There are two aspects. I'm going to draw a distinction between the quantitative and qualitative aspects. In quantitative terms, we're told that 93% of bilingual positions are occupied by people who have passed their test. However, I've previously expressed concern over the fact that 6%, I believe, of people have received an exemption. I've considered that figure perhaps exaggerated. That's it for the quantitative side.
I believe the qualitative aspect is more important than the quantitative. If 100% of people take up their position after passing a test, that means nothing if they don't speak a word of French. It's not by checking a box concerning a person's qualifications for a position that French will become a vital language within the public service, that people will exercise their right to work in French, that they will feel as influential when they write a summary in French as in English, that they will be understood at meetings.
I'm looking for a way to make people understand that mastering both official languages is an essential component for leadership. It's not just a box that has to be checked. In some countries, they say that every child should know how to swim before the end of his or her secondary education. That's all well and good, but it's not that.
I have always expressed my disagreement over the government's insistence that deputy minister positions should be exempt from linguistic requirements. How can you have leadership with regard to linguistic duality if the person in a position of authority in a department does not meet the language requirements? It's the same thing for Cabinet positions. These are often people appointed to positions where the linguistic issue is not considered as a key component of leadership.
