I will begin with your second question. No, the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages did not work on that tool. We answered that like other sectors of the public service, we would be willing to use that tool when it was implemented.
It is true that we were asked to assess the tool. We replied that it would be inappropriate for us to do such an evaluation, because the office of the commissioner must preserve its independence in case it were to receive complaints about the tool.
As for the central authority, two measures were taken even before my arrival at the office. First, the responsibility of the Privy Council regarding official languages was transferred to Canadian Heritage, following a decentralization. Second, the Committee of Deputy Ministers responsible for Official Languages was changed and became the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers responsible for Official Languages, and they were given the possibility of delegating a substitute, such as a director or assistant director. Previously, the deputy ministers who were members of the committee could not be replaced by a substitute. Because of that, the committee lost some of its moral authority.
My reaction to the transfer of the responsibility for coordinating official languages from the Privy Council Office to Canadian Heritage comes from the fact that people generally will follow up more quickly on advice that comes from the office of their superior, rather than from a colleague in the next office. We have to be realistic. I also think that a committee made up exclusively of deputy ministers confers more importance to official languages than a committee made up of assistant deputy ministers who can be replaced by an underling.