I guess what I'm getting at--and I don't want to belabour the point, because I do want to quickly go to another one--is that I would prefer some sort of clear communication that states very unequivocally what the expectations are and what the consequences are, and that this has been taken seriously.
In your response, saying it's rare and it doesn't happen that often and we guess that when there is a mistake we do have a file--those things don't give me a lot of assurance. I'd prefer there be something clearer on this, with clearly laid-out consequences. So I'll leave it to you to come back to the committee with that.
The other issue I wanted to quickly touch on was that of language proficiency. I want to talk about a couple of things that were found in the Auditor General's report. One is that only 180 positions are deemed to require a working proficiency in a foreign language.
What surprised me is that only 16% of the people occupying those positions actually met the language requirements. What was even more astounding is that 33% of the people occupying those positions have never even undergone language testing of any kind. Obviously our efficacy in different places of the world is reliant upon our ability to communicate in those languages. Can you tell us what the problem is there, and specifically, concretely, what you're doing to rectify that? This is disturbing to me, and I go back to the comments that my colleague made about the type of multicultural country we're in and the people we are able to draw from.