The Canadian Heritage Report addresses the official language outcomes of designated federal institutions. It refers to the often-quoted sections 41 and 42. I am wondering whether that was only to please me. When I consider a number of areas, progress has effectively been made. Not only has money been given, but on top of that, the money has been put to more productive use. I get the sense that there are good things in the report.
You have already addressed the issue. I will attempt to repeat what you said word for word, without getting out of context. In your latest annual report, you recommended, and I quote:
The Commissioner recommends that the Minister for Official Languages ensure Canadian Heritage review its accountability mechanisms for the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Act in order to place more emphasis on results.
There seem to be results, but when I read that, I am a bit perplexed. I would like you to explain what the shortcomings are. What is the problem? Is it only a document that public servants have been producing for the past 30 years? Practically speaking, is there something in there? You have detected something, and I would like to know what.