGETS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
BENCHMARKS
(PARTIAL LIST) |
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Canadians
can communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in the
official language of choice, in accordance with the OLA and related
Regulations |
Canadians’
level of satisfaction with the opportunity
to be served in the language of choice |
Federal
institutions’ level of compliance with Treasury Board official languages
policies on service to the public |
Canadians’
satisfaction with the opportunity to be served in the language of choice Canadians’
satisfaction with the availability of communications products of equal
quality, in both official languages, that are appropriate and effective |
Results
of surveys and audits to measure the availability of minority-language
services of equal quality that are appropriate and effective. |
Public
Service Human Resources Management Agency of Treasury
Board Secretariat Canadian
Heritage Privy
Council Office Justice
Human
Resources and Skills Development Census
studies and analyses by Statistics Studies,
e.g., Commissioner of Official Languages Others
(to be determined) All
federal institutions |
|
Level
of language skills of employees occupying bilingual positions for the
purposes of services to the public in federal institutions. |
|||||
|
Dashboard |
|||||
|
Number,
nature and relevance of complaints |
|||||
|
Results
of surveys and audits to measure the equivalence and availability of
communication products in both official languages |
|||||
|
Number,
nature and relevance of complaints |
|||||
|
Employees
are able to work in the official language of choice, in accordance with
the OLA |
Level
of federal employees’ satisfaction with the opportunity to work in their
language of choice |
Federal
institutions’ level of compliance with Treasury Board official languages
policies on language of work |
Employee
satisfaction with the opportunity to work in the language of choice (e.g.,
meetings, training, supervision, work tools, personnel and central
services) |
Measure
minority-language use |
|
|
Bilingual
capacity of employees occupying bilingual positions for the purposes of
personnel and central services in federal institutions. |
|||||
|
Bilingual
capacity of managers who occupy bilingual supervisory positions in federal
institutions |
|||||
|
Number,
nature and relevance of complaints |
|||||
|
Federal
institutions deliver programs and services that take into account and
support the bilingual character of |
Consideration
of OLMCs' situation,
promotion of linguistic duality and coordinated management of the Official
Languages Program by federal
institutions |
Awareness Consultations Impact
analysis* Research** Communications
Coordination and interdepartmental liaison
Program application and funding Accountability
(Federal Councils) |
OLMCs
have access to government programs that reflect realities of minorities Ongoing
enhanced effectiveness of the Official Languages Program |
|
|
|
Progress
in implementing HRMAF |
|||||
|
Status
reports |
|||||
|
Results
of surveys and assessments |
|||||
|
Capacity
of both the House of Commons and the Senate to
offer services in both official languages |
Number
of hours of interpretation for sessions of both the House of Commons and
the Senate and their committees |
|
3884
hours in 2003-2004 |
||
|
Volume
of translation for both the House of Commons and the Senate and their
committees |
|||||
|
Capacity
to maintain the quality and effectiveness of government communications in
both official languages |
Number
of updates to the Government of Canada’s terminology database (TERMIUM) |
|
Level
and trends of complaints (OCOL and others, e.g., in 2005-06, 50% reduction
in connection with the Job Bank at HRSDC) |
||
|
Number
of requests on TERMIUM |
|||||
|
Volume
of translation |
|||||
|
Number
of conferences, missions and delegations that received official-language
interpretation services |
|||||
|
Anglophones
and Francophones are represented equitably within federal institutions |
Proportion
of language groups by level and classification |
Evaluation
of measures taken by institutions to ensure members of both language
groups have equal employment and advancement opportunities |
Equitable
representation of both groups |
Statistical
data from the Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) |
|
|
Federal
institutions receive legal services that help them understand and
implement the different parts of the OLA
|
Measure
in which departmental legal advice is sought and considered in clients’
decision-making process
(Short
term) |
Under
development |
The
Government’s decision-making process is based on high-quality legal
advice that respects the rule of law |
|
|
|
Quality
and speed of legal services as defined by client feedback and service
standards
(Short
term) |
Under
development |
||||
|
Quality
and speed of legislative services, as defined by client feedback and
service standards on drafting by the department
(Medium term) |
Under
development |
Government
public policy is transmitted effectively in bills |
|||
|
Measure
in which departments and clients take risk-management action, including
changes to practices and/or systems (Medium term) |
Under
development |
Legal
risks are anticipated, mitigated and managed effectively |
|||
|
Outcome
of court challenges
(Long
term) |
Under
development |
Crown
interests are protected |
|||
|
Perception
of expertise (Long term) |
Under
development |
||||
*
This includes all initiatives to support linguistic duality and minority
community development, including communications with the public and service
delivery, as well as employees' right to work in their language of choice.
**The
research component includes project implementation, data collection and analysis
activities, and reporting on official languages and OLMCs by all departments and
federal institutions, including the coordination and implementation of projects
such as the Census and post-censal survey by Statistics Canada and its partners
and Social Development Canada’s research on early childhood services in OLMCs.
|
RESULTs: |
|||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
|
CritERIA* |
TARGETS
|
BENCHMARKS
|
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES
|
||||
|
OLMCs
have an infrastructure for their members to live, learn and work in the
community |
Effectiveness
of organizations representing OLMCs |
|
|
|
Privy
Council Office Statistics
Post-census
survey on the vitality of OLMCs Others
(to be determined) |
||||
|
Canadians
live, learn and work in communities with an infrastructure supporting
linguistic duality |
Changes
and trends supporting linguistic duality in communities’ infrastructure |
|
|
|
|||||
|
RESULTS:
|
|||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
|
CritERIA*
|
TARGETS
|
BENCHMARKS
|
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES
|
||||
|
Canadians
value the advantages of linguistic duality |
Changes
and trends in how Canadians perceive the advantages of linguistic duality |
Canadians'
perceptions |
|
Canadians
believe that speaking both languages enhances job and business
opportunities for everyone (PCH 2002) Young
Canadians believe having both official languages is an economic advantage
for |
Privy
Council Office Census
analyses and studies by Statistics Canada Post-census
survey on the vitality of OLMCs Others
(to be determined) |
||||
|
Proportion
of Canadians who accept official-language minority rights |
Canadians
believe the attitude of majorities toward minorities has remained stable
or improved in the past five years. (PCH 2002) Majority-language
Canadians believe services of all levels of government should be offered
throughout the country in both official languages (PCH 2002) |
||||||||
|
Canadians
access services in the language of their choice |
Canadians’
satisfaction with the opportunity to obtain services in the language of
choice and with the quality of those services |
OLMC
members' perception of progress made in obtaining increased access to
programs and services in their language that reflect their realities, by
different levels of government |
|
OLMCs
believe they have access to services in their own language in a wide range
of general services (with access to education and communications being
above average). (PCH 2002) OLMCs
believe access to programs and services of provincial and territorial
governments will remain unchanged or will have improved within 5 years.
(PCH 2002) OLMCs
are satisfied with the services offered in general by the Government of
Canada in their regions. (PCH 2002) |
|||||
|
RESULT: |
|||||
|
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS |
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
|
CritERIA*
|
TARGETS |
BENCHMARKS
|
PRIMARY
DATA SOURCES |
|
Canadians
live, learn, work and have access to services in the language of choice |
Trends
in the assurance with which Canadians live, learn, work and request
services in the language of choice |
|
|
|
Census
studies and analyses by Statistics Canada Privy
Council Office Public
opinion surveys Other
research and investigations |
|
Canadians
accept linguistic duality as a Canadian value |
Recognition
by Canadians of linguistic duality as a Canadian value |
|
|
|
|