Performative bilingualism? Canadian language law in the public service

In May 2026, Eurac Research's Anna Wolf examined a scandal that had shaken South Tyrol's public sector: candidates paying thousands of euros for forged bilingualism certificates. Yet, what lingered after reading the piece was not the fraud itself, but a quieter observation about what happens when language certification becomes disconnected from actual language ability. The scandal raised a broader question about the relationship between language policy on paper and language use in practice.

For a Canadian reader, the parallel is difficult to miss.

Canada's Legal and Institutional Framework

Since the adoption of the Official Languages Act (OLA) in 1969, Canadians have had the right to receive services in English or French from designated federal institutions. Federal employees in designated bilingual regions of the federal public service have the right to work in the official language of their choice. Whether an office or position is designated bilingual depends on the criteria set out in the OLA and its regulations, primarily the size and concentration of the official-language minority population it serves. For instance, while French is the mother tongue of approximately 2% of Alberta's population, many federal offices in Ottawa operate in both English and French because they serve a much larger Francophone population and a bilingual region.

These rights are enshrined in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, reinforced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) recognizing the equality of both official languages within federal institutions and protects minority-language educational rights. Reforms to the OLA in 2023 further strengthened federal commitments to protecting and promoting French across Canada. Although French is the majority language in Quebec, it remains a minority language nationally. The bilingualism framework is therefore designed to ensure that French speaking Canadians can participate fully in national institutions despite this demographic imbalance.

What distinguishes the Canadian system is not simply its legal protections but the extent to which bilingualism is embedded in public-sector careers. Across the federal public service, thousands of positions require proficiency in both official languages. A policy analyst in Ottawa may need to review documents in English and French, while managers and senior executives are expected to supervise employees and communicate with the public in either official language. Quebec's civil service operates separately under the Charter of the French Language, while the OLA applies to federal institutions across Canada, including Quebec. However, not every federal position is bilingual; language requirements depend on the population served. Outside Quebec, most federal positions are unilingual English, with bilingual positions appearing in the pockets where French speaking minorities meet the legal threshold, such as parts of Ontario and New Brunswick. Within Quebec, the reverse applies: most positions operate primarily in French, while bilingual ones are concentrated in Montreal, and the National Capital Region around Gatineau , where larger English-speaking minorities exist.

The federal government relies on the Second Language Evaluation (SLE), which assesses reading, writing, and oral interaction separately. Candidates receive ratings from A (basic) to C (advanced), producing profiles such as BBB or CBC. These profiles determine eligibility for bilingual positions, with management and executive roles typically requiring higher proficiency. For many leadership positions, bilingualism is a formal condition of appointment, making language proficiency a gateway to promotion, influence, and leadership within the federal public service. In other positions, however, bilingualism is considered an asset rather than a requirement, giving bilingual candidates a hiring advantage without making language proficiency a condition of employment.

Producing Bilingualism

The state does not simply test these skills; it invests heavily in "producing" them. Bilingual positions may be staffed either imperatively, where candidates must already meet the required language profile, or non-imperatively, where successful applicants receive government-funded language training after appointment. Employees appointed non-imperatively are given up to two years to achieve the required level, after which they may be reassigned to a comparable non-bilingual position if they do not qualify. Tens of thousands of language evaluations are administered annually, supported by substantial public investment in language instruction and certification. SLE results are generally valid for five years, although employees who remain in the same position may retain their results indefinitely. A change in position or required language profile may require reassessment.

On the surface, the framework protects language rights, measures proficiency through standardized testing, and supports bilingualism through training. The result on paper is a structured system in which bilingualism is not only protected but actively assessed, incentivized, and supported. Yet this elaborate system applies far less broadly than many would assume. Whether a position is designated bilingual depends on specific legal criteria rather than an expectation that federal employees speak both languages.

When are public service positions bilingual?

The Official Languages Act (1969) designates Canada's two official languages - French and English - guaranteeing equal and special rights to French and English speakers. The bilingualism rules only apply to the public sector and 'Crown corporations' - Public-serving companies who are owned and operated privately, such as CanadaPost- and not to private businesses. Even though the federal government is constitutionally committed to delivering services in both official languages, only some, but not all federal positions require bilingualism.

Interestingly, there are two different 'kinds' of positions that mandate bilingualism. The Treasury Board of Canada will designate positions as bilingual based on the following two factors:

Firstly, it is critical to guarantee access to public services in both French and English. For this reason, public-facing roles in bilingual jurisdictions must be bilingual. Accordingly, Part IV of the OLA guarantees accessibility to federal services in French or English, public-facing workers who are reasonably expected to interact in both official languages must be bilingual.

In order for a region to offer bilingual services, it must satisfy one of two criteria: Either 5% or more of the local population speaks the minority language (French or English depending on the region) OR more than 5000 locals residing in the area speak the minority language. This way, it is ensured that in larger or smaller communities, an English or French minority can access services in their language. When this happens, public offices are obligated to hire bilingual workers for those services.

In addition, public offices that exist in certain regions have a bilingual language requirement in the workplace. Part V of the OLA protects the right of public servants to use either English or French as their primary language of work. In designated bilingual regions, it is necessary for employees to have a working proficiency in both languages. Accordingly, managers and supervisors are expected to have advanced bilingual proficiency (a CBC profile) because the OLA protects the right to supervision in either official language.

These 'regions' are rigid, and the OLA explicitly states which Federal office locations hold bilingual 'languages of work'. They include: The National Capital Region (Ottawa-Gatineau), New Brunswick, Montreal, and select regions in Ontario and Quebec.

In this way, Canada's public services can adapt to demographic changes in regions and tend to their language needs. Simultaneously, the designated public office can maintain a dual language culture - or so it would seem.

Canadian Bilingualism in Practice

As someone raised in a French-Canadian family, complaints against the English-language dominance are something of a family tradition - they are common and long-standing. Despite Canada's designation as a bilingual country, only 22% of Canadians speak French. As mentioned, most Canadian French-speakers reside in Canada's only French province - Quebec. Shockingly, only 3.5% of Canadians outside Quebec can even speak French. (Census of Canada, 2021)

Worse, Canada's language assessment standards are falling short - 44% of Francophone (Native French-speaking) public servants feel uncomfortable speaking French at work and nearly 90% avoid speaking French because their colleagues do not understand - in offices purportedly designated bilingual. On the other side, 39% of Anglophones don't feel comfortable expressing themselves in French. Many Anglophones fear embarrassing themselves in front of French colleagues.

Linguistic insecurity surrounding the French language is so common in the Canadian public service that it has a name: French Malaise. It refers to the general unease that accompanies the use of the French language in bilingual offices. French speakers do not feel comfortable asking for supervision or correspondence in French, while English speakers are not comfortable expressing themselves because they lack practice. It is a self-reinforcing issue. Ultimately, the Canadian system struggles to balance equal language representation with the dominance of the English language.

Conclusion

Interestingly, where South Tyrol's language exam is criticized by some for being excessively difficult, Canada's bilingual standards leave employees underprepared to effectively work in their secondary language. However, some lessons remain the same: a certificate cannot carry the weight of bilingualism. If the Canadian government seeks to correct the culture of French Malaise which exists today, they must encourage a bilingual office culture. In addition, certificates alone cannot sustain a bilingual culture. A better alternative would be regular opportunities for meaningful interaction between different language speakers. More frequent interactions in both languages can reduce tension around making mistakes and encourage employees to express their language needs.

In closing, balancing the rights of two or more language groups is neither a unique nor new challenge. Administrative bodies struggle to foster dynamically bilingual cultures when everyday interactions default to a single majority language. When English consistently dominates office interactions, it threatens the language equality rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As yet, the standards remain unchanged. It begs the question: Are governments comfortable with this 'performative' language equality? And are failing language certificates evidence of a decline in bilingual culture?