Managing Language of Work: Survey of federal public service supervisors on their familiarity with the Official Languages Act, Part V – Language of Work, and on their experiences and needs – 2025

1.1 Background

The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada deemed it appropriate to commission a new study on Part V of the Official Languages Act – Language of Work, considering, on the one hand, the observation, according to various sources, of persistent issues related to this part of the Act and, on the other hand, the adoption, in June 2023, of a modernized Official Languages Act that includes provisions that strengthen the language rights of employees in regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes. In addition, the Directive on Official Languages for People Management (revised, June 2025) raises the language profile of positions responsible for supervising these employees from BBB to CBC.

1.2 Immediate objectives and ultimate goal of the research

This quantitative research project, conducted via an online survey, was exploratory in nature. Its immediate objective was to explore whether employee supervisors “are familiar with” / “aware of” Part V of the Act, including:

1. The rights of employees in regions designated as bilingual to use either official language in their workplace and to be supervised in the official language of their choice;
2. The obligations of federal institutions to ensure that the workplace is conducive to the effective use of both official languages;
3. The responsibilities of managers and supervisors to enforce these rights and implement these obligations.

In particular, it sought to explore the hypothesis that familiarity with these rights, obligations, and responsibilities is necessary for supervisors to be able to fulfill their responsibility to supervise their employees in the official language of their choice and to exercise their own rights as employees. This research also explored various factors that could facilitate or hinder this ability. In addition, it sought to identify experiences and needs related to training and resources, as well as perceptions of leadership, information, and support received in this area. Its goal was to obtain a general overview of the current situation, rather than to measure or evaluate individual knowledge or abilities. The Commissioner mandated the firm Advanis to carry out this project with his office’s research team.

The Office of the Commissioner oversaw the design of the draft questionnaire and was responsible for sending the invitations to participate in the survey. Advanis was responsible for the sampling, then the collection and analysis of the results of the survey conducted among a segment of the target population, namely supervisors within the federal public service who are responsible for employees working in regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes.^{Footnote 1}

1.3 Brief description of the methodology used

In order to obtain a general overview of the situation, the aim was to reach as many potential respondents as possible within the target population, ideally using a probability sample.^{Footnote 2} However, complete lists of our entire target population being unavailable, publicly accessible Government Electronic Directory Services were used as the sampling frame for the selection of 23,711 public servants registered in 47 federal institutions^{Footnote 3} (as of January 2025), based on whether they were likely to supervise employees given their specified job titles and whether their contact information included an email address.

Data collection took place from February 11 to March 10, 2025. Of the 23,711 public servants sampled and invited to participate by email, 4,235 completed the survey. The Office of the Commissioner’s Information Technology team was responsible for sending out invitations and reminders.

Although the response rate was higher than expected, at over 20%, this research, given its scope and methodological limitations, was exploratory in nature. Furthermore, this survey is based on a partial sample of the target population; therefore, the results cannot be statistically extrapolated to the entire target population, with a known sampling margin of error.

1.4 Key findings

Here are the main observations we have drawn from the analyses performed as part of the study:

• The level of familiarity reported by respondents with general provisions regarding the language of work appears to be generally high and, despite disparities between Anglophones and Francophones, most reported that they are always or often able to fulfill their responsibilities toward their employees.
• Despite a generally high level of reported familiarity with language of work provisions, however, it should be noted that the application of best practices is relatively lower.
  • There appear to be different factors linked to this relatively lower application of best practices, despite awareness of them. These potential factors are presented in summary tables throughout the report.
  • Some respondents, particularly Francophones, report that their language rights do not always seem to be respected.
  • We also observe little sharing of resources on language of work and a fairly low proportion of respondents who have received related training from the Canada School of Public Service.
• The application of certain best practices by respondents, in their capacity as supervisors, encourages their employees to implement them as well, demonstrating the importance of leadership at all levels.
• Although other factors may come into play, having better reported abilities in the second official language appears to be a key factor in favour of:
  • A better understanding of rights, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to language of work;
  • A better respect for responsibilities with regard to language of work;
  • A better implementation of best practices.
• Respect for the responsibility to supervise employees in the official language of their choice is primarily promoted through sufficient knowledge of employees’ language rights. Among Anglophones, the importance of having sufficient French language skills is also key.
• The majority of respondents agree on the usefulness of mandatory government-wide training on language of work, both among Anglophones and Francophones, although there is greater agreement among Francophones.

1.5 Contract value

The contract value for this study was $68,660.77 (including GST and QST).

1.6 Political Neutrality Requirement

I hereby certify as a Senior Administrator of Advanis, that the deliverables are in full compliance with the Government of Canada’s political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Procedures for Planning and Contracting for Public Opinion Research Services.

Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.

Signed

2.1 Background: Policy framework and research question

2.2 Research question

For decades, persistent issues have been identified with regard to the language of work, particularly in the Public Service Employee Survey and the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Annual Reports on Official Languages, as well as in studies and annual reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages. As demonstrated by research conducted by the Library of Parliament, various sources have documented the fact that French remains underused in the workplace in the federal public service. Moreover, it is stated that:

“Federal institutions have a poor track record for allowing employees to use their preferred official language with supervisors, when drafting documents or during meetings. […] Improving employees’ language skills, strengthening official language capacity in federal institutions and showing clear and sustained leadership are some of the approaches put forward to ensure equitable treatment of both official languages in the workplace. […] The 2023 legislative amendments have raised hopes for improving the standing of French in the workplace.”^{Footnote 8}

In connection with this publication and the possibility of using the official language of one’s choice with one’s supervisor, Helaina Gaspard argues that, over time, gaps have widened between language policies and practices regarding language of work, which has resulted in placing the responsibility of creating and promoting a culture of bilingualism on the shoulders of middle managers.^{Footnote 9} Thus, the implementation of these policies has become largely dependent on their knowledge, behaviour and commitment.

For its part, the Office of the Commissioner published a qualitative study in 2011 on managers’ leadership behaviours, focusing on the use of official languages and the importance placed on them by managers, including senior management. This study included key leadership behaviours in official languages.^{Footnote 10} The Office also published two studies, in 2021 and 2023, on linguistic insecurity, including a survey and a follow-up qualitative study on the language of work in the context of telework and hybrid work. The first highlighted, among other things, the challenge of being supervised in one’s language, particularly due to a lack of fluency in that language among their supervisors, as well as the importance of promoting equality between the two official languages by senior management and supervisors. In focus groups held in the second study, supervisors reported that leadership in language of work rested largely on their shoulders. That study emphasized the need for better leadership from senior management.^{Footnote 11}

In short, issues remain regarding language of work at various levels.

3.1 Immediate objectives and ultimate goal of the research

This research, conducted via an online survey, first sought to ask supervisors of employees working in designated bilingual regions about their “familiarity” / “knowledge” regarding the rights of these employees, the obligations of institutions, and their responsibilities as supervisors with regard to language of work. It was based on the hypothesis that this familiarity/knowledge would be a necessary factor in their ability to exercise their responsibilities as supervisors and their own rights as employees. It also explored various factors that could facilitate or hinder this ability. Finally, it aimed to understand supervisors’ experiences and needs in terms of training and resources, and then to understand their perception of the leadership, information, and support received from their superiors and their institutions. Thus, its ultimate goal was to obtain a general overview of the state of the situation, rather than to measure or evaluate individual knowledge or abilities.

3.2 Methodological approach

The sample was compiled from publicly available lists of federal public servants, but these lists only partially cover our target population in terms of institutions, employees, and email addresses. We used two lists from the Government Electronic Directory Services (GEDS - Government of Canada Employee Contact Information) on the Open Government website and online at geds-sage.gc.ca). This allowed us to sample a total of 23,711 potential supervisors, of whom 4,235 responded to the survey.^{Footnote 12}

3.3 Questionnaire and pilot test

A draft questionnaire was first provided by the Office of the Commissioner’s research team and then fine-tuned by Advanis. The questionnaire sought to explore the following themes:

1. Familiarity with general provisions of the Act, with subjective self-assessment questions, and knowledge of more specific provisions regarding language of work, through objective questions on applicable statements;
2. Application of best practices;
3. The ability (self-assessed) to fulfill their responsibilities as supervisors, as well as factors that facilitate or hinder this ability, and the ability to exercise their rights as employees;
4. Experiences and needs in terms of training and resources;
5. Perception of leadership, information, and support from the institution, senior management, superiors, and immediate supervisor.

The pilot test, conducted with 20 employees of the Office of the Commissioner and employees of other departments, was held on February 5 and 6, 2025 to verify the clarity and comprehensibility of the questionnaire in terms of its structure, the wording of the questions, and the response categories in both official languages.

Following this pilot test, some changes were made to the questions. The survey was programmed using SurveyBuilder, a software developed by Advanis. It could be completed online and took an average of about 20 minutes to complete.

3.4 Planning and sample building

Since we did not have access to a complete and up-to-date list of our entire target population (federal public servants who supervise employees reporting to offices located in regions designated bilingual for language of work purposes),^{Footnote 13} including a list of email addresses, we used publicly available electronic government directory services, namely: GCdirectory/GCannuaire on the geds-sage.gc.ca website and the Government Electronic Directory Services (GEDS - Government of Canada Employee Contact Information) on the open government website.

These two lists do not contain all federal employees. Furthermore, not all federal institutions are included, and among those that are, not all employees are listed or have an email address.

Using the partial lists contained therein, we sought to build a sample from our target population. We used GCdirectory rather than its French version, GCannuaire, as the English version appeared to be more complete, with more entries. The job titles and functions listed in GEDS and GCdirectory enabled us to identify, among the public servants listed, those who were likely to supervise employees. We selected all the titles that were likely to involve employee supervision, which included more than 300 designations.

The sample was created in January. At that time, the GEDS - Government of Canada Employee Contact Information contained 22,876 potential supervisors with email addresses. The GCdirectory contained 10,172 entries under the same headings and with email addresses. After purging the two lists to exclude duplicates, a consolidated list was created. This list contained a total of 23,711 email addresses.

3.5 Pretest and data collection

Invitations and reminders were sent by email by the Office of the Commissioner’s IT team. This was done using a PowerShell script that matched the invitation and reminder text to the samples provided by Advanis in Excel format. Each questionnaire had a unique number embedded in the hyperlink to eliminate the possibility of duplicate responses from the same participant.

An external technical pretest was conducted on the first day by sending out 200 initial invitations to ensure that the systems were functioning properly. The survey also allowed the first 200 respondents to provide additional feedback on the questionnaire.

After all initial invitations were sent, a reminder message was sent one week later to candidates who had not responded to the survey, excluding those who had attempted to respond but were not eligible because they were not supervisors with employees in the regions designated according to their responses to the initial screening questions included in the survey. The following table presents the results according to the final status of the participants.

The overall response rate was 24.1%.^{Footnote 14} Had this study been carried out using purely random sampling of the entire target population, the overall margin of error would have been 1.2% with a 95% confidence interval. If applicable, such a margin of error would vary according to the breakdowns carried out and the number of respondents. However, since we did not have access to complete lists of our target population, for example, supervisors of employees in regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, and since we did not draw a purely random sample among them, a margin of error cannot be applied to the present survey.

4.1 Main notes on the analysis

In this report, data are presented and analyzed in a descriptive manner, under each section, first according to the respondents’ first official language, then according to other characteristics and results that appear in boxed text, in order to facilitate analysis and synthesis. Each box presents an element of our analytical framework, meaning the results for a key variable. A note is included below each box to describe how the key variable was defined. These boxes help to draw certain trends relating to other demographic characteristics and survey results according to various categories of respondents.

Results with a base of fewer than 30 respondents should be interpreted with caution, and results with a base of fewer than 10 respondents should not be reported, which explains why results with a base of fewer than 10 are not presented in this report.

In the absence of data on the target population, the data are not weighted in the tables and report.

As a general rule, the results shown in the tables and analysis exclude those for the “I don’t know / I don’t remember” category and the “I prefer not to answer” category. However, when these results reach 5% or more, they are included or mentioned. In some cases, and where appropriate, these results are included, for example for questions on knowledge of specific provisions regarding language of work.

Results may not sum up to exactly 100% due to rounding or when multiple answers were possible. When this report refers to aggregated categories, the percentage may vary by +/- 1% due to rounding.

For each population group and survey question, the banners contain the following cross-tabulation tables:

• Table 1: First official language; mother tongue; self-assessment of writing skills; self-assessment of speaking skills; management category (senior or middle management); number of years as a supervisor; age group; gender; language spoken with the supervisor; preferred language for supervision; whether the supervisor asked for the preferred language for supervision.
• Table 2: General familiarity with the Act; knowledge of specific provisions; asking employees about their preferred language for supervision; informing employees of their language rights; obtaining training from the CSPS; consulting resources; suggesting that their employees consult resources; level of agreement regarding leadership, support, and information from various levels of management; usefulness of mandatory government-wide training; frequency with which respondents consider themselves able to fulfill their responsibilities as supervisors; frequency with which respondents consider themselves able to exercise their rights as employees.
• Table 3: Bilingual regions where their employees’ offices are located; non-designated and designated regions where respondents’ offices are located.

4.2 Scope and limitations of the study

There are a few limitations that must be taken into account when analyzing the data in this study.

Although the use of these two sources (GEDS and GCdirectory) did not allow for the calculation of a participation rate and margin of error relative to the entire target population or to infer results, it did at least allow for the calculation of a participation rate based on the number of invitations sent to our target subpopulation with email addresses.

Non-response bias occurs when non-respondents differ significantly from respondents, and this difference has an impact on the responses collected. It is difficult to assess the presence of non-response bias, as the reasons why non-respondents did not participate are generally not available. That said, one way to assess the potential impact of nonresponse bias is to determine whether the sample is representative by comparing the characteristics of respondents and checking whether they reflect the known characteristics of the population.

Where possible, we check the distribution of respondents across different demographic (for example, age and gender), geographic, and linguistic categories and compare these distributions with known characteristics of the population. If the variation is relatively small and we have no reason to believe that other factors are influencing respondents’ willingness to participate, we can conclude that the likelihood of non-response bias impacting the study results is low. In this study, we cannot comment on the potential for non-response bias.

5.1 Key demographic and linguistic characteristics

The survey participants included 4,235 supervisors who had employees in regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes. For the remainder of this report, we will refer to them as “respondents,” considering that the results cannot be statistically extrapolated to the entire target population, given the sampling method used. This method does not guarantee that the sample represents the entire target population with a known sampling margin of error.

Respondents who indicated French as their first official language (Francophones) or English (Anglophones) showed similarities in their distribution across different age groups. The same proportion of Francophones and Anglophones, at 51%, was found in the 45 to 54 age group.

More women participated in this survey. Among French speakers, women accounted for 57% of respondents, and among English speakers, they accounted for 65%. Men accounted for 43% of French-speaking respondents and 35% of English-speaking respondents. The number of people who reported their gender as “other” was less than 10, meaning these are not reported, as indicated in the notes to the reader.^{Footnote 15} It should be noted that we did not observe any significant differences in survey responses based on gender.

Among French speakers, 92% of respondents had French as their mother tongue, 5% had English, and 8% had another mother tongue. Among English speakers, 78% had English as their mother tongue, 18% had a language other than French or English, and 9% had French as their mother tongue. It should be noted that, when examining the data by mother tongue, among respondents who indicated that they had a mother tongue other than French or English, 33% indicated that French was their first official language, while 67% indicated that English was their first official language.

Approximately three-quarters (76%) of Francophones and approximately two-thirds (67%) of Anglophones who responded to the survey held middle management positions, for example, manager, supervisor, or team leader positions. Senior managers, for example, those in positions such as deputy minister, assistant deputy minister, director general, executive director, or director, accounted for 24% of Francophones and 33% of Anglophones.

The number of years spent in a position with employee supervision was similar for Francophones and Anglophones.

The vast majority of respondents had been employed in the federal public service for more than ten years, namely 84% of Francophones and 82% of Anglophones.

Depending on the first official language, there are noticeable disparities in self-assessed skills, both written and oral, in the second official language.^{Footnote 16} In fact, while a very high proportion of French-speaking respondents (94%) reported good writing skills in their second official language, less than half (47%) of English-speaking respondents reported good writing skills. Another 38% of Anglophones reported average writing skills, and 15% reported poor or non-existent skills.

In terms of oral skills, 92% of French-speaking respondents reported having good skills, 8% reported having average skills, and 1% reported having poor or no skills. Among English speakers, 56% reported having good oral skills, 29% reported having average skills, and 15% reported having poor or no skills. Among English speakers, more respondents reported having good oral skills (56%) than the proportion reporting good writing skills (47%).

5.2 “Familiarity with” and “knowledge of” general provisions of the Act and specific provisions regarding language of work

The questionnaire contained three subjective self-assessment questions regarding “familiarity with” general provisions of the Act that could be considered basic. These questions focused on regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes, followed by the rights of employees and the obligations of institutions toward employees working in these regions. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with these provisions (“Very,” “Somewhat,” “Not very,” “Not at all” familiar).

This was followed by thirteen objective questions about “knowledge of” more specific provisions contained in the Act, as well as in the Directive on Official Languages for People Management. These thirteen questions contained statements for which respondents had to choose a correct or best answer. While many of these questions can also be considered basic, some of them can be considered to have a higher level of complexity.

The provisions they were asked about concerned the rights of employees, in designated bilingual regions, to work and be supervised in the official language of their choice; the obligations of federal institutions to create a work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages while allowing their employees to use either one; and the responsibilities of supervisors with regard to respecting and enforcing these rights among their employees.

5.3 Application of best practices and provisions regarding language of work

Some questions addressed the application of best practices and provisions regarding language of work by respondents. They dealt with specific actions reported by respondents as examples of measures taken to ensure respect of their employees’ rights.

These questions focused on supervisors’ knowledge of their employees’ preferred official language, how they inquire about this preference, and how they communicate their employees’ language of work rights to them. One question also addressed the timing of communicating these rights, including the key moment of hiring and the required annual employee performance review.

Almost all respondents indicated that, as supervisors, they knew the preferred official language of all their employees, both among Francophones (98%) and Anglophones (96%). In addition, some respondents indicated that they knew the preferred language of some of their employees (2% and 3%, respectively).

While almost all respondents, both French-speaking and English-speaking, said they knew the language preference of all employees under their supervision, fewer indicated that they implemented best practices and provisions to respect employees’ rights regarding language of work. In fact, among respondents, 83% of French speakers and 87% of English speakers indicated that, as supervisors, they learned about their employees’ language preferences by asking them directly. Furthermore, 78% of Francophones and 74% of Anglophones indicated that they communicate their employees’ language of work rights to them. It should be noted that 7% of Francophones and 10% of Anglophones responded “I don’t know / I don’t remember”.

Among other best practices identified by respondents is informing employees of their language of work rights upon hiring and reminding them regularly afterwards. In particular, the time of hiring is a key moment for communicating this information, while the annual performance review is linked to the obligation, for supervisors, to conduct these reviews with their employees in the official language of their choice. This must be attested to in the performance review signature form.

However, we observe that when it comes to communicating this information at the key moment of hiring, slightly less than two-thirds of respondents, or 58% of Francophones and 60% of Anglophones, indicated that they do so. When it comes to communicating these rights to employees annually, for example at the time of their performance review, less than half indicated that they do so, namely 46% of Francophones and 48% of Anglophones. Thus, this is observed among both Francophones and Anglophones.

Furthermore, with regard to the best practice of communicating these rights to their employees on a regular basis, slightly less than one-third indicated that they do so monthly among Francophones (30%) and Anglophones (31%). More than one-third of Francophones (39%) and less than one-third of Anglophones (28%) indicated that they do so weekly.

6.1 Training received by respondents

Some training courses offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) include, in whole or in part, components on language of work (Canada School of Public Service, Learning Catalogue). They may be aimed at different audiences, including employees, managers, and supervisors. As indicated below, four training courses address language of work.

• The Authority Delegation Training: Managing People Effectively provides managers at all levels with the basic knowledge necessary to carry out their human resources (HR) responsibilities in the public service. Among the five topics covered are compliance with official language rights and responsibilities, job classification, human resources planning and staffing, responsibilities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and labour relations management.
• Respecting official languages in the public service provides an overview of the Official Languages Act, including the parts of the Act, the roles of the main federal institutions, maintaining a culture of bilingualism in the workplace, and best practices for complying with language of work obligations.
• Language of Work: Knowing One’s Rights and Responsibilities and Maintaining One’s Skills - Levels B and C examines individual rights and responsibilities with regard to the working language and offers participants the opportunity to practice their second language skills, at levels B and C, in various professional situations.
• Managing Official Languages Obligations refers to the responsibilities of managers and individuals responsible for official languages within departments, including determining language requirements, managing complaints, organizing bilingual events, monitoring compliance, and producing reports.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had taken each of these training courses from the Canada School of Public Service. A majority of respondents, for example, 68% of Francophones and 77% of Anglophones, indicated that they had taken the Authority Delegation Training: Managing People Effectively course. Upon closer examination of the data (not shown in tables), we see that 81% of those who received this training had more than 10 years of seniority in a supervisory position, compared to 67% who had 10 years or less of seniority, and that 82% of those in senior management positions had received this training, compared to 68% of those in middle management positions.

The training course Respecting Official Languages in the Public Service was taken by similar proportions of French-speaking (26%) and English-speaking (29%) respondents, as was the training course Language of Work: Knowing One’s Rights and Responsibilities and Maintaining One’s Skills - Levels B and C, which was taken by 13% of French speakers and 12% of English speakers. However, the training course Managing Official Languages Obligations was taken by a higher proportion of francophone respondents (21%) than anglophone respondents (12%).

Among respondents, a portion indicated that they had not taken any of these four training courses, specifically 22% of Francophones and 16% of Anglophones.^{Footnote 25}

A closer examination of the data (not shown in tables) reveals that 23% of respondents with 10 years or less of seniority in a supervisory position had not completed any of these training courses, compared to 14% of those with more than 10 years of seniority, and that 22% of respondents in middle management positions had not completed any of these training courses, compared to 12% of respondents in senior management positions.

Furthermore, when asked if they had taken any training other than that offered by the School of Public Service,^{Footnote 26} some respondents answered in the affirmative, with 18% of Francophones and 28% of Anglophones saying “yes.”^{Footnote 27}

Respondents were asked to answer a follow-up question about the institution that provided the last training they took (which was not provided by the Canada School of Public Service).^{Footnote 28} In more than half of the cases, this other training or these other training courses were offered by their department. This was similarly the case for 59% of 302 French-speaking respondents and 58% of 442 English-speaking respondents.^{Footnote 29}

6.2 Resources consulted

While there are various resources available on Part V – Language of Work, only about one-third of respondents indicated that they had accessed them. In fact, 38% of French-speaking respondents and 31% of English-speaking respondents indicated that they had accessed such resources.^{Footnote 31}

Among the majority of respondents who had already consulted such resources, these were available within their own department. This was the case for 72% of French-speaking respondents and 80% of English-speaking respondents.

Next was the consultation of resources available from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was done by 46% of francophone respondents, compared to 39% of anglophone respondents. However, while 35% of Francophones had consulted resources available from the School of Public Service, 48% of Anglophones had done so. Francophone and anglophone respondents consulted resources available from the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Official Languages Centre of Excellence (36% and 32% respectively) and the Network of Official Languages Champions (24% and 21% respectively) in similar proportions.^{Footnote 32}

6.3 Encouragement of employees to access resources

Among respondents, few indicated that they encourage their employees to access resources available under Part V of the Official Languages Act – Language of Work. Among Francophone respondents, 29% indicated that they do so for all or at least some of their employees. This was the case for 35% of anglophone respondents.^{Footnote 35}

Among those who indicated that they encourage their employees to access such resources, similar majorities of Francophones and Anglophones responded that they are available from their own department. This was the case for 84% of francophone respondents and 85% of anglophone respondents. This was followed by those who encourage their employees to access resources available from the Canada School of Public Service, among 64% of Francophones and 74% of Anglophones. As for resources available from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 40% of Francophones and 35% of Anglophones indicated that they encourage their employees to access them. This was the case for resources from the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Official Languages Centre of Excellence which were indicated by 37% of Francophones and 35% of Anglophones, and finally, resources from the Network of Official Languages Champions were indicated as being proposed to their employees by 30% of Francophones and 29% of Anglophones.^{Footnote 36}

7.1 Perceptions of leadership, information, and support from the institution, senior management, superiors, and immediate supervisor

In addition to inquiring about respondents’ individual knowledge and experiences, we wanted to explore certain organizational dimensions. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement (“Totally” or “Somewhat” agree, and “Somewhat” or “Totally” disagree) with seven statements related to their perceptions of leadership, information, and support from their institution, senior management, superiors, and immediate supervisor. In response to each of the seven statements, fewer French-speaking respondents than English-speaking respondents agreed (“Totally” or “Somewhat” agree).

The three statements with which respondents agreed the least (at just under or just over 50%) relate to obtaining information from their immediate supervisors about language of work resources and training (initially, upon entering their position, and then on a regular basis) and encouragement from their immediate supervisors to consult resources and obtain training. Statements regarding senior management leadership, sharing information about Champions and Persons Responsible for Official Languages, communicating information about rights and obligations, and support from supervisors or management to ensure a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages received higher percentages of respondents agreeing at close to or above 70% and close to or above 80%.^{Footnote 38}

7.2 Perception of the usefulness of mandatory government-wide training on language of work

The Office of the Commissioner wanted to find out how interested supervisors would be in introducing mandatory, government-wide training focused entirely on language of work.

Depending on their first official language, there is a gap between respondents’ perceptions of the usefulness of mandatory government-wide training on language rights and obligations in the workplace. In fact, 79% of Francophones indicated that it would be useful, compared to 62% of Anglophones. Conversely, 21% of Francophones and 38% of Anglophones disagreed. Nevertheless, a majority of francophone and anglophone respondents agreed with this statement.^{Footnote 40}

8.1 Fulfilling their responsibilities as supervisors

The frequency with which respondents considered themselves capable of fulfilling their responsibilities to supervise their employees in the official language of their choice varied greatly depending on the respondents’ first official language. In fact, almost all francophone respondents (99%) said they felt they were frequently (always or often) able to fulfill their responsibilities, compared to 85% of anglophone respondents. Looking at the data in more detail, 84% of Francophones said they were always able to fulfill their responsibilities, compared to only 57% of Anglophones.

Among French-speaking respondents who considered themselves to be frequently fulfilling their responsibilities, the main factor most often identified was, at 64%, their sufficient knowledge of their employees’ language rights, far ahead of any other factor. This was followed by the high priority they assign to official languages in their workplace (47%). Among English-speaking respondents, the main factor identified was their sufficient French language skills (60%), followed by their sufficient knowledge of their employees’ language rights (48%).

We observe that, although there are notable differences in the proportions, both Francophones and Anglophones indicated, among the three main facilitating factors, their knowledge of their employees’ language rights, which is the central issue of this study. Furthermore, what was also important for Francophones was the priority they gave to official languages in the workplace, while for Anglophones, it was their French language skills.

A small number of respondents felt that they were not frequently (either sometimes, or never) able to fulfill their responsibilities to supervise their employees in the official language of their choice. This was the case for 15% of English-speaking respondents and 1% of French-speaking respondents. These English-speaking respondents identified as main factors hindering the frequency with which they can fulfill their responsibilities their insufficient French language skills (88%), the unequal use of both official languages at work (33%), and their employees’ insufficient French language skills (23%).

8.2 Exercising their rights as employees

Although most French-speaking and English-speaking respondents felt they could exercise their right to be supervised in the official language of their choice, there were significant disparities in terms of frequency. Interestingly, unlike the responses to the question about how often they felt they could fulfill their responsibilities as supervisors (where more French-speaking respondents than English-speaking respondents indicated that they could frequently fulfill their responsibilities), fewer French-speaking respondents than English-speaking respondents indicated that they could frequently exercise their own rights, as employees, to be supervised in the official language of their choice.

In fact, 77% of French-speaking respondents felt that they could always or often exercise their rights as employees, while 94% of English-speaking respondents felt the same way. Among French speakers, 54% believed that this was always the case and 23% believed that it was often the case, while these proportions were 83% and 11% among English speakers.

For French-speaking respondents, the main factor facilitating the exercise of their own rights to be supervised in the official language of their choice was their immediate supervisor’s sufficient knowledge of their language rights as employees (48%). This was followed by the high priority given by their immediate supervisor to official languages in the workplace (39%), their immediate supervisor’s sufficient French language skills (38%), and strong leadership among their superiors, including senior management, with regard to the use of both official languages in the workplace (37%).

For English-speaking respondents, the main factor facilitating the exercise of their own rights was their immediate supervisor’s sufficient English language skills (50%). This was followed by the fact that they wanted to be supervised in English (38%), and then their immediate supervisor’s knowledge of their language rights as employees (34%).

Although there were differences between French-speaking and English-speaking respondents in terms of the main factors identified, it should be noted that both groups indicated as a main factor their immediate supervisor’s knowledge of their language rights as employees, which is the main focus of this study. The language skills of their immediate supervisor in their first official language were also identified as a factor by both Francophones and Anglophones. In addition, francophones identified more organizational factors, including the high priority given to official languages by their immediate supervisor and the leadership of their superiors, including senior management, with regard to the use of both official languages in the workplace.

The most frequently indicated obstacle to exercising their right to be supervised in the language of their choice was the unequal use of the two official languages in their workplace (70% among Francophones and 45% among Anglophones). This was followed by insufficient French language skills among their immediate supervisors, indicated by 61% of Francophones but only 26% of Anglophones. In addition, 46% of Francophones, but only 26% of Anglophones, identified weak leadership among their superiors, including senior management, in the use of both official languages in the workplace as the main factor. Also, Anglophones identified their insufficient French language skills as the main factor (25%).