Thank you for the question.
We did note a certain stability in the results for certain elements, such as the representation of anglophones and francophones outside Quebec. Anglophones are still underrepresented in the federal public service in Quebec, but the issue of representation is more or less settled elsewhere. As a result, we diminished the weighting of that factor because it has become generalized and no longer poses a great challenge. Institutions were told which criteria we would be highlighting this year.
I would like to say a few words on language of work, which I consider to be very significant for several reasons. First, language of work is tied to institutions' capacity to serve the public. If employees are not comfortable using French in a minority situation, that will reduce the use of French in general as well as the ability of an institution to serve the public in the official language of their choice. Another thing that was highlighted in the recommendation is the importance of written communications. I have often heard anglophones say the following with regard to written communications:
“I don't have any problem with the writing. I don't have any problem with the reading part. It's oral interaction.”
I actually think that's a flaw in the argument. I think reading is often a hidden flaw in the language-of-work issue. A francophone employee will recognize at a meeting whether he or she is understood, whereas if you write a text, it's very difficult to know whether it's being read or to know what kind of impact it's had. So it's an important element.
Language of work is one of those rights that, if not used, gets lost.