Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a rather circuitous discussion we're having. I think I asked this question earlier, but I would still like your comments on how the changes in language reflect more systemic changes in the department. I think you both touched on it.
But I would also like to comment on something else and table an article. I wasn't here last week, but I gather the committee was criticized for quoting Embassy magazine. I will table this article, wherein the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that language was designed to move the country's foreign policy in a direction decided by the government. He said that government actions were what mattered. He went on to say: We've been elected to govern the country and the government of Canada puts forward, sets forward its objectives, its policy objectives as it does in any other department. And it is up to the departments to execute the policies.... And that is exactly what we are doing.
He also said that “if anybody is not happy with these policies that we're carrying out, well all they have to do is go and run in the next election and get themselves elected and support a policy that is different from ours”.
My question is, in your mind, how does language reflect the changes in policy and capacity within the department?