First of all, I think it would be risky to make a direct connection between the results we've seen in the past and those noted from one year to the next. Every year we develop different criteria to assess institutional performance. This year, for example, we focussed on institutions that have special responsibility for granting funds to official language community institutions.
That said, we noted that institutions being evaluated for the first time are sometimes shocked to discover the nature of their obligations. And they are definitely shocked when they receive a less than positive assessment. That shock prompts them to react and to try and improve. For example, last year we gave a “Poor” rating to one institution. It was quite shaken by that assessment. As a result, it implemented an action plan to correct the situation.
I have noticed that agency heads and deputy ministers are quite competitive people. I have been told in the past by some of them that it was the first time they had ever received a D rating. So, deputy ministers don't like to be given a poor rating. That brought home to me as well just how crucial leadership is.
When a minister or deputy minister pledges to take action to improve the institution's performance, often we see almost immediate progress. On the other hand, if there is a change of leadership in a department, a branch or work unit and the individual in charge sends the message that it isn't very important, or if that individual is not comfortable in both languages, all of a sudden we see a change. In that case, rather than making the effort to ensure that linguistic duality is valued within the institution, it is treated as something marginal, with the result that people are no longer determined to succeed.
I think it's very important to recognize that leadership is crucial and that proficiency in both official languages is a key qualification—indeed, an essential leadership skill in the public service.