;

LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

1530

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada)

1535

Ms. Michelle Chartrand (Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Canada)

Mr. Scott Serson

1540

The Joint Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

1545

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1550

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

1555

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1600

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

1605

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Yvon Godin

1610

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

1615

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

1620

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

1625

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Mr. Douglas Rimmer (Vice-President, Policy, Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Douglas Rimmer

1630

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Douglas Rimmer

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Jason Kenney

1635

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Jason Kenney

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Jason Kenney

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Jason Kenney

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Jason Kenney

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Denise Boudrias

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1640

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Douglas Rimmer

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1645

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1650

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

1655

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Denise Boudrias

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

1700

Mr. Scott Serson

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Mr. Douglas Rimmer

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Douglas Rimmer

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1705

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair

Ms. Denise Boudrias

The Joint Chair

Ms. Denise Boudrias

The Joint Chair

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1710

Ms. Michelle Chartrand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Charles Ducharme (Counsel, Legal Services, Public Service Commission)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Charles Ducharme

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Serson

The Joint Chair Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 046

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome.

Before we begin today's meeting, I just want to confirm with you that we have indeed received a reply from Radio-Canada. Three representatives will be appearing here tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon will therefore be our final meeting this session. We will be hearing from the National Hockey League and Radio-Canada for one last time, at least for the time being, on a topic of concern to us all.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): You said that three people from Radio-Canada will be appearing here tomorrow. Who are they?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, we have Ms. Fortin, Mr. Gourd and one other person, whose name escapes me for the moment. Mr. Rabinovitch is abroad at this time.

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I am trying to follow what is going on here. You said that there will be a meeting tomorrow. Who is appearing?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The National Hockey League and Radio-Canada.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why are they coming?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They are coming in to answer our questions. The Steering Committee asked us to call these witnesses.

I would now like to welcome Mr. Serson.

Mr. Serson, you mentioned to me that the Public Service Commission of Canada had not appeared before the Joint Committee on Official Languages since 1994. I think therefore, that it is high time that we hear from you again. However, you are not in any way to blame for this long absence. Welcome.

We shall begin our meeting with your presentation. Could you perhaps introduce your colleagues? Following the presentation, we will move on to the question and answer period, as we normally do at this committee. Mr. Serson, you have the floor.

Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With me today are Commissioner Michelle Chartrand, Denise Boudrias, who is Vice-President, Learning, Assessment and Executive Programs, and Douglas Rimmer, Vice-President, Policy, Research and Communications Branch. Thank you for inviting us to meet with you to discuss our issues related to Official Languages.

Before we get into the substance of the issues, I want to quickly go over some basic information about the Public Service Commission of Canada.

Before we get into our formal presentation, I would like to turn to page 2 and to point out that

[English]

the Public Service Commission is established through the Public Service Employment Act as an independent agency reporting to Parliament. The PSEA gives the Public Service Commission both executive and oversight functions related to a number of issues. Our executive functions include the authority to appoint to, and within, the public service, much of which has been delegated to deputy heads. However, we retain a role in general external recruitment and executive staffing.

Through Training and Development Canada and Language Training Canada, the PSC delivers both professional training and language training in both official languages to public servants across the country.

[Translation]

Our oversight function is related entirely to the merit principle. Our objective is to insure that the Public Service is qualified to competently carry out its responsibilities and to serve the Canadian public in both official languages.

Turning to page 4, while the PSC and its role are not specifically mentioned in the Official Languages Act, section 39 (3) does address the issue of merit and establishes merit as the overriding principle. This is augmented by section 91 which clarifies that when departments establish language requirements for positions, those requirements must be based on the needs of the job.

[English]

Finally, before I pass the mike to Madam Chartrand, I would like to go over to page 5, where there are a number of our responsibilities related to official languages. Some are based on our authority to appoint and others are related to our training and learning responsibilities. I won't go into them in detail, but you can see there functions such as ensuring that candidates in selection processes have the right to be evaluated in the official language of their choice for all qualifications other than language.

Michelle.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Chartrand (Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Canada): I would now like to give you a brief overview of the Official Languages-related statistics for the public service as a whole. Of a total 148,000 public servants throughout Canada, 31% are francophones. In the National Capital Region, the percentage of francophones stands at 41%. On a Canadian Public Service-wide basis, 37% of the 148,000 public service positions are bilingual.

Last year, there were a total of 68,000 appointments in the public service. These were both on an internal and external basis. Twenty nine per cent of appointments were bilingual imperative. If you look back to the early days of the Official Languages program, only 4% of positions were bilingual imperative at that time. Consequently, you can see that we have made progress.

[English]

Now I would like to raise four important issues related to the Public Service Commission's role in the area of official languages.

The first topic is staffing of bilingual positions. The second is language training and testing. The third is language of work for executives. And the fourth topic is the public service contribution to part VII of the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

On the issue of staffing bilingual positions, it is important to point out that we continue to staff on a non-imperative basis for the following reasons. Despite the fact that the percentage of bilingual Canadians has increased—it now stands at 17 per cent of the population—this pool is not sufficient to allow us to staff on a strictly bilingual imperative basis.

We have to give those unilingual Canadians from unilingual regions equal access to public service jobs. However, even though the Commission does support non-imperative staffing, the fact remains that we are concerned by the lack of commitment of both employees and managers towards second-language training.

Since 1967, we have trained 100,000 public servants at the Public Service Commission. Ninety-five per cent of these were anglophones who were given French-language training and 5 per cent were francophones who received training in English.

Unfortunately, our language training budget has dropped significantly over the past few years. Our language training budget now stands at $15.8 million. This figure reached as high as $40 million during our best years.

There is an urgent need for additional resources, firstly, to enable us to provide adequate service and, secondly, to modernize our training and assessment tools, which have not been adapted to new technology.

The area of greatest concern for us is that of executives. These people have a leadership role and are required to set the example in terms of official languages. Sixty-eight per cent of executives meet the requirements of their positions. This figure raises a fundamental question. Is there over-use of bilingual non-imperative at the executive level?

Our second point is that language training for executives will have to be stepped up and enhanced if executives are to comply with Treasury Board policy requiring all EXs to meet the language requirements of their positions by April 2003.

[English]

The last point I would like to cover deals with the Public Service Commission's contribution to part VII of the Official Languages Act.

It is our duty as a recruitment agency to establish a contact with francophone academic institutions outside of Quebec as well as with anglophone academic institutions in Quebec in order to share information on employment possibilities and opportunities within the federal public service.

[Translation]

I shall stop here and I shall give the floor to my colleague, who will conclude this presentation.

[English]

Mr. Scott Serson: We've covered in the last couple of pages our concern about a new vision for language training in the public service of Canada. We're anxious to see this new vision created. We would like to see enhanced commitment to learning of official languages among our employees early in their careers, along with a commitment on the part of departments to provide opportunities for learning.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

We have ideas at the Official Languages Commission. We would also like to undertake certain activities to enhance the strides we have already made towards the government's goal on official languages. We see more involvement in the promotion of official languages, as well as an increased investment in our product and services.

[English]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that, overall, non-imperative staffing represents an important balance and appropriate balance of values, although, as Madam Chartrand has said, we have some concerns about the executive group and we would certainly be willing to undertake further research on these issues.

I've talked about our desire to see a long-term commitment to language training in the Public Service of Canada, something that would allow us to make our investments not just in short-term initiatives but in building a long-term approach to language training.

We have certain requirements for resources in the short term, brought on by the amount of recruitment that is going on, our commitment to employment equity objectives, and the challenges that come with training some members of employment equity groups. Of course, we're somewhat concerned that in the process of human resource management reform, the issue of where the language training program sits in the Government of Canada has been raised. There are employees involved in that organization and we'd like to see that decision made as quickly as possible in order for us to get on with our work.

Merci.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Merci, monsieur Serson.

Mr. Kenney.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): No questions.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, I am very happy to be able to meet with you all this afternoon.

I have listened to your presentation very closely and I have looked at the document that you handed out to us in some detail. I have a couple of questions I want to ask you, however. I also have some ideas on the situation, that I am sure you will be able to address. On page 10 of your presentation, you state the following: "The pool of fully bilingual Canadians is still insufficient to meet the recruitment challenge". This is why the public service is hiring unilinguals in imperative bilingual imperative positions, with the aim of making these people bilingual, through training. This is what we understand to be happening.

As of March 31, 2001, 68 per cent of executives met the language requirements of their positions. Consequently, 32 per cent of executives have yet to reach a minimum level for their position.

Do you think that this figure of 32 per cent is acceptable? Of the 32 per cent, how many are undertaking language training to improve their French? What will happen to these people if, in April 2003, 10 per cent of them have failed to meet the bilingual requirements of their position?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I do not have all the details, but there are three groups of public servants that make up the 32 per cent not meeting the language requirements of their position. I do not have the exact percentage however.

One group is made up of those public servants exempted for all sorts of reasons, such as age, length of service...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are talking about those people who were hired a long time ago in a bilingual position, but who, 35 years later, are still not bilingual. Consequently, these people are exempted.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Exactly.

The third type of exemption is for humanitarian reasons, such as a physical handicap, which might mean that a specific person is unable to learn a second language. Consequently, a proportion of the 32 per cent of executives who do not meet the language requirements of their positions fall into this group.

There is a certain percentage of executives who have two years to learn their second language. Lastly, some executives have quite simply not attained the required standard. But I will be able to provide you a detailed breakdown. Perhaps I could provide you the figure as it relates to the public service as a whole. In the document that I handed out to you, we mention that 82 per cent of those in an imperative bilingual position do meet the requirements of that position. This is much higher when you look at the public service as a whole.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: EXs stands for executives, right?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: It does indeed.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Of the 32 per cent of executives who do not meet the requirements of their position, how many of them are currently in language training?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: How many are currently in training, Denise?

Ms. Denise Boudrias (Vice-President, Learning, Assessment and Executive Programs, Public Service Commission of Canada): I am not really in a position to provide you with that figure, since the Public Service Commission of Canada is not the only provider of language training. Departments are free to send their executives either to the private sector, to university, to language schools or to the Public Service Commission of Canada. Consequently, we do not really know how many executives are currently undertaking training. Naturally, all executives are required to meet the March 2003 deadline. This is the date by which executives in so-called bilingual regions will be required to have reached the CBC level.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This applies to bilingual regions where positions and bilingual requirements mean that executives must be at the CBC level.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes. This applies to management or front-line positions.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you not think that it would be appropriate for a person who was hired 10 years ago and who has since become an executive to be required to take language training if, by 2003, that particular person is required to be bilingual? I should perhaps ask my question more simply.

How is it possible for a person who in 10 or 15 years in the public service has failed to acquire the appropriate bilingual skills and who refuses to take language training, to miraculously—by divine intervention—become bilingual on December 31, 2002?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: We do not believe in divine intervention either. This is why both the Public Service Commission of Canada and employers have written to all executives, deputy ministers and staffing branches. We have met with heads of staffing and official language coordinators to impress upon them the importance of language training, because it is quite impossible to go from being unilingual to CBC level in six or seven months. Consequently, these people must comply with the commitment that they made when they received their letter of offer for their particular position. In signing that letter, they committed to reach the required bilingual standard within two years.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If they fail to do so, what happens? The Treasury Board has informed us that there is a whole range of steps that can be taken. I like the way you use the word “imperative”. If these people fail to comply, what happens to them? Do they lose their jobs? Do they have to make a horizontal career move?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: There are two things.

The 2003 cut-off date that you mentioned seems to be set in stone. Treasury Board has the responsibility of coming up with alternative steps to deal with an executive who fails to meet the deadline. Treasury Board is currently looking at various options, including a financial penalty. That is one of the options they are looking at. If these executives do indeed fail to meet the requirements, they could be transferred to a different position. This is an arrangement that exists already within the public service system. However, it is very rarely implemented, but it does exist nevertheless.

Consequently, Treasury Board seems to be very serious about the 2003 deadline. As I said earlier, we are currently developing options for those who failed to meet the cut-off date.

Mr. Scott Serson: I would just like to make it clear that it is up to Treasury Board to develop a policy on this issue and the deputy ministers are responsible for deciding how to address specific situations.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If meeting the bilingual requirements of a particular position was made a condition for the hiring of executives, don't you think that this would address this particular problem? After all, executives set the tone for the public service as a whole in terms of compliance or non compliance with the Official Languages Act and bilingual requirements.

A thirty-two per cent shortfall gives the impression that the public service does not comply with bilingualism requirements and indeed violates the Official Languages Act and the laws of the land.

In 1966, in the province of Quebec, if I am not mistaken, an official from Canadian Pacific or Canadian National said that no francophones were sufficiently qualified to meet these requirements. However, in your presentation you are saying that there are insufficient bilinguals to fill these positions. I think that the fact that you have set this out in black and white in your paper is somewhat indelicate, so to speak.

Don't you think that it would be much easier to require public servants, especially EXs, to meet bilingualism requirements when they are hired? Would that be workable? Don't you think that is the message that the public service should be sending, rather than simply postponing the deadline for decades at a time?

¹ (1550)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I will answer your question in two parts.

Indeed, hiring bilingual people at the EX level would indeed send a very clear message. This very issue is currently being looked into by Treasury Board, since this is Treasury Board's stated policy. Treasury Board is currently looking at the possibility of hiring more bilingual individuals, especially for positions in the high echelons of the public service.

Indeed, this is one of the recommendations made by the Official Languages Commissioner in her latest report on senior levels of the public service. Consequently, this will undoubtedly provide more impetus for the development of a Treasury Board policy on this issue.

The second part of your question dealt with the possibility of only allowing Canadian citizens to apply for bilingual positions. Basically...

It wasn't? That wasn't the second part of your question?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What I said was, that don't you think that officially bilingual positions should be filled by bilingual people? For example, when you hire an accountant, you expect that person to be an accountant already. You don't expect that person to train to be an accountant after he or she has been hired.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Indeed. Being bilingual is a basic qualification.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I were to hire a plumber, I want to make sure that that person is indeed a plumber before he starts work and not after the fact. Do you understand what I mean?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I think that you're quite right in what you say. I think that when a basic qualification is required for a particular job, all candidates should possess that qualification before they are hired.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think that that goes without saying.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I would just like to mention one further issue here...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please be brief, Ms. Chartrand, because the clock is ticking. I am required to comply with the rules of the committee just as you are required to comply with those of Treasury Board.

Please wrap up quickly.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Right.

There is the whole issue of value and fairness that comes into play in terms of access to employment in the public service. We want all Canadians to have access to the public service. If you live in Newfoundland or a far-flung region of Quebec, and you have never had any contact with English or French, respectively, but a position comes up that interests you in the national capital region, for example, for you to be eligible, that particular position must be staffed on an non-imperative basis.

However, we are talking about two different things here. We might be talking about a position for a clerk, an economist or a scientist.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good afternoon, Mr. Serson, good afternoon, Madam.

I have been around for several years. When I began, back in 1972 or 1973, the Public Service Commission used to appear before this committee on a regular basis because at that point, it was facing problems relating to the implementation of language policy and the new Official Languages Act which was passed in 1969. Thirty years later, I find it quite difficult to accept the fact that 30% of public servants do not meet the requirements of their position.

I would like to address the issue of executives and managers with you. This is the most important issue for me, because the example they set impacts on other public servants. The Public Service Commission appoints executives. Ms. Robillard appeared before this committee recently and she told us that 32% of executives do not meet the language requirements of their position. If I'm not mistaken, I was the one who asked her that particular question.

How come then that 30 years after the start of the Official Language process, the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for appointments, has no follow-up process? How is it possible that there are no tests to check language qualifications? How is it that people accept an appointment to a particular position, saying that they will become bilingual, without actually having to sign a commitment? At least, as far as I know, they are not required to do so. How is it that in 2002, people in the higher echelons of the public service are unable to communicate with their employees or with ordinary Canadians in both official languages? It's incredible!

I don't know if you can answer that, Mr. Serson. You're the one responsible.

Mr. Scott Serson: Mr. Gauthier, the Public Service Commission has increasing opportunities to put pressure on executives if they want to staff a position on a non-imperative basis. As president, I can tell you that I went through language training myself.

At the outset, both my colleagues and I thought it was sufficient for those executives appointed to positions on a non-imperative basis to be able to take language training after the fact. However, increasingly we are putting pressure on executives. We are demanding to know whether the position is really non-imperative or whether it is an imperative position including front-line and supervisory duties.

¹ (1555)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry, but I don't have much time.

Managers and executives are supposed to be imperatively bilingual, and enable to communicate in both official languages. Please don't talk to me about the pressure that you are bringing to bear. The law clearly states that these people must be imperatively bilingual, and you at the Public Service Commission are responsible for appointing these people. Can you explain to me how come 30% of public servants in an executive or upper-management position do not meet these requirements? Are tests carried out on a regular basis? Do you have any figures on that? Do you have a monitoring system in place? Could you provide me with the appropriate information? I am beginning to lose patience here.

Mr. Scott Serson: I have to admit to you that the only area that we must give more attention to, in cooperation with our colleagues from Treasury Board, is to monitor those people who have committed to take language training and who, two, three or even four years later, have failed to become bilingual. This is a responsibility that we have to look at more seriously.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Have these people signed a written commitment to undertake language training and to become bilingual? If they fail to comply with this requirement, can their employment be terminated?

Mr. Scott Serson: No, but I think that we can do a better job in terms of resporting to the committee.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The March 31, 2003 deadline was set by the Treasury Board. By that date, the 30% of public servants who are not bilingual will only have a couple of months to become so. I know that we probably won't be talking to you next year, because a bill is slated to be tabled which will probably take the language-related responsibilities, such as training and monitoring, etc., out of your hands. I have been following the proceedings of the Quail Commission.

However, what intrigues me is that we intend to undertake the same futile process all over again. People will be appointed to positions. They will be given the opportunity to become bilingual, to take language training at taxpayers' expense, and two years later, if they have failed to become bilingual, then you will be saying that this wasn't the appropriate way of doing things. This is the situation. These people will be exempted because the system failed. This is why it happens.

Mr. Scott Serson: I am well aware of that. Increasingly, we are telling departments that they must start their second language training program at a lower level, because we want senior positions to be staffed on an imperative basis.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wrote to the President of Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard, because I was somewhat ill at ease with her March 31, 2003 deadline. I thought that would be cutting things a bit fine, after all, it's in barely a year's time. I asked whether it would be possible to put that date back a bit. This is the normal practice when the government fails to reach an agreement.

I would like to read to you a part of the letter that she sent to me on May 27.

...the government is aware of the important role of senior management in developing a culture which values and promotes linguistic duality in the workplace. Consequently, general managers have been advised to take all necessary steps to ensure the successful implementation of this particular government policy.

This is a clear statement. In other words, the deadline remains 2003. What is going to happen if we stubbornly continue with the same approach, whereby Canada is required to have a public service which is able to communicate with Canadians in both official languages? It would be quite easy for me to put various departments to the test. Messages on answering machines are in English only; and faxes also. Departments find it quite amusing when I call them and I address them in French. However, enough is enough. I could even send you a list of tests that I have conducted myself. It's quite frustrating, Mr. Serson. I can tell you that right now. I would not be surprised...

Could you give us some information on the new organizational structure of the government? What does the Public Service Commission intend to do?

Ms. Robillard told me that she was attempting to develop an alternative approach that the commission could use to promote and monitor official languages issues. Her answer to my questions appear in the Hansard, but I believe that you are already aware of what she said. Could you tell us what the situation is exactly?

º (1600)

Mr. Scott Serson: That is a question for the president and the Prime Minister. It is an organizational question.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will make one prediction: they are going to table legislation in the fall to reform the whole issue.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will come back to that in the second round, Senator. If you wish to respond, Mr. Serson or Ms. Chartrand, you may do so. That is all right?

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to the President of the Public Service Commission and to his colleagues who are with him here today.

Ms. Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that all senior federal officials should be bilingual. She said that after 30 years, she was not really impressed and that she was worried.

As Public Service Commissioner, can you tell us what role you have played in this, and why we have not achieved this?

Mr. Scott Serson: Are you asking why we find ourselves in this situation?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Mr. Scott Serson: We have monitored the situation closely with Treasury Board as regards senior executives. I wrote to all of the deputy ministers with my colleague the Secretary of Treasury Board, to ensure that they understood they had to reach level C by April 2003.

As I was saying to Senator Gauthier, when we have a management position to fill, the level of bilingualism is increasingly considered, in light of imperative or non-imperative staffing. We put more and more emphasis on a training program for executives, if a department wants to fill a position on a non-imperative basis.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You were saying earlier that if a person had not learned the second official language... What is this mechanism that only provides for the sending of a letter to the minister? There is existing legislation that should be respected. What powers to do you at the Public Service Commission have? You send letters, but everyone complains and 30 per cent of people are unilingual. What powers do you have? Do you have any? Anyone can send letters; we all do. What powers do you have to ensure that the law is enforced?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: The first power and duty that we have as regards official languages is to offer language training. That is part of our job. We have to do language assessment.

As to determining a position's linguistic profile, when it comes to staffing a position on an imperative or non-imperative basis, we have some influence, period. I am answering Senator Gauthier at the same time. Even if we appoint EXs to the Public Service—and last year, out of a total of 3,200, there were 1,200 appointments—66 per cent of these positions were staffed on an imperative staffing basis. The position comes to us and we approve it. The language profile is drawn up by the manager according to the duties associated with the position. Is there any monitoring? Are there any services to the public? Is there any contact with the public? I will tell you that in 50 per cent of the cases, we go back to the department and challenge the linguistic profile. We say that in light of the duties that the manager is to have, there must be an imperative staffing profile. Sometimes we are successful.

You ask me what powers we have. We have the power to influence, the power to question under Treasury Board policy, but we do not have the power to change the linguistic profile.

º (1605)

Mr. Yvon Godin: What you are saying therefore, in reality, is that you do not have any powers other than to influence?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: That is correct.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can say that they have had a great deal of influence if 30 per cent of managers are not bilingual. Your influence is not great.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I have no comment on that.

Mr. Scott Serson: Our concerns are recent. I have only been here three years, and my concerns regarding this issue have increased over that time. It started 18 years ago, even if we did not have the power to exhert pressure, because we had concerns. In our development programs for assistant deputy ministers as well as in our management development program, we require that the persons have already reached a particular level of bilingualism before applying for the program.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Was your report here translated by your office? Was this report translated in house? For your information, in French, it is "le Nouveau-Brunswick" and not "le New Brunswick". On page 14, one reads the following: "Bilingual regions for the purpose of language of work include the National Capital Region, le New Brunswick, certain parts of northern and eastern..."

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: You are quite right, sir, there is a mistake, and it will be corrected. I completely agree, we apologize.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is more: “...the Montreal region, and certain parts of the Eastern Townships, of the Gaspé region and of western Quebec.” These are the regions that are considered to be bilingual. We are already aware that if we look, for example, at Calgary in Alberta, or even at certain regions in Manitoba, there are areas where there are a lot of francophones. I understand that under the Official Languages Act, people should be served in both official languages. Why do western regions such as Manitoba and Alberta not appear on page 14 of your report? Are they not recognized as being bilingual?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I am trying to remember the precise reference, and it escapes me. Bilingual regions are identified in one of Treasury Board's policies. Someone will surely come to my assistance, but these are regions that are identified as being mainly bilingual, because there is a big enough critical mass so that we can recognize them as such. It does not mean that we will not offer any bilingual service in Alberta, but it does mean that there will be somewhat enhanced service in New Brunswick, Montreal, and eastern Quebec, and the regions that we have already listed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, if, for example, we take the Winnipeg region, St. Boniface is a francophone city that is close by, but it does not appear on this list of bilingual regions. Under the Official Languages Act, I was sure that in Canada, one could be served in both official languages.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Yes. That is part of Treasury Board policies. I seem to put a lot of store in Treasury Board policies, but these are the regions that are officially identified as being bilingual.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I want to clarify Mr. Godin's question. Is the Winnipeg region a so-called bilingual region?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: To my knowledge, no.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Therefore, there may be some confusion. I was under the impression that all Canadian government offices in Winnipeg were designated bilingual. We will have to sort this out.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin, with your last question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier on, we were talking about voicemail. Is the Public Service Commission doing any follow-up on this? Senator Gauthier was talking about voice mailboxes earlier. I think we discovered that 1 is for English, and 2, is for French. Even today, I make calls and I find myself in Toronto, or in London, Ontario, where I am spoken to only in English, and I cannot get the French line. What does the Commission intend to do to settle this problem, if it supposedly has some influence?

º (1610)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: The responsibility for implementing the Official Languages Act, for offering bilingual services, for the equitable participation of francophones and of anglophones, the opportunity to work in both official languages in Canada comes under each of the deputy ministers in the public service. Treasury Board and the Commissioner of Official Languages are responsible for ensuring that this is done. I am not saying that we are washing our hands of it, but it is not really part of our mandate.

Our primary role is to offer language training and language assessments and to use our power of influence on the staffing of imperative or non-imperative bilingual positions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is my final question, Mr. Chairman. Do you know how many deputy ministers are not bilingual? Are they all bilingual?

A voice: Treasury Board has those figures.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Treasury Board has those figures, but you do not.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Thibeault.

Mr. Scott Serson: Mr. Chairman, our lawyers are here, and I can shed some light on this issue. I think that the difference is that language of work is determined under Treasury Board Secretariat policy, whereas language of service is based on significant demand. I think that is the difference between the two.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is not according to the Official Languages Act of Canada which stipulates that bilingual services should be offered to all Canadians. It depends on what the minister decides.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, and it must be based on significant demand.

The Joint Chair: We can look into that at another time, Mr. Godin. We are in the process of preparing a nice work plan for the fall.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, I would like to talk about training. Let's talk about the budget, to start. According to your document, your budget for 2001-02 was $18.6 million. For 2002-03, you have $21.7 million. Therefore, that is a $3.1 million increase. You intimated that that was not enough. I imagine those funds were for training throughout the public service. Is that correct? That is it.

Therefore, in your opinion, how much more money would you need to do your work?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: In fact, you have the right figures. It must be pointed out that the $5.7 million that we have for this year is to be used to reduce waiting lists, to increase hiring. It is for all public servants across the country, in all the groups that are doing language training. It is also for technology, to build multimedia laboratories, to use new products in order that people have access to different organizations from their work stations.

When we say that we need more funds, it is clear that we currently have a 500-person waiting list. Therefore, the wait is still quite long. We are currently training between 2,500 and 3,000 students per year.

I have the figure we were asked for earlier: at the moment, 125 senior executives are registered in our courses. We believe that in order to significantly reduce our waiting list, to modernize our operations, and to give access to better and more modern products that would be more satisfactory for the learner, we need extra funding, more money.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You are telling us that presently, in the government, there are 500 people who are on a waiting list to learn French or English because you cannot provide enough services.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: We do not have enough financial resources. We have qualified teachers, interesting products, but unfortunately, on the financial level, we do not have enough to serve everyone at the moment.

At the senior executive level however, there is no waiting list.

º (1615)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: On another subject, you referred to the 1996 census. Seventeen per cent of Canadians are said to have skills in both official languages.

Do you not have the figures from the 2001 census?

Mr. Scott Serson: No, not yet.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: They have not arrived yet. All right. Thank you.

I have here a chart dealing with assistant deputy ministers. It come from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. If I understand correctly, it shows that of the 211 assistant deputy ministers, only 3.6 per cent of the francophones would not meet the standards. Of the anglophones, it is 25.8 per cent, for an average of 19.9 per cent. Therefore, according to that source, 20 per cent of assistant deputy ministers do not comply with the rules.

What are your comments on this? I find this incredible.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: There are two things. Over the last three years, there was the creation of an accelerated program for assistant deputy ministers, and the basic requirement to get in to the accelerated development program to become an assistant deputy minister was the CBC level.

Also, at the EX 1, 2 and 3, which is the management pool just under the assistant deputy minister level, the first assignment for a director or a director general must be language training. The person has to reach the CBC level before being trained at other levels.

For the people who have been appointed to these programs, we clearly still have work to do. We know that there is currently a great deal of effort made to ensure that assistant deputy ministers who are appointed before these programs existed be identified and registered in language classes as soon as possible. We use all kinds of tutoring and training methods in the departments themselves to ensure that these people become bilingual.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You said this was before those programs. Refresh my memory and tell me what year we are talking about.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: It was three years ago. The first programs were set up in 1998 or 1999, I think.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: All right. That is all for now. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I want to go back to the issue of the bilingual position. If a person has been in a bilingual position for 15 years and has not managed to become bilingual, is that not proof, either that the person did not fulfil his or her duties, or that the position should never have been designated bilingual? There is a contradiction here; if the position is bilingual, the person must become so. If the person does not, they should no longer hold the position. There is no way around it. That is the first point I want to raise. You agree with that.

My second point is that it varies from province to province. In New Brunswick, the two communities are equal. Under the Constitutions of Canada and of New Brunswick—and it is at the core of the Charter of Rights—we should therefore expect a higher level, obviously. In Manitoba, legislation is drafted in both languages. The process occurs in both languages as do parliamentary debates. It is rather rare in Canada: there are only a few provinces that are subject to bilingualism.

I think we need a legal framework that will ensure that there are some consequences when bilingualism is not enforced. It is all well and good to say that we have laws, that we have the Constitution, and other things as well, but they have to be implemented. I cannot understand how we get to the point of saying that, as it has been so many years since the person has been in this position, they no longer need to meet the standards: they have never met the standards.

There is something wrong with the implementation of the program. It is not easy. If we have a system that wants to be taken seriously, we have to take a hard look at the consequences. I have always said that it takes some time to get used to new ideas, but after 10 or 15 years, it is not so new anymore. I do not know how you can explain this in practice. I am not criticizing; I am making note of it and I am trying build something.

º (1620)

Mr. Scott Serson: I think that we agree with the Commissioner of Official Languages on the issue of monitoring; more is needed. I remember she said that Treasury Board and the deputy ministers had to be more vigilant concerning the bilingualism issue. As Senator Gauthier said, we have to see if the current employees are complying with language requirements.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The same problems exist in universities, schools and other areas. Why do you think there are exams in schools, in colleges and in universities? It is done to ensure that people are meeting standards. When a teacher corrects the exams, he quickly realizes that 10% of the students have done well, that it is a partial success for 15%, and that for a certain number of people it is a disaster. I don't think we have found a better way.

It is more difficult, clearly, when you are dealing with 140,000 problems. There surely can't be 140,000, it's impossible, but we have to have standards. I have the impression that this legislation is not really—how can I put it?—detailed. Otherwise, the implementation would be different.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: The Official Languages program is 30 years old. Over the first 20 years, we saw progress from year to year. Over the last 10 years, there have been a certain number of problems within the public service because of budget cutbacks and massive reorganization, amongst other things. The program has declined for all sorts of good reasons. Official languages are currently going through a renewal. A minister has been appointed for the revival of official languages. It was part of the Throne Speech, in which it was clearly stated that linguistic duality is part of the richness of Canada. The clerk has made official languages one of his five priorities. This sends a message to deputy ministers and to the entire public service that official languages are important, even though we may be talking about a new beginning. But that doesn't answer your question concerning the more stringent measures that should be taken, or sanctions that should be imposed in the case of non-compliance.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: All I am asking for is a bit of consistency. If, for example, such and such a skill is required in order to hold a position, then the criterion has to be met. If it is a bilingual position, it becomes a basic criterion; either you have it or you don't. In my opinion, there is no way around it. At that point, it's the classification that is wrong. Either the job is bilingual or it isn't. That is my point.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am going to squeeze in here before going to Mr. Kenney, and we will continue for a second round.

I have a question to ask in order to further my understanding.

On page 7 of your presentation, you refer to bilingual and unilingual positions, and you talk about the total population, that is to say 148,384 public servants as of the 2000-01 report of the President of Treasury Board. You show the number of bilingual positions, the number of French unilingual positions, the number of English unilingual positions and then you have another category, “ French or English essential ”. Could you explain to me what that category is, which includes 7,000 public servants?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: In fact, it's not a very good translation. These are positions that we call either/or in English. It could be French or it could be English: It's not really important. For example, if it's a position where you use very little language, like a manual job, it would be an either/or.

º (1625)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is a position for which there is no requirement. That's fine. Thank you.

On page 10, you state that the pool of fully bilingual Canadians is still insufficient to meet the recruitment challenge. Afterwards, you say that according to the 1996 census, just under 17% of Canadians state that they have skills in both official languages. Is that the pool you are referring to, or is the pool of perfectly bilingual people other than what you allude to here?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: The structure of the deck is misleading. What we were trying to say, quite simply, is that the 18% rate of bilingualism in the Canadian population does not allow us, as public servants, to open all the positions, that is the 68,000 jobs, of which approximately 25,000 are open to the public, strictly on an imperative staffing basis, because that would penalize all of the unilingual people who are living in unilingual regions and who have not had access to second-language training.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That deals with the next question I had. It would have been: What is the percentage or the pool that you would like to see in order to be able to do imperative staffing? If I understood correctly, you don't believe that there should be imperative staffing, period. Is that right?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: No, that's not what I said.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Then, what would be the necessary percentage or pool in order to be able to do so?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: That's an excellent question, but I don't have the answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If you don't have the answer, who does?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: What I mean is that I couldn't identify a percentage for the whole of Canada. I would have to have one for Manitoba, one for New Brunswick, one for Newfoundland. I couldn't deal with Canada, from Victoria to Newfoundland.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Just a minute, please. On the one hand, you say that because the pool is not big enough, it can't be done. You have defined the pool, but you cannot define it in a positive sense?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I don't want to give you a figure that...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead. Chance it.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I am not very brave, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Take a chance. Twice as many? Would twice as many be enough?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: You say that, and I was thinking 35%. If there were 35% of all Canadians... But it is difficult to put forward a figure.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We are trying to trap you; you are aware of that.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: I know that you want to trap me. Canada is a mosaic, as you and I know. Therefore, we cannot treat Canada as a homogenous whole and paint it all with the same brush.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You say that if it were 35 per cent, it would be within a range where bilingual staffing becomes imperative.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: You were the one who said that, Mr. Bélanger.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You are not showing much resistance.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Have you any other questions, Mr. Bélanger?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, I have another one.

In what age group does the public service mainly find its recruits?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: That is a good question. Douglas will answer it.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer (Vice-President, Policy, Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada): We recruit people from almost any age group. Last year, the people we hired were, on the average, 37 years old. We were looking for a wide range of knowledge. In a knowledge-based economy, we wanted people who were well trained and educated, people with not only one degree but two or more. This is why, last year, the average age of our recruits was 37.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is the average age. Could you give me some figures? Let me explain what I am driving at.

Currently, in Canada, according to the statements made by Ms. Copps before this committee and that some seem to accept, the 17 to 24 age group is the most bilingual group we have ever had in our history. If I remember correctly, the statistics state that 34 per cent of them are bilingual. This percentage meets your requirements for imperative staffing.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: Yes. Our figures show that in our post-secondary hiring programs, the people hired are younger. They do have two or more degrees and they are 30. They have not reached the average age. In that group, bilingualism is at twice the average Canadian level of 17 per cent. This means that about 40 per cent of those who applied under our last post-secondary hiring program displayed a certain level of bilingualism.

º (1630)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have a minute and a half left, according to the clerk. Let me begin another series of questions. If I have an opportunity, I will come back to this during the second round.

In the local newspapers of the National Capital Region, for the past few weeks, or even months, there have been letters dealing with the public service almost every day. According to some, it is impossible for unilingual anglophones to get in, and some say that only francophones or bilingual persons can get hired.

I want to check into the statistics that you showed. If I understand correctly, in the National Capital Region, we have about 60 per cent anglophones and 40 per cent francophones. Could you please give me your geographic definition of the National Capital Region? Does it include the Outaouais?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In the National Capital Region, what percentage of the population is anglophone and what percentage is francophone?

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Do you mean the outside population?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I mean the population, people who live here.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: For the National Capital Region as a whole, the figures are 60 per cent and 40 per cent.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): And so the public service reflects the population of the National Capital Region.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will continue with this a bit later.

Monsieur Kenny.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: In presenting your statistics, you frequently break things down between anglophones and francophones. How do you define people who come to Canada and who speak neither language first? How do they fall into the anglophone or the francophone category--for instance, the 350,000 people in British Columbia who speak Mandarin or Cantonese and the 150,000 who speak Hindi or Punjabi? Where do they fall?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: I'd have to get back to you with a precise answer on that one. I don't have that particular definition. Obviously, the census captures those--which is what my note tells me. I'd have to clarify how we translate that into public servants when you look at the appointments. We ask them which one they consider to be their first official language, but we'll get back to the committee with a precise answer on that.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I note that somewhere in the report you talk about the need for more language training, specifically for allophones. In many parts of the country, particularly the greater Vancouver region, as I mentioned, people who speak Asian languages outnumber francophones by probably a margin of 100:1 or something. These people, who have to have access to jobs in the public service, clearly need some focus.

Is that noted by the Public Service Commission?

Mr. Scott Serson: Absolutely, in two senses. We believe the bilingual non-imperative policy is a wise one for the time being. If we look at the recent work by the government on innovation and census projections, we as a public service in seven or eight years are going to have to rely increasingly on that immigrant community for public servants, because that's where the labour market growth is going to be.

The other factor that brings to us is the challenge in many cases of teaching one of the official languages to that allophone population, because of their lack of familiarity. They come with a very low basic knowledge.

So it is a challenge for us and one of the things that is putting a strain on our resources.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Just to follow up on that, while I know there's no statutory mandate for government services in minority languages--that is, languages other than English and French--practically speaking, do departments try, where necessary, to provide front-line services to, say, Immigration and Customs, etc., to people coming into the country who don't adequately speak either official language?

º (1635)

Mr. Scott Serson: I believe it's increasingly becoming part of our service philosophy to be reflective of those we serve. Certainly in my experience at Indian and Northern Affairs, I tried to have that as part of my philosophy.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I also have a couple of budgetary questions. On page 12 you talk about how much was spent on language training in Canada in 1976 nationally, and then you go into the national capital region breakdown. What is the current budget for language training in Canada, the total macro budget?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: It's $15.8 million as a base budget.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You say $16 million here.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes, well, it's $16 million and some resources that we get. I would say the average is around $15.8 million, but $16 million is near. The $5.7 million is a one-time business this year. Last year it was less. Every year we have to adapt. But I would say the average of around $15 million is a good average.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Oh, so “NCR and regions” includes everything.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm sorry; I thought that was just... Well, I don't understand. If the budget in 1975 was $40 million, how could it now be $16 million?

[Translation]

Ms. Denise Boudrias: We went through periods when programs were reviewed, and the language training program was hit very hard by the cuts that were made then.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: On page 25 of the performance report for the period ending March 31, 2001, basically you're saying you need more funds. You imply in this report to the committee that you need more funding to increase language training services to the public service. Have you defined how much you're asking for?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes. The additional funds would be $12.3 million, which is our A base for making the organization work. We think we need a one-time cost between $6 million and $9 million to really solve the issue of backlogs and other issues we have with technology. But if we want to really give a good service, we need to be better financed because we cannot really do the best job with that amount of money.

Mr. Scott Serson: I was sent on language training in 1973. Imagine my shock in 1999 to go into our language labs and see the same tape recorders that were sitting there in 1973 still being used in this age of technology.

[Translation]

It is not funny.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Let me say that the Public Service Commission, even though language training is not in its core budget because the employer is responsible for it, transferred $300,000 this year and last year to help us get better technology for our classrooms all over Canada, not only in Ottawa.Those budgets enabled every region to set up multimedia classrooms and labs.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: To me, this feels like a funeral, but let's keep talking about these issues that are of concern to me. The merit principle is your first... The prime objective of the Commission is to respect the merit principle and to ensure that it is respected and applied in staffing. As they say, it is a watchdog and not a lapdog. On the other hand, I have a problem because just now, you said that departments set their language requirements according to their needs. Departments make those decisions and then the staffing is done through the delegated authority of the Commission. Is this how it works?

If they need a designated bilingual position in the department, it is up to you to decide on the language training. At least, this is how it worked in Mr. Carson's time and all the commissioners I have known were very much involved in language training. When I first came here, there were between 250,000 and 275,000 public servants. Currently, we have 150,000. Some positions were privatized and several departments were "reformatted", so to speak.

Earlier, you told me that there was a commitment form for public servants taking language courses. May I have a copy of that form, or is it secret? Could you send me a copy?

º (1640)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could you send it to the committee clerk? He will pass it out to all the members. Thank you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Send it to the joint clerk. We have two clerks: one from the Senate, who is present, and one from the House of Commons. If you send it only to the clerk for the House of Commons, I may not necessarily receive it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Send it to the committee clerk and the chair will ensure that it is passed out to all the members. Thank you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I cannot follow this while he is interrupting me.

According to the regulations you are not a federal institution. You do not have to submit an annual report to Heritage Canada. You are not among the 29 federal institutions. Why is this?

Mr. Scott Serson: Do we have an answer?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: I believe that the cabinet drew up a list of 29 departments who must submit a report, but there is an interdepartmental committee in charge of these matters, and we sit as observers on that committee. Thus, we are involved, but we do not have to submit a report.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: Even if we do not have to report to Treasury Board with regard to part VII of the Official Languages Act, as an agency responsible for recruiting, as I said earlier, Senator Gauthier, one of our responsibilities is to keep in touch with francophone academic institutions outside Quebec. Why is this? It is to advertise the public service and the job opportunities it offers and to advertise our recruitment programs. I am talking about institutions like Laurentian University, Collège Saint-Boniface, Université Sainte-Anne as well as anglophone academic institutions outside Quebec. So even if this is a part of the efforts to promote and develop minority language communities, we also contribute to it.

Moreover, we have partnerships for language training. I will let my colleague tell you about them, because she is very closely involved with this.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you a member of that interdepartmental committee? Who are your colleagues? Is there a list that you could give us? Who chairs that committee? I suppose it would be the clerk.

Mr. Scott Serson: No, it is the deputy minister in charge of federal-provincial matters.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In any case, send me the information, because I cannot get it over the telephone.

Let me read you a paragraph from issue No. 25, dated April 16, on page 25:13. This is Ms. Robillard speaking.

[English]

She said:

...we are currently examining human resources management in government and we may change the role of the Public Service Commission. Responsibility for language training may be moved to anther organization, but the decision has not yet been made.

That was in April. Has it been made yet?

Mr. Scott Serson: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What happens to the commission if it is made?

Mr. Scott Serson: We're quite anxious to see the results of the considerations of the task force that is studying human resources management reform.

There are a couple of very real issues, Senator Gauthier, on this account. One, as I said in my presentation, we have responsibility for the delivery of programs and for oversight. There are those who say we can't do a good job in oversight if we're involved in the system of delivering products and services. That is a very real issue for us. We do not want our role in oversight compromised if that's in fact what's going to happen if we stay in the service delivery business.

Two, with regard to the financing of this important program of language training, we don't have a voice in cabinet. If we're not being called regularly by a committee like this to express our concerns, where is the voice for this program in terms of the necessary resources? If that means transferring it to a minister who is politically accountable for ensuring it's financed, we would be prepared to consider that.

Finally, and most importantly, we want it given to a place that's going to care for it, because we care for it.

º (1645)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : Merci.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let me try to sum this up briefly, and you will tell me if I have correctly understood what is going on. We are told that Canada is a bilingual country and that all Canadians can receive bilingual services from the federal government. However, we are told that the Treasury Board Secretariat designates certain regions as bilingual. Here we are no longer dealing with all Canadians, but rather with Canadians in certain regions. Bilingual services are offered wherever there is sufficient demand, and the Treasury Board Secretariat determines where the demand is sufficient. On the other hand, we are told that Canada is a bilingual country and that all Canadians can receive bilingual services. So what we are being told is a lie.

Besides telling us that Canada is a bilingual country, the Treasury Board Secretariat tells us where we can receive bilingual services. Now since 1993, bilingual services have been cut by 25 per cent. Things are different for the Department of Transportation, that has its own way of determining what airports receive bilingual services; but this does not match the pattern of the other bilingual services.

Francophone Canadians living in minority situations should understand that, obviously. In fact, this obviously makes no sense. This is how I view the situation, your role and the federal government's role with regard to promoting francophone minorities.

Mr. Serson, you said earlier that since your arrival three years ago, you have been dealing with this situation. Well, I hope that there was someone before you, and that the legislation was complied with and applied fairly. Despite all that, in 2002, 30 per cent of those who represent the federal public service, mainly the executives, are still not respecting the legislation. But we are told that Canada is a bilingual country and that all Canadians can receive services in French, which means that the public is being told an enormous lie. There are some services, rules and regulations in different departments that clearly prove this.

Let me give you even more conclusive proof of this. You said earlier, in answer to Senator Beaudoin's jocular remark, that someone could be in a designated bilingual position for 15 years without meeting the requirements. Yes, that is what you said; you did not understand the question, but you did say that. Thus, there are two options: the position does not have to be bilingual... If, in fact, after 15 years, someone can carry out tasks that require both languages without being bilingual, then that position should certainly not have been advertised as a bilingual one. The person could even be told that he or she no longer needs any language training.

In cases where there are not enough qualified francophones to fill executive positions in the federal public service and the positions are filled by unilingual anglophones, why not give them a reasonable time, three or five years for instance, to meet the requirements, so that, as you said at the outset, they will not be told at their retirement party that it was a pity that they did not meet the requirements for their position? This is my first question.

Now let me put my second question. Among the 32 per cent of executives who are not in compliance with the Official Languages Act, according to what you told us, and I thank you for that, 125 of them are receiving training. How many are there...?

Isn't this what you told me?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Currently, 125 of them are following our courses, but we have many partnerships with private schools. Many of them are taking courses in other schools.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. Accepting that you cannot compel anyone but only influence them, you still do not know how many individuals, out of the 32%, are currently taking courses and how many are not. Are you not sending out a negative signal to those people? First, even if they occupy bilingual positions, they do not have to take language training. And then they do not have to follow any timeline, which means that in 15, 20 or 30 years, they are still given a little medal when they leave. Then they say that it was up to them to become bilingual, that they did not do it, that it is just too bad, but it is no great matter. It seems to me that all this sends out a signal that is not really positive for the community and for your public servants. Could you please answer me?

º (1650)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: With pleasure.

I will begin with the first part of your question, that dealt with the bilingual nature of our country and its services to the public.

Part VI of the Official Languages Act reads as follows:

21. Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with and to receive available services from federal institutions in accordance with this Part.

22. Every federal institution has a duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language, and has the same duty with respect to any of its other offices or facilities (a) within the National Capital Region; or (b) in Canada or elsewhere, where there is significant demand for communications with and services from that office or facility in that language.

Of course there must be some demand, but Treasury Board has two policies: one for service to the public and another for the language of work. Mr. Sauvageau, with reference to these two policies, let me tell you which regions have been identified as bilingual in terms of the language of work and of service to the public. This will simplify matters. This is in answer to the first part of your question.

As far as I know, it is impossible for anyone to occupy a bilingual position for 15 years without meeting the requirements of that position. They have two years to learn the second language. If they have not learned it after two years, they should normally be transferred to a unilingual position. Is this rule being applied to the letter? I cannot tell you that it is because I do not know, but it is the rule.

There is a deadline for EXs. This is where we will see whether this rule is applied in a strict and literal way. The deadline is April 2003. As I said earlier, options are currently being studied for those who will not have met the requirements of their position. Either these EXs will be transferred to other positions, of they will be financially penalized. I cannot tell you what it will be, because the options are currently being studied by Treasury Board.

The last part of your question was about the figure of 32 per cent. I said earlier that I did not have the details about this figure. Thirty-two per cent of executives do not meet the requirements of their position. Some of them are taking language courses at this time. The figure of 125 is not accurate, because they may be taking courses elsewhere. However, we can try to see if we can tell you how many of these 32 per cent are exempted because of their age, their years of service, or even for humanitarian reasons, how many have a two-year deadline to finish their language training and how many really do not meet the requirements of their position.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam, please send it to the clerk so that it can be handed out to everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Let me come back to training.

Ms. Boudrias, you seem to be the expert in this field. Let us talk about your waiting list of 500 persons.

You told me that currently there should be between 2,500 and 3,000 persons in training. Did I understand correctly?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Every year.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: How long do these courses last?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: It depends on how quickly each student learns.

º (1655)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Does the course last two weeks, or five months? The House of Commons provides language training to its members if they so wish. I sent one of my employees on an upgrade course, but this was just a one-week course, and that's it.

Ms. Denise Boudrias: It is not the same thing. There are different categories. Some people arrive without the least notion of the second language, we call them the AAAs. They know nothing at all. They are total beginners. Depending on how fast they learn and how much they commit, they can take up to 12 months to reach level B. After level B is reached, to go on to level C, which is a more complicated level, where you are expected to carry on conversations, to negotiate and to make presentations; it can take six more months for people who learn at a normal pace.

We are currently having a problem with people whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. These cases present an extra difficulty. Moreover, since the court handed down a decision, we must also accommodate people who have learning problems. These people might be dyslexic or have various kinds of problems, such as deafness. This requires different methods and monitoring, and the learning period can be longer. These persons sometimes need a special tutor, rather than being in a normal class of about eight students.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I see that there is no across-the-board answer to this, but could you tell us how long, in general, your people take to learn French? Six months? One year?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: As I was saying, it depends on the person's starting point. If you speak English fairly regularly, you might be through in only six months.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Have you no statistics to tell you how much time most people take to learn?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Most people take one year.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Let me come back to the question of the regulations for implementing bilingualism. There are three levels. Sometimes we refer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because section 16 says that there are two official languages and that both official languages are equal. It is very precise and very clear. And above all, this is the Constitution: it cannot go any higher than that.

At the second level, there is legislation. There is the Public Service Employment Act and other general acts. These are the main principles. Obviously, the greatest role is played by the Official Languages Act.

There is a third area that changes more often: this is the power to regulate. Using their power to regulate, the governor in council and the minister formulate more precise rules, but they must not go against the legislation. This may be the area that requires more work. I do not think that we can change a legislative system in a few months. Perhaps if there is an emergency, but even so.

The 1988 Official Languages Act has been in effect for 14 years. In 14 years, regulations can change. We can improve them. We can make them more specific. Making regulations is an art. It is not an easy matter. Perhaps this is where part of the problem lies. We should have a new system that takes into account people's talents and the way in which they evolve in general. We are all equal before the law, but individuals can have different levels of ability.

I think that after some years of experience, we can change the legislation a bit. I am not making any distinction between bilingualism and skills. If you are hired as a lawyer, a physician or an accountant, either you have the needed skills, or you do not have them. The same applies to bilingual positions: either you have it or you do not. There is no way around this. We cannot have regulations introducing other factors. If the position is bilingual, the rules must be applied.

I am not criticizing. I am only referring to the legal structure. That is what we need. It may take some more time, but this is certainly the way we must go.

» (1700)

Mr. Scott Serson: We agree, Senator Beaudoin. I do not know if the problem lies with the regulations, but we must begin to teach French to young recruits, because that is what they want. These people want training. They know that bilingualism will be important for their career. This is one of the facts we learned when we evaluated our management development program. For young recruits with one or two master's degrees, the main thing about this program is that it will give them the opportunity to learn English or French right from the beginning of their career and to hold on to this asset afterwards.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: This has been done on the judicial level, the legal level and in the area of criminal justice. At the outset, it was said that any Canadian brought before criminal court should be able to stand trial in his or her own language. Some said that this was unthinkable, that it was perhaps easy in Montreal or in other bilingual cities, but that we could never succeed in doing this. Nonetheless, we did succeed. Currently, in Canada, any accused individual can stand trial in his or her own language, in either official language. Those who are neither francophone nor anglophone are entitled to an interpreter.

This system has been implemented all over Canada. Of course, we had to appoint more bilingual judges and clerks, but this is how a country is built. It was done within a few years. Thus, there is no further conceivable reason for the public service not to be bilingual in all of its parts. I am not applying this to everyone, because that is another matter, but a position is either bilingual or it is not.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: Well, this ties in with the service provided to the public by the Commission. We have a fully bilingual website, and receive 80 per cent of job applications through the website.

With regard to one-on-one services in offices across Canada, client satisfaction surveys have shown that, in 98 per cent of cases, clients can be provided with services in the official language of their choice. We are not at 100 per cent, since there are still some things which can be improved, but we are at 98 per cent.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That is even better than summa cum laude. That is pretty good.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin and Mr. Rimmer.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: When will this year's annual report be published?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: We plan to send the report to the minister by the end of August, and the minister has 15 sitting days to table it in the House. The minister decides the exact date on which the report is made public, in accordance with the House of Commons schedule.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I remember correctly, your report is tabled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

A voice: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: But you do not report to Canadian Heritage. You report to the House of Commons and the Senate, through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, isn't that correct?

A voice: Yes, that is right.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Serson, I will give you a chance to correct an error made last year. I will quote you a passage found on page 55 of the report. You will no doubt remember that I telephoned you on the very same day that I read it. I quote:

Commissioners spent time on internal management issues, namely organizational renewal for the PSC as a department.

You told me that this was an error.

» (1705)

Mr. Scott Serson: We were talking about the organization, but we are still a parliamentary agency, and we will remain a parliamentary agency.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

I have a few questions for you myself, after which we will adjourn the meeting.

[English]

Mr. Serson, has the commission gone forward to offer various media any information on statistics about the level of employment for unilingual anglophones, bilingual people, unilingual francophones and so forth? Because, again, in the nation's capital we read a lot about this in, say, letters to the editor, of which there were three again today in one of our dailies.

Does the commission have a role to go forward and try to explain the numbers, and put real numbers on the table so that, at least in the public discourse, public debate, we have a good sense of the reality of your numbers?

Mr. Scott Serson: I think we do, and I think we could do more of that, Mr. Bélanger. You will recall that the last time we met with your caucus you raised that issue. It just so happened that when I got back to the office I had an approved letter that had been drafted and was agreeable to my two fellow commissioners. We sent that, and as a consequence we received a very nice letter from the Commissioner of Official Languages thanking us for that effort. I think it struck home for us that perhaps we do have a responsibility to do more.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Are you in regular or occasional contact with official languages groups or communities? I am talking about such groups as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, QCGN in Quebec, and others like them. Do you meet with such groups from time to time?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes, we do. In Quebec, for example, our regional director meets regularly with official language minority groups. In other regions, our regional directors consult such minority groups as ACFO in an ongoing basis. Recently, we were in Sudbury with official language minority champions. We met with people from the Collège Boréal, as well as representatives of various sectors. This is very important to us.

St. Boniface was mentioned a little earlier. I should point out that we work in partnership with St. Boniface College, which teaches federal public employees. We have just received a Citation of Excellence for our partnership with the St. Boniface community.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is what you hear from those communities reflected in your strategic plan?

Ms. Denise Boudrias: Yes, it is reflected in our language training plan and our documents. We have more and more contacts with groups and with the regions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Very good.

Mr. Rimmer, a few moments ago you said something that surprised me; you said that the public service was now employing many more people with two degrees or diplomas. What is the reason for this? Doesn't that imply some discrimination against people who have only one degree or diploma?

Mr. Scott Serson: That is the level of education some positions require, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But we do not have the same requirements for official languages.

Mr. Scott Serson: It's a real challenge. When we talk about merit, we talk about getting the most qualified person for the job. From time to time, there is a debate on the bilingual pool and the unilingual pool, and on measures that will provide the appropriate level of excellence.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : I understand that well, because we have had the same debate.

Out of the 148,000 positions under the PSC's jurisdiction, some 54,000, or 37%, are designated bilingual. Out of those 54,000 positions, 34,000 include providing services to the public. We are still looking at your figures on page 1. Out of those 34,000, only 28,000 are held by people who actually meet the requirements. I hope we agree on these figures. They are your figures.

Why would the PSC not insist on a bilingual imperative designation for positions where services are provided to the public?

» (1710)

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: That is a very good question. Under Treasury Board policy, some positions that do include provision of services to the public are designated non-imperative. That is an excellent question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But that does not prevent you from applying the bilingual imperative in staffing those positions.

Ms. Michelle Chartrand: No, of course not.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : Why are all positions that include providing services to the public, where both official languages are required, not designated bilingual imperative, something that is your responsibility? You said that it was an excellent question. I would like an answer to it.

Mr. Jean-Charles Ducharme (Counsel, Legal Services, Public Service Commission) : In essence, you are asking why all positions that include providing services to the public are not all designated bilingual imperative. As you know, this is governed by section 91 of the Official Languages Act. There has to be an objective requirement, and so on. Now, that includes non-imperative staffing. In other words, there may be places where the unit providing services is very bilingual already. A position can be staffed without being designated imperative since there are other people in the unit who can provide bilingual services. In other cases, those people are not available. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Expert knowledge is required to assess the situation, and the person best placed to do that is technically the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With all due respect, government policy should not be established on a case-by-case basis. Out of the 54,000 bilingual positions, 34,000 involve providing services to the public. If they were all designated bilingual imperative, would that not be a good start?

Mr. Jean-Charles Ducharme: Yes, but pursuant to section 91, we have to go case-by-case. The departments decide whether individual positions will be designated language level A, B or C, and the departments decide whether the positions are designated bilingual imperative or non-imperative. When something is designated non-imperative, we are not violating the OLA. That measure is provided for in the exclusion orders pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. I'm sure that I speak for the committee when I say that we will not wait eight years before inviting you again. I hope that we will find solutions to the problems identified. Everyone acknowledges that, 33 years after the Official Languages Act came into being, there are still problems. I am therefore speaking on behalf of my colleagues in saying that we hope you will focus carefully on those concerns, Mr. Serson, ladies and gentlemen, and that we will see the fruits of your labour at this time next year, if my colleagues agree. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Serson.

Mr. Scott Serson: I would simply like to say that we considered this very important. I believe that my colleagues and myself can become better spokespersons when we understand the concerns of the members of the House and the senators. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We will meet again tomorrow afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned.