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, April 16, 2002

1530

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

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board)

1535

1540

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1545

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1550

Ms. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, Treasury Board Secretariat)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Joint-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1555

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1600

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ralph Heintzman (Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy and Planning, Treasury Board Secretariat)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

1605

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Diana Monnet

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1610

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1615

Senator Joan Fraser

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Senator Joan Fraser

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Senator Joan Fraser

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Joan Fraser

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Mr. Yvon Godin

1620

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

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

1625

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1630

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1635

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1640

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ralph Heintzman

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1645

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

1650

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1655

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Joan Fraser

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Jopint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1700

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 032

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. We are honoured to have with us today at the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages the President of Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard. Unfortunately, she will have to leave at 5 o'clock to go to a Cabinet committee meeting, I believe.

We shall therefore begin immediately by giving you the floor, Ms. Robillard. We shall then go on to the traditional question and answer period which will deal with the subject of your remarks and other questions which might be related to the Treasury Board and official languages in Canada.

Ms. Robillard.

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman and members of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages. I am very pleased to be with you today. I am accompanied by some of my officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Ms. Carole Swan, Associate Secretary of Treasury Board, Mr. Ralph Heintzman, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy and Planning, and Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages.

Mr. Joint Chair, honorable members, and honorable senators, I am very pleased to be with you this afternoon to discuss in greater detail the new Treasury Board Policy on Alternative Service Delivery and its impact on official languages. I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for the ongoing interest shown by the members of your committee in the development of this policy.

In order to understand the essence of this policy, it might be useful to remind you of why we came to develop it. You will no doubt remember that in the early 90s, the government of Canada faced its worst-ever financial crisis. Canadians were demanding strong action, and this government made this issue its top priority.

As part of the examination of its role, the government worked hard to improve how the government machine operates. It turned to information technology to facilitate records management and processes. It adopted more flexible program delivery methods better adapted to the needs of citizens. The government resolutely focused its activities on results, rather than on procedures, while insisting on client-service quality. These initiatives resulted in the adoption of new service delivery modes or the increased use of existing modes, such as partnerships, contracting out or the creation of service agencies.

Two years ago, the then Auditor General of Canada and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons expressed concerns about the need to apply more rigorous requirements to the new service delivery mechanisms to ensure adequate accountability to ministers, Parliament and Canadians. The Commissioner of Official Languages at the time concluded in a 1998 report on the impact of government transformations that, in the process of diversifying service delivery, there had been a subtle erosion of language rights.

At the same time, consultant Donald Savoie released his report on the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The discussion paper by the late Senator Simard followed. Both documents echoed the concerns of minority official language communities about the profound changes that had taken place in recent years in the federal public service and the impact of these changes on the development of these communities and the delivery of services in their language. My predecessor responded by setting up a task force, chaired by Professor Yvon Fontaine, with the mandate to conduct a critical analysis of government transformations from the perspective of official languages and to recommend improvements. In 1999, Dr. Fontaine submitted the Task Force's report, No Turning Back. Most of the 11 recommendations of the Fontaine Report were implemented even before the report was tabled. The five recommendations that had not yet been acted upon were addressed with the April 1 release of the Policy on Alternative Service Delivery.

¹ (1535)

[English]

The government undertook, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to adopt a new policy on alternative service delivery that would require these organizations to have appropriate governance accountability and reporting mechanisms. This policy addresses the points raised by the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Official Languages. The purpose of the new policy on alternative service delivery is to obtain a fair balance between the drive for innovation and service delivery--and you can be sure of my support in this regard--and proposed measures to guarantee that the new agreements are in the public interest.

The policy's wording covers all of the strategic issues that must be considered when deciding whether a diversification initiative meets this mandate. The aim of the policy is to enable ministers to make fully informed decisions when an alternative service delivery mode is being considered.

Since the beginning of the month, departments have been required to inform the Treasury Board Secretariat if they are considering implementing a new initiative to diversify service delivery. They are now required to prepare a detailed case analysis covering each of the elements of the public interest test appended to the policy, elements that include official languages. They must report on major diversification agreements in their annual report on plans and priorities and on their results in their departmental performance report.

In addition, after two years, each department implementing alternative service delivery will have to elaborate a case study that gives an assessment of the initiative's results, and that will be posted on the secretariat's website for the purpose of organizational learning.

Both the policy's objectives and requirements include provisions related to official languages. In this way, as the government diversifies the means it uses to carry out its mandate in the public interest, it will have, as an objective, in all instances, strengthening compliance with the spirit and the intent of the Official Languages Act and its regulations.

[Translation]

The case analysis that departments contemplating alternative service delivery modes must prepare must address five guiding principles. There must be a detailed analysis of the impact on service to the public in the official language of its choice, language of work for federal employees and the development of minority official language communities.

If departments propose a transfer or withdrawal of responsibilities affecting some other level of government or the private sector, they must obtain from the new service provider the undertaking to foster the development of the affected official language communities, to consult them regarding their needs and interests, and to put in place concrete measures to this end.

Departments must establish monitoring mechanisms so that they can evaluate the extent to which official languages obligations are being met. This means that departments must indicate the means to be used by the new organization to comply with official languages requirements, state their commitments with respect to results, and indicate how these results will be evaluated and reported.

In analyzing each case, departments must ensure that there are adequate recourse mechanisms so that corrective measures can be taken if required. And most importantly, the policy required that the public be made aware of these mechanisms.

When a service is transferred to another level of government or to the private sector, departments are required to consider the linguistic preferences of federal employees working in regions designated bilingual for the purpose of language of work.

Before any decision is made on adopting an alternative service delivery mechanism that may affect the development of minority official language communities, departments are required to thoroughly consult these communities. This is just one more way of demonstrating our commitment to supporting the development of these communities.

By consulting them, we can identify the concerns of the very persons who will benefit from the measures to be adopted, demonstrate transparency and provide their members with a better understanding of the initiative.

¹ (1540)

[English]

Departments cannot avoid their obligation to address official languages in their case analysis. The integration of guiding principles in the policy on alternative service delivery promotes access to official languages information at appropriate stages in the development and implementation of new agreements on alternative service delivery modes. In this way, managers, ministers, and the Treasury Board can make informed decisions in the public interest when a diversification project is being considered by a department.

Let me emphasize that the Treasury Board Secretariat will continue to exercise certain controls, including analysing the official languages annual reviews, periodic observation reports, and targeted audits to ensure that institutions subject to the Official Languages Act are meeting their linguistic obligations. This will enable us to identify any deficiencies as we go along.

[Translation]

Mr. Joint Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament and senators, the policy if flexible in order to promote innovation, but firm so that it ensures that the proposed modes provide services efficiently and in accordance with the needs of Canadians.

We are not talking about innovation at any cost: if an alternative service mode will not serve the interests of Canadians and provide the desired results, then it is not in the public interest. As the government diversifies the means its uses to carry out its mandate in the public interest, it is crucial that we reinforce compliance with the spirit and the intent of the Official Languages Act and its regulations, and that we do so in the interest of minority official language communities.

This is why the policy stresses discussion and planning before any decision is made on adopting a new service delivery mechanism. The policy does not take the interests of Canadians, nor those of their minority official language communities, lightly. Quite the contrary. We would also like it to be current and aligned with their needs and realities: this is why it comprises provisions to ensure that it is updated on a regular basis. The policy stipulates that a review must be conducted within five years of its enactment.

Finally, allow me to just mention the support expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada the day after the adoption of the Policy on Alternative Service Delivery.

Mr. Chair, I and my officials will be happy to answer any questions of the committee members.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much. We shall start with Mr. Sauvageau.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Robillard, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. As you are aware, Ms. Robillard, we do not have a lot of time. I shall ask you to reply as briefly as possible but not to take up all of the time for your answers.

I thank you for your presentation. We are about to receive a very important comprehensive action plan, apparently, from the Canadian government following a reference in the Throne Speech to the importance of francophone communities. How many meetings on the Official Languages Act have there been between yourselves or people from your department and the coordinator, Mr. Stéphane Dion?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: About this policy or the action plan that is being developed?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The comprehensive action plan.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There have been several meetings about the action plan. Too many to count. There will be another one this evening.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I tend to believe you as I do know you. Could we have a calendar? Does such a calendar exist? I put the question yesterday to representatives from the Justice Department and there had only been one meeting to their knowledge. This is why I'm asking the question as there is a difference between several and one. If possible, I would like the calendar of these meetings, not to know what was discussed at the meetings, but how many there have been.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): One moment. I would like to point out, Ms. Robillard, that two officials from the Department of Justice appeared yesterday and that they are not necessarily aware of meetings that might be taking place between ministers or deputy ministers. We have to take this into account.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but I was told that there had only been one meeting.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, there have been several. As you know, it is a ministerial advisory group. It is a committee made up of ministers and we are always accompanied by our officials or deputy ministers.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that you will be happy to give us this calendar.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is not what I said. I believe that Mr. Dion is the one responsible for the committee on this file. Your request should be addressed the minister responsible.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have been doing so for the last three months without getting any answer. This is why I am asking you this question. We call his department or others nearly every week to know how the meetings are going, but we have had no answer.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You should address your request to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Robillard, if we look at your expenditures, we find a budget of $4.2 billion. Of this amount, about how much is allocated to the official languages sector in your own department? I am not an accountant and I find it hard to figure this out.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Joint Chair, I did not think that I was going to review parliamentary estimates.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:Fine. I shall change my question.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard:Wait a minute. I believe that I was invited by your committee, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the new alternative service delivery mode policy. I would be happy to bring all my documents on parliamentary estimates and to talk about the budget at another meeting if you wish, Mr. Chairman. I would like this to be well understood from the start.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I thought we were discussing section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger):We are talking about the policy that was announced recently.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:That is the only thing we are discussing today?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger):That is the purpose of this meeting.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:In that case, may I ask you a question about the bilingualism bonus?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard:You can, because that is within the public service.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:Fine. Could you please explain to us who is entitled to the bilingualism bonus? Is it paid annually, monthly or weekly? Is it true that this bonus has not been increased since 1976?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask my deputy minister to complete my answer. If I remember correctly, I believe the bonus has been in place since 1977. It is an annual amount of $800, which has not been increased since that time. It is a matter of negotiation. The bilingualism bonus is a labour relations matter and therefore is discussed during bargaining between the employer and the unions. I was there for the last round of collective bargaining, and, to my knowledge, the issue was not raised at the bargaining table.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So it is not something you decided to do to encourage bilingualism. I know that I cannot ask any questions about your estimates. The $800 bonus may have been substantial in 1977, but in 2002, with the increased cost of living since that time, it may be less attractive. We are talking about concrete incentives. Might the bonus not be a concrete incentive, or is it something that is only negotiated in the context of collective bargaining?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Any change to the bilingualism bonus would have to be referred to the bargaining table.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. I have been thrown off a little, because my questions were on another matter, but I will proceed nonetheless. If you cannot answer, please say so, and I will definitely find some other questions for you for my second round.

One of your responsibilities is the public service, but another is to increase awareness of francophone rights. That is Part IV of the Official Languages Act. I would like to know in concrete terms what you and the people in the Secretariat do to publicize this agreement or to publicize the provisions of Part IV on communications with the public, and one of the five guiding principles—I hope I'm allowed to talk about this—set out by Mr. Fontaine. He said that there must be adequate redress procedures and that people must be informed about them. What concrete measures have you taken and how much money do you spend to inform people about redress procedures?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Joint Chair, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Official Languages will reply to the question.

¹ (1550)

Ms. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, Treasury Board Secretariat): To inform people about rights in general or specifically about alternative service delivery? Which do you prefer? Should I speak about both?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would be quite pleased if you would like to speak about both.

Ms. Diana Monnet: To inform people about the rights generally, we work very closely with Heritage Canada. There is an agreement between the two ministers, which has expired at this time, but I should add that we are working as though it were still in effect. We are continuing to co-operate and to consult the communities. I am in regular contact with the QCGN and also with the directors of the FCFA. Representatives from the official languages minority communities are always invited to meetings of the public service official language champions. There is a frank and open discussion between the community representatives and the champions.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When the issue involves weights and measures or airport security, there are no meetings with the associations or the representative groups. There is advertising on television and in the newspapers. There is advertising everywhere. When the issue is informing francophone communities about their rights, why do you speak only with Mr. Arès and Brent Tyler? That is the question I wanted to ask. Rather than calling them and meeting with them or telling them that you have done some thing or other, what steps do you take under Part IV of the Official Languages Act and one of the five principles of the Fontaine report to publicize the rights of the francophone communities? Are you saying that you do this only during consultations, at meetings similar to this one?

Ms. Diana Monnet: No, I had not finished my answer.

There are also policies and directives in place regarding signage, so that people at airports, for example, see that they are entitled to service in the language of their choice. We work with a number of departments to inform people of their rights.

The Joint-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Good afternoon, Madam Minister. This is not easy. How much time do I have?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Seven minutes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Seven minutes. That is even worse. I tried to read all of your documentation, and in addition, I read the report of the Official Languages Commissioner on the Internet. Have you tried to access your Internet site recently, the Government On-line site?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It does exist?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Certainly.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is no hyperlink. It is impossible for ordinary Canadians to access it, unless they know your address or telephone number. I asked the same question of the representatives from the Department of Justice yesterday. Their site looks great, but it is not accessible without the address.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You go to the general Government of Canada site, Senator: www.canada.gc.ca. When you get to that site, you have three main portals: one for citizens, one for companies and one for non-residents of Canada. Within the one for citizens, you will find all the departments. You can access them alphabetically, by subject, and so on, and there are direct links with the various departments.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have to go to www.ged-gol.gc.ca.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is not even necessary. If you want to go to the general Government of Canada site, you can go to Government On-line even if you do not know the exact address. I challenge you to try, Senator.

¹ (1555)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You learn something every day.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Because I surf the net myself.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I read your 2000-2001 annual report on official languages. I have many questions on it, but that does not matter.

I was surprised to find that still today, in 2002, close to 20% of our public servants do not meet the linguistic requirements of their position. I am referring to the language of service. I am talking about the average person who wants service in his mother tongue, and who cannot get it. This is the way things were 20 years ago, and nothing has changed. Well, it may be a little different now. At the time, 70% of public servants met the linguistic requirements of their position, where today the figure is 80%. We have not made much progress.

The same is true of managers. How many of your senior managers are bilingual and meet the linguistic requirements of their position?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We raised the requirements for senior management, the ones we call the EXs in bureaucratic jargon. They must now meet the CBC requirement. I will not go into detail. They have until 2003 to meet this new standard.

At present, I would say that about 70% currently meet this requirement, which means that 30% do not or are at an intermediate level. There is not very much time left for those people—a year, to meet the new, higher standard that we set. We are currently looking at the steps we will take if—I am not anticipating the results for 2003—some of them do not meet the requirements in 2003.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In your report, it says that 32% do not meet the C level. Moreover, with respect to executives, on the bottom of page 15, it says:

In the Public Service, Level C (superior) is required for reading and oral interaction. Level B (intermediate) is required for writing.

It also says that 68% of executives meet the language requirements of their position.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, that is what I just said.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I cannot read and listen at the same time. So they still have a year to meet the requirements of their position.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The objective is to reach the CBC level by 2003. I am not anticipating the results for next year, but I would hope that everyone will be able to meet the requirement. Some may not do so. At present, we are asking ourselves and analyzing the following question: what will the consequences of not meeting this requirement be for the people who do not do so? I would say that we are currently examining some interesting measures.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I noticed that in terms of language training, you have asked the management school on Sussex Street, and I have forgotten the name—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The Canadian Centre for Management Development?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, that is it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are going to do the language training there now?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The decision has not yet been made, Senator. Language training is currently the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. As you know, 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 another organization, but the decision has not yet been made. Apart from the responsibility, we have a problem.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I read your report and I believed what I read. Perhaps I should not have believed it. I read this:

Include an official languages component in the management training programs given by the Canadian Centre for Management Development and in the orientation programs offered by federal institutions to new employees.

º (1600)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. Basically, we would like individuals to receive language training much earlier on in their careers, and not just in the middle of their careers, when they want to become an executive or a manager. It should be introduced much earlier on in the career of an individual and that dimension should be considered even during recruitment.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In other words, you are taking over for the Public Service Commission in terms of language training. Is that what you are telling me?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Well, we delegated the responsibility to the Public Service Commission, Senator. So we are working very closely with it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, but we have had that for years. We started with that. The commission, and not you, has been looking after language training since the beginning. You are in charge of making sure that the government runs smoothly, but in reality, the commission is responsible for language training.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: At present, yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: On all levels. Yes or no?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, the Public Service Commission currently is responsible for language training, but we are working in cooperation with it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Okay. With respect to alternate service delivery, the program covers three years: 2002, 2003 and 2004. Is that correct?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We want to review the current policy in five years, but a department that will have a new way of delivering services will have to conduct an evaluation after two years, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Heintzman.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, but the notes I read talk about it covering three fiscal years.

A voice: It is the plan; it is every three years.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Heintzman, go ahead.

Mr. Ralph Heintzman (Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy and Planning, Treasury Board Secretariat): The policy stipulates that departments must prepare alternate service delivery plans starting this year. They must provide Treasury Board with a plan covering the next three years, a three-year plan that will be reviewed every year.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: And if it involves expenditures over $20,000, they have to come and see you?

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: Yes, that is one of the criteria on the list.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Give me an example of a situation where the expenditure can exceed $20,000.

A voice: Not $20,000; $20 million.

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: $20 million.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's $20 million?

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a lot of money!

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

We will now move on to Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): My question deals with specific measures for official languages. In paragraph 3 on page 3, you say:

If departments propose a transfer or withdrawal of responsibilities affecting some other level of government or the private sector, they must obtain from the new service provider the undertaking...

That raises a problem with delegation. I realized, in other cases that have nothing to do with this one, that when there is a delegation of authority, there is not always compliance with the Official Languages Act. In other words, we are well equipped at the federal level. From the legal perspective, all federal areas are clearly bilingual. Our legislation is based on that. But when a department delegates authority to someone else, there is no guarantee that the person to whom the authority was delegated will be required to have the same degree of bilingualism as the department that had the authority. We saw that in Ontario, when the federal government delegated authority to provincial bodies that were not bilingual. I can understand the situation, but nevertheless, I always thought that if authority were delegated, under the Official Languages Act, the person to whom the authority was being delegated was supposed to be as bilingual as the delegating body that had the authority.

Is that what you are striving for here? For example, you say:

...they must obtain from the new service provider the undertaking to foster the development of the affected official language communities, to consult them regarding their needs and interests, and to put in place concrete measures to this end.

I think that if an organization, a department or a federal body delegates authority, the group to whom the authority has been delegated must comply with the Official Languages Act and services must be provided in both languages, as they are when the federal body is itself looking after the problem.

Is that what you are striving for here, in the concrete measures for official languages? I have noticed that that is not always the case. I am not familiar with this area in particular, but since it is a new program with new directives, have you made sure that if there is a delegation of authority, the authority delegated will be as bilingual as the federal body itself?

º (1605)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask my deputy minister to complete my answer, Senator. It is very clear that the whole objective of the policy... We have an overall policy that applies to the government as a whole, and the reason we have that policy today is because there were a lot of questions about accountability. Once responsibilities are transferred elsewhere, how can we ensure accountability, even from a financial point of view?

Where official languages are concerned, we felt that it was very important under this policy to have a genuine case analysis of the situation at the outset, even before the government took the decision to diversify or transfer a service. So it was important to have a case study before us that would provide an analysis of community impacts. The communities would also have to be consulted and their feedback taken into account ahead of time. So it was important that decisions be made with full knowledge of the facts. I admit that this has not always been the case in the past, and that is why we have this new policy.

When responsibilities are delegated, if those receiving the delegation are still carrying out the responsibilities on behalf of the federal government, the official languages provisions apply fully.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That is what I believe.

Ms. Diana Monnet: Section 25 states that anyone acting on behalf of the federal institution must meet the requirements of the act, particularly where service to the public is concerned.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes. You have the power to delegate, but you are subject to institutional bilingualism. That is very clear. If you delegate, you clearly must ensure that the organization acting on behalf of the government or for the government or the department, which is also subject to the Official Languages Act, will be able to ensure bilingualism.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: With diversification of service delivery methods, our responsibilities are sometimes delegated and carried out on behalf of the federal government. Sometimes our responsibilities are transferred to another level of government. The federal government is still responsible, but we are not always providing the services through a traditional department. We may create an agency or something like the Passport Office. The Passport Office comes under the Foreign Affairs Department but has a high degree of autonomy.

So there are various ways in which service delivery has been diversified. In those cases, it is no longer the federal government providing the services. In the past, the federal government decided to privatize certain operations. Those areas became completely private and the federal government is no longer responsible, once the decision to privatize has been made.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That is the case with privatization, but with delegations...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If the responsibility is delegated, and the services are still being carried out in the name of the federal government, the Official Languages Act has to be followed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, you mentioned that in certain cases, for example where services are privatized, the privatization legislation stipulates that the agency is subject to the Official Languages Act, as in the case of Air Canada.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to ask a second question, if I still have time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): One last question.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I remember the Simard report, which created quite a stir. I see from page 2 that your predecessor created a task force under Mr. Fontaine, and I believe that most of the recommendations were implemented. Were there some recommendations that could not be implemented?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The Fontaine report was tabled some years ago, and I think that five of the 11 recommendations were not implemented. They dealt with government transformations. Basically, Mr. Fontaine's conclusions were quite hard-hitting. He said that government transformations had not adequately taken into account the interests of minority official language communities. He was very clear about that.

So that was what the Fontaine report said about official languages, and then the Auditor General weighed in, along with our parliamentary colleagues in the Public Accounts Committee, who said that when we diversified or delegated our services, our accountability mechanisms were not strong enough. So we had the official languages aspect from Mr. Fontaine and also from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Mr. Goldbloom, who was commissioner at the time, had issued a report containing guiding principles that were adopted by Ms. Adam, who has continued to strongly support those guiding principles.

So where both financial management and the various accountability mechanisms for official languages were concerned, there was very strong pressure for the development of a new policy in government. It was a very long process. The consultations took a very long time. It was not easy. In the annex of the policy, there is a whole description of what constitutes the public interest, that is, the public interest test. This work took a long time, both within government and with our external partners, and we are very pleased to present this policy to you here today. I believe that everyone has recognized that it is a step in the right direction.

º (1610)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have to interrupt you because we need to move on.

Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Along the same lines, in cases where the Official Languages Act does not apply automatically, that is, when services are privatized or transferred to provincial governments, these things have to be negotiated and you consult the communities. All that is excellent and really reassuring.

What I am interested in is, on the one hand, the follow-up that will be done, and, on the other hand, what recourse is available if the new service providers do not meet their obligations. Who will do the follow-up and how? Is there simply an annual report from the new provider who says that all the obligations are being met, or will you have people monitoring these situations?

Where recourse is appropriate, does it have to be a citizen who takes the initiative to complain, or can you step in as well? And if someone complains, what happens?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You will see in the policy that if a department decides to set up an alternate service delivery project, it has to indicate in the business case it presents to Treasury Board what the recourse mechanism will be, especially if the project is approved. There has to be a business case analysis before the government makes a decision. If the government did agree, the department would have to commit to making the target public aware of the recourse available to it.

There is no one recourse that is favoured in the policy. As I have said, there are so many different alternative service delivery methods that it would have been difficult to choose a single mechanism that would apply in all cases. It was impossible. But a recourse has to be provided and it must be made known; moreover, the communities have to be consulted about this recourse before it is proposed to them and adopted by the government.

If the alternative service delivery project is approved by the government, because there is always an “if” in these business cases, the department will have the obligation of carrying out a follow-up itself after two years. Mr. Heintzman, is it in fact two years?

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: It is not specified in the policy. For the case study, yes.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: For the case study, the department is required to do a review. It has to do a follow-up and the Treasury Board Secretariat monitors to ensure that this policy is actually implemented in the departments.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has various tools to help our colleagues in the various departments implement policies.

º (1615)

Senator Joan Fraser: I did not understand the technical meaning of case studies. What are they? Is it just a very small sampling?

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: I am not exactly sure what you are referring to, but the two-year period made me think about the part of the policy that requires departments to submit to Treasury Board, two years after implementing an alternative service delivery initiative, a case study and...

Senator Joan Fraser: So this is done case by case, trial project by trial project, but not complaint by complaint.

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: No.

Senator Joan Fraser: If I understand correctly, it is still up to people to complain if they want to have any recourse.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Not necessarily, because this has not been identified. In one situation it could be a citizen, and in another case, some other mechanism. A recourse mechanism has to be provided for when alternative service delivery is undertaken, which is not the case in the current situation. Departments have never been required to do that. A case analysis has never been required before the government made decisions. That is what is quite new here for all departments. As our colleagues on the public accounts committee pointed out, there has never been an overall plan for departments. If there are departments currently looking at other ways of providing services to citizens, how can we ensure that the situation is analyzed very carefully before the decision is made? That is the aim of this policy.

Senator Joan Fraser: If I may, I would like to make a small suggestion. Wherever possible, the burden of identifying shortcomings, laying complaints and following the recourse process should not be placed on citizens, since it is a lot to ask of ordinary citizens who already have problems, which is why they are dealing with the government.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Ms. Robillard; good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This policy deals with alternative service delivery. I was not here for your presentation and I apologize for that. Are we talking about situations where the government decides to transfer responsibilities to an agency or someone else for providing certain federal government services?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let us look at examples from the past few years. I would ask my officials to help me here. For example, when we created the Parks Canada Agency or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, it was another way of providing services to citizens. When we created the Passport Office, that was another way. When we transferred labour force services to the provinces, created the airport authorities... Help me.

Mr. Yvon Godin: For example, when the government transferred... I will step in and help you.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There are so many examples.

Mr. Yvon Godin: For example, the government transferred responsibility for student loans to the CIBC. Would that be an example? I am talking about federal student loans.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The administration of student loans by the—

Mr. Yvon Godin: It used to be that these loans could come through various financial institutions in Canada, such as credit unions and the Royal Bank. All financial institutions were involved. Now it is only the CIBC. In light of that—?

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: If the bank offered these services on behalf of the federal government, yes, the policy applied.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What department is responsible when, for example,a student cannot repay his loan and it goes to a collection agency—I think that is what it is called—and those people do not provide any services in French? There is a big problem right now. In my region there is even a complaint in the works about such a situation. Every time I come to this committee, there is a complaint in the works. That means that there is a significant problem. It is always the same thing. The people at the collection agency who phone up do not speak French. So what department is responsible? Does your department supervise all that?

º (1620)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is Human Resources Development.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is Human Resources Development.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, that legislation is under the responsibility of—

Mr. Yvon Godin: The work that we are doing here in the committee comes under Human Resources Development, and Stéphane Dion is coordinating all of this? If we want to take our complaints somewhere... That is one of the problems with government: who is responsible for what?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It seems clear to me. Every minister is responsible for various statutes, and the responsibilities of the department are laid out very clearly in the act. For example, it is very clear that the Canada Student Loans Act comes under Human Resources Development. If a coordinator was appointed in the person of Minister Dion, it is because official languages was seen to be an issue that involved the full government apparatus, as you know. It is what we call in our jargon a horizontal issue.

In order to give priority to a horizontal issue of that scope, we need a coordinator. That is why Mr. Dion was appointed as coordinator, which does not remove any responsibility from Ms. Copps at Heritage, nor from the Justice Minister. All ministers keep their responsibilities. Mr. Dion is responsible for coordination.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm going to stick with this example, because for me, it is the crux of the whole issue. Others may have different views. We all have our own way of presenting our opinions. I think this responsibility was transferred to the CIBC last year. The CIBC refers it to a collection agency, and in the year 2002, we still have a problem, because that agency works in English only.

I am using this example from Human Resources Development, because it is a human resources issue. When you talk about these matters with your colleagues, with the other ministers, do you not say that such things should not happen? Do you not check before making changes, before transferring responsibilities to others? This should not happen again. Why are such things still happening today? Where is the political will?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Unfortunately, that is still happening, as you mention, and it happened in the past. The tool you have before you today, which is a policy, is designed to avoid the recurrence of such situations in the future. When a department considers providing its services differently, through intermediaries, or transferring its responsibilities to others or changing the way it delivers its services, for example by establishing an agency within its own department, it is required to submit its plan and a detailed analysis of the impact this will have on official language minority communities. It will also be required to consult these minorities.

Let us take the issue of contraventions in Ontario, for example. You may have followed this issue less in eastern Canada, but—

Mr. Yvon Godin: We have a different problem: we have the RCMP, which is anglophone rather than francophone. That is somewhat similar to the contraventions issue.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. In the Human Resources Development case you mention, the officials would have had to submit a case study before making the decision. That will help us, because red warning lights will go on before the decision is made, so that we can act not only in reaction to complaints. We want to be proactive and avoid complaints. That is the objective of the policy.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When will these policies be implemented?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The policy has been in effect since April 1 of this year. If departments have new service delivery proposals now, they are subject to this policy.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If the department does not follow the policy, what sanction can you impose?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Treasury Board Secretariat has different types of tools it can use, but they are powerful enough to convince a department that it must follow the Secretariat's policies. And I must say that generally speaking, our departments do comply with Treasury Board policies. There have been some problems with some departments, but we are there to give them a hand to implement the policy.

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

Ms. Thibeault.

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

My question is along the same lines. You admitted earlier that in the past there had been some unfortunate situations in which linguistic agreements were not brought forward at the right time. Under your policy, is it possible to reopen old issues in which errors were apparently made?

º (1625)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The policy does not apply to agreements that have already been negotiated and are in effect. However, if one of these agreements expires at a certain time and must be renewed, because sometimes we sign agreements for three years with the option to renew, such an agreement would be subject to the new policy at the time of the renewal.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much. That is good news.

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

Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.): This will not take long, because I want to leave some time for the opposition members.

Good afternoon, Ms. Robillard. I had a number of questions to ask, some of which have already been raised.

My colleagues opposite often refer to the organization chart with respect to official languages. Of course, each department is responsible for managing its own problems. We know that Mr. Dion is the coordinator, but we also hear your name and Ms. Copps' name mentioned as well. How does this work?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If I were to simplify...

Mr. Gérard Binet:That is what we will have to do so that we would no longer need...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard:To simplify, the Official Languages Act refers to three specific ministers. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for everything directly related to official language minority communities. The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for all matters regarding the public service. That means service to the public, language of work and the equitable participation of anglophones and francophones in the public service. The Minister of Justice is also responsible for a whole part of the act.

So I would say—and I am simplifying here—that the three main ministers affected by the Official Languages Act are those I just mentioned. The Treasury Board Secretariat issues policies that must be implemented throughout government, everywhere.

The policies are implemented by all departments, and some departments are targeted specifically in Part VII of the act. They are required to submit a report to the Minister of Heritage regarding the development of official language minority communities.

Since the scope is so vast and since the Prime Minister decided that this issue was to be made a priority, he appointed a government-wide coordinator. That is Minister Dion. It is his responsibility to coordinate official languages throughout the government. So that is how it works.

Mr. Gérard Binet: That was a very good explanation. Congratulations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to ask one or two questions, colleagues.

Madam Minister, as you said to Ms. Thibeault, current agreements, such as the one on transferring responsibility for labour force training, will be subject to this new policy when they expire.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If you are referring to the labour force agreements, that is true if the agreement must be renewed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes. That is so.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I do not know to which agreements you are referring. There are different models for the labour force agreements.

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have co-management agreements with some provinces. With another province, we have an agreement that provides for somewhat more than co-management namely a strategic partnership. In the case of other provinces, we entered into a transfer agreement. So depending on the model used...

º (1630)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am referring to those that will be expiring and will have to be renewed.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Agreements on complete transfers, not co-management agreements, were signed for an indeterminate length of time. We signed such agreements with three or four provinces, if I remember correctly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) Please, please.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We would have to look...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If these agreements for indeterminate periods contain flaws as regards the Official Languages Act and the offer of services, the policy we are talking about today will not apply.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: In labour market agreements of indeterminate duration, there is an obligation to review after three years. I have not looked at this issue for a long time, so I hope I am not making any mistakes with the dates. The Human Resource Development Minister would definitely be able to give you a more specific answer, but I believe that there is an obligation to evaluate the agreement. If there are some significant gaps when the two parties receive the evaluation, either of the signing parties may inform the other that it wants to renegotiate certain items.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Will Treasury Board have a role to play in evaluating these indeterminate agreements?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That will be the responsibility of the minister herself, when she receives the evaluations of the agreements, and I can tell you that the minister reports regularly to cabinet on this matter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But the question is this: will Treasury Board have a role to play in evaluating the indeterminate agreements, whether they involve Human Resources Development Canada or other departments? Will Treasury Board have to apply this policy in evaluating the indeterminate agreements?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, not really.

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

Senator Beaudoin referred to the first paragraph on page 3 of the English version of your presentation. He quoted the following passage: “If departments propose a transfer or withdrawal...”. Could you give me the numerical reference from the alternative service delivery policy that allows you to make the statement you make in the first paragraph on page 3?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask my officials to look for that, Mr. Joint Chairman.

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

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: What is the question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to know what section of the department's policy on Alternative Service Delivery, which I have here, allows the minister to state what she states in the first paragraph on page 3 of the English version of her presentation. I quote:

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: That is on page 18, Annex C, part C.2, entitled Guiding Principles. The five principles are listed there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I do not have that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is in Annex C on official languages, under the guiding principles.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will conclude my comments. This raises an interesting situation, Madam Minister. I would refer you to another debate taking place here and in the Senate as well on the declaratory or binding nature of section 41 of the act. Here, there seems to be some insistence. It appears that this obligation in the case of transfer... Before transferring services or the offer of services to some other level of government or to the private sector, the latter are required to foster the development of the communities. So this is not declaratory; it becomes mandatory in this case. That makes this policy very interesting. Do you follow what I mean?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. Did you find the text in the policy?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Not yet, but I will certainly have an opportunity to do so, because I have just been...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is in Annex C, at C.2...

º (1635)

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The heading is “Guiding Principles”. It is point two. The wording there is exactly the same as what I said in my remarks.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is mandatory. When the government of Canada transfers responsibilities to other levels of government or to the private sector or to whomever, it will be mandatory, for whomever accepts these responsibilities of the government of Canada, to be able to foster the development of the official language minority communities.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The wording is: “obtain...the undertaking to foster the development of the official language communities [...] to consult them...”.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger):Thank you. Perhaps we will come back to this on the second round.

Mr. Sauvageau, followed by Senator Gauthier.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I was not trying to embarrass you, Ms. Robillard. I thought we could ask you questions on all matters relating to your...

Thus, I am sure you will be pleased to send us answers in writing. Could you please send us in writing the name of the person at the Treasury Board Secretariat who attends the meetings of the coordination committee headed by Mr. Stéphane Dion...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Lucienne Robillard.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: ...as well as the dates of the committee meetings on the overall action plan?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You will not get my appointment book, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, but I would like to know whether there have been five meetings, two meetings or 28 meetings. I'm not referring to the weekly cabinet meetings. You referred earlier to the three ministers responsible for the overall plan and co-ordination activities. Otherwise please give me the name and telephone number of the person in charge so that I can do my homework.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Lucienne Robillard.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So I ask for that and you refuse to provide it. That is fine. We understand.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I said that...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, Madam Minister, could you please...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I told you to ask your question of the minister in charge of this matter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, when you ask a question, you must give the person a chance to reply.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: She replied.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I said that I am the minister in charge of this matter, and as far as the meetings go, it is the chair of this group who should answer these questions.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much, Minister.

Could you or your deputy minister send us in writing the amounts spent by the Treasury Board Secretariat on the part of the Official Languages Act that applies to you?

Second, could you send us in writing what you spent on advertising, not when you met with representatives from Heritage or Transport Canada, but in regional weeklies or francophone newspapers or on television campaigns. How much was spent? You cannot reply to that immediately, but Part IV of the Official Languages Act encourages you to do this, as to the five principles set out in the Fontaine report, which you mentioned earlier.

I would therefore like to know how much your department spends on campaigns to inform people about their rights and to make people aware of the services provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The policy you presented today is not retroactive, but, with your permission, I would like to look at a retroactive case, and you can tell you whether or not I understand the policy correctly.

Let us talk about Air Canada. Let us say that the Department of Transport gives you a case study on Air Canada, which is privatized but is required, in section 10 of the act, to comply with and enforce the Official Languages Act. So I think my question is still within the limits, it is not out of bounds. I will proceed with my Air Canada example, and then it will be your turn. If Air Canada or some other company does not comply with the Official Languages Act, you have a follow-up procedure. What would the follow-up procedure and remedy have been in that case?

You will say that this does not apply to Air Canada, but on privatization, the policy states:

The policy provides for measures that could make possible the recovery of language rights lost in the context of government transformations, particularly privatizations and devolutions.

Why do you say Air Canada could not be in that category?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This policy applies when we decide to diversify the way we provide service to Canadian citizens. The day the government of Canada decides to privatize, is the day on which the government of Canada no longer provides the services. It becomes private. So the policy as such does not apply directly. Moreover in the case of privatization, as we saw with Air Canada, procedures such as this are put in place during discussions on the specific legislation covering Air Canada.

So these are two different things. That is why I would not want you to ask what we would do tomorrow morning in a case such as that of Air Canada. A provision of this type would have to be included in the legislation on the privatization.

º (1640)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You said earlier that Treasury Board has many tools it can use to ensure compliance with the act following privatization. In the case of Air Canada, for example, or a similar case, could you tell us what follow-up and remedy procedures would have been available, and what tools you would have established to correct the situation?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I already answered that. We have already had this discussion about Air Canada around this table, I believe, when you studied the situation. Moreover, you tabled a report with the government and we are preparing our response to the committee report. I answered these questions about Air Canada when I came here with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. We talked about the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat in all the follow-up activities. Committee members raised a concern about the absence of negative consequences in the legislation itself if the corporation did not comply with the act.

Do you remember that discussion?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:Yes.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard:So that context was not at all the same as the one in which this policy was established. That must be clearly understood.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could you mention one or two of the tools that you could use to avoid a recurrence of this situation in similar cases?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This would have to be done in the context of legislation. So it would be up to us, as parliamentarians, to make a decision about this in Parliament.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There are no tools available at the moment? That is what I am asking. You said earlier that you had many tools you could use in the case of a situation...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: With the departments.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's fine. Thank you.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have two questions for you, but I am going to start with a very easy one. I would appreciate a written answer. On page 18 of your annual report, you state the following:

The Secretariat is working closely with Canadian Heritage and federal institutions to ensure the promotion and development of these communities. A number of concrete measures have been put forward to enhance their vitality.

Could you send me a list of the initiatives that you developed?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please forward it to the clerk, so that we can hand it out to all the members of this committee.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Secondly, on page 19, you go on to say the following:

The Secretariat has also undertaken to make federal institutions and the federal regional councils—

What exactly are these federal regional councils?

Well, I know what they are, but you omit to mention three of them. Do Ontario, Quebec an Alberta not have federal regional councils then? You did not include these provinces in your report. All the provinces are there, except the three that I have just mentioned.

Ms. Diana Monnet: Those three provinces do not have official language subcommittees. However, they do have a senior officials' committee. Consequently, that committee deals with official language issues. In the other provinces, there are specific official language subcommittees.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Therefore, what you are saying here is that there are two types of committees. There are subcommittees and there are standing committees.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No. In each of the provinces, senior officials from the various departments in those particular provinces make up a federal council. These senior officials on these councils sometimes strike subcommittees to study a specific issue. Several federal councils have created official language subcommittees, but in other provinces, this issue is dealt with by the committee of senior officials.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was very much intrigued by the term “regional”. When I hear the word “regional”, I immediately think of five regions. However, from your point of view, you are referring to seven provinces and three provinces with special status: i.e. Ontario, Quebec and Alberta.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Nevertheless, federal councils do exist in those provinces.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Heintzman, however, is saying that this is not true.

Mr. Ralph Heintzman: There are federal councils in all 10 provinces and even in the territories.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In the Internet version of your report... I am now a Canadian Internet surfer, you know. I went on the Internet and I attempted to find your site. I will be quite frank with you here. I had some difficulty finding it. I even dispatched my assistant to look for it, just in case I had missed it. However, he couldn't find it either. Canadian Internet surfers are now in a very difficult position. Unless they happen to know that Government On-line can be found under Treasury Board, and not under federal government... There is a button marked “Services for Canadians”. If you click on that button, you can find anything you want. Then, if you click on “Services for non-Canadians”, you cannot find what you're looking for there either. Even if you click on “Services for Canadian firms”, that doesn't get you anywhere either. You have to know that you have to click on Treasury Board or other such buttons to get to Government On-line.

º (1645)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If you click on the search engine button on the left of the home page and type in “Government On-line”, that should take you to where you want to go.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Right. I'm with you now. Perhaps one day, I will be as smart as you.

The Official Languages Commissioner's report puts forward several recommendations. I'm talking here about the Internet version of the report. If I am not mistaken, there are seven or eight major recommendations in this report. One of these recommendations deals with Internet content. It is all well and good to encourage public servants to post information in French on the Internet, but, in 95% or 98% of cases, this information is translated from the English. There is very little original French language information on the Internet. Am I mistaken here?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Therefore I am quite right in what I say. Do you think that that might change?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Honorable Senator, if I am not mistaken, the Secretariat received a copy of the commissioner's report approximately two weeks ago. We are currently undertaking a detailed assessment of the report and I think that you are spot on in what you say. Very often, Internet documents are produced in English. Consequently, there are stark disparities, depending on the quality of the translation, between English and French documents on various Internet sites. If you visit various Internet sites, you will see that there is a problem in terms of quality of the language used. Indeed, we do have documents available in French. Indeed, the various departments are complying with the Official Languages Act. Documents are available in both English and French. However, when you take a look at the quality of the language used, you see in many cases that it is not up to par.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I had a question on training.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Perhaps you could save that one for the third round of questions.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is the point of calling witnesses if we only have 10 minutes?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It means that everyone can have a bite at the cherry. I am allowed five minutes and I have to comply with the rules set out by the committee.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

Earlier, I asked a question on student loans. You said that the Department of Human Resources Development was responsible for this issue. When Mr. Binet asked more or less the same question, you said that in simple terms, there were only three departments responsible for student loans: Heritage Canada, Treasury Board and Justice Canada. Could you perhaps clear that one up for me?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: What I said was that the specific responsibilities set out in the Official Language Act cover three specific departments. However, I also said that this act applied to the whole range of government bodies. Consequently, in terms of a specific department's programs or services, the minister responsible for that particular department is also responsible for implementing legislation and policies set out by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine. Nevertheless, if a particular department fails to comply, is it then up to your department—given the fact that it is a public service and public service employee issue—to take action? At the end of the day, do these issues fall under the jurisdiction of your department?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Well, clearly, if these departments fail to comply with a particular policy... Often, it is the Treasury Board Secretariat that develops official languages policies.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine. That is what I was trying to get at earlier. There is a particular department responsible?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Indeed. The Secretariat develops official languages policies. However, it is up to the individual departments to implement these policies. We are responsible for monitoring this implementation process.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier, the chair, Mr. Bélanger, referred to section 41. He stated that the section was declaratory. However, some members of this committee believe that this section is binding. As minister, what is your opinion on this issue? Is this section declaratory or is it binding?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This whole area of the act really falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Justice. Consequently, I think that you should address that question to my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, we now know that at least one department is not responsible. I'm sure that we will find which department is responsible, in the end.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is great. I think we have shed some light on the issue.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin, it was confirmed today that the Minister of Justice and Mr. Mario Dion, who is the champion and the assistant deputy minister, will be meeting with us on April 30.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You said the Minister of Justice. I think that we should meet with the Minister of Justice before we meet with Mr. Dion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Therefore, the Minister of Justice will be here on April 30.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm sure that we will get to the appropriate person in the end. We might have to go through Mr. Chrétien himself, but we will find who's responsible.

We met with several minority language organizations at previous meetings of this committee. You said that it is often quite difficult to get services from the public service in the language of your choice. Could you perhaps explain to us the reasoning underlying this statement, in light of the fact that in the documentation that you provided us, you stated quite the opposite in terms of the relationship between minority language bodies. We met with minority language bodies at previous meetings of this committee and they told us something different than what we find in your document, in terms of the possibility of getting service in their own language. Could you give us some examples to explain why you refute their statement? Perhaps I have not made my question exactly crystal clear here.

º (1650)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I really don't see what the problem is. I must admit that...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Some minority language groups, such as the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, to name but one, told us that it is often difficult to get service in their language. However, you are telling us that people are indeed able to get service in their own language. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is just a hypothesis, but I imagine that what these particular groups were referring to where the public services that they would like to see available in their language, in their particular region.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, undoubtedly.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I am not trying to say here that the situation is perfect. I have never said that public services are perfect. Even in my own department where officials do provide services in both official languages, the situation is not perfect there either. What I did say however, is that we are monitoring the situation closely in the attempt to improve public services. In addition, I also put it on the record that the language of work issue was of concern to me. I said that major improvements need to be made in terms of the right of both francophones and anglophones to work in their own language within the federal government.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are specific regions of the country where this is more... Are you referring to Montreal or Calgary or other such places?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Are you asking whether there are regions with more specific problems? Is that what you want to know?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Indeed.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: To my knowledge, I do not think so. However, I shall allow the assistant-deputy minister to answer that question.

Ms. Diana Monnet: I could not really say whether there is one particular part of the country where the situation is worse than elsewhere. It really depends on the services...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Therefore, all the regions are facing the same problem. Fine. I agree with you.

Voices:Oh, oh!

Ms. Diana Monnet:They are not all in the same position. It really depends.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, you have two minutes. Mr. Sauvageau, you also have two minutes. If you agree, I would like to have two minutes to ask questions myself at the end.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wasn't expecting to have two minutes. What a surprise. Normally, they try to cut me off.

I would like to pick up again on what I was saying earlier about documentation on the Internet. I think that it's important that public servants realize that documentation should be clear and accurate. Both official languages are on an equal footing. Public servants must be able, in terms of training, to provide information in both official languages, and even to draft documentation either in French or in English directly.

In her report, Ms. Adam, the Official Languages Commissioner, recommends that the federal government put more money into training. Do you have any extra money lying about?

Have you heard of the ICCLI? That is the Interdepartmental Consultative Committee on Language Industries?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you prepared to invest in that?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard We will undoubtedly look at each recommendation very closely. If we are to implement a new official languages action plan, we will undoubtedly have to consider investment.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: To conclude then, I would like to remind you that this is not the first time that the commissioner has put forward a report. She also tabled a similar report in 1999. However, it produced very little reaction from the federal government. The commissioner published a further report, in an attempt to draw your attention to the issue. I hope that you intend to take this report seriously. I am sure that you will.

I would like the committee, at the earliest possible date, to look at a paper entitled: French on the Internet: Key to the Canadian Identity and the Knowledge Economy. That is where the future lies.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I have a question on the issue of reviews. I like review clauses. They are very useful. How do you intend to go about reviewing legislation? Do you intend to amend the current legislation or do you intend to put forward a fresh legislation or, where a program seems to be working well over a period of five years, do you think that a final report would be sufficient?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I must say that the assessment process does vary somewhat from the policy that we have set out. However, in my experience at Treasury Board, it is very rare that we have no amendments to make to a particular policy at the end of a five-year cycle. In order to assess a particular policy, we have to meet with those people affected by this particular policy, in an attempt to garner their comments and to establish, given the specific goals of the legislation, whether we are in a position to gage the results of this legislation and whether the objectives have been attained.

In most cases, there are things that must be changed at the end of five years. I too like review provisions. They mean that we don't have to wait 20 years to review that particular policy. This kind of oversight may occur on occasion. A mandatory review provision forces us to review a particular policy and to consult with our partners. In terms of the official languages aspects of this particular case, we will undoubtedly have to meet our minority community leaders to gauge their reaction and to establish what has indeed taken place over the past five years. Secretariat officials will then have to come back to Treasury Board ministers—very often we tend to forget that Treasury Board is a committee made up of several ministers—to table their assessments of the particular policy and to put forward potential amendments that need to be made.

º (1655)

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Madam Minister, in terms of the bilingual bonus, I think that you are quite correct in saying that it was not negotiated. Some people believe that the bilingual bonus could in fact disappear. Could you perhaps reassure us that the bilingual bonus, which is designed to encourage the use of French and English in the public service, will indeed continue?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No one is in a position, on a unilateral basis, to cancel the bilingual bonus. It is an issue that must be negotiated with the trade unions. I do not intend, as an employer, to put that issue on the agenda.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Therefore, you do not have the intention either of eliminating the bilingual bonus?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:That is great, thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Madam Minister, would you mind being somewhat late for your next meeting, because Senator Fraser would like to speak. Mr. Gauthier has a 30-second question and I myself would like to take a further two minutes of your time.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, with regard to the cabinet meeting, I have to go, but it ends at 5:30. I have something to present.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Briefly, Ms. Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: You needn't answer. I am personally against the bilingualism bonus. I think that being bilingual is part of job qualifications and that a person should not get the job if he or she is not bilingual. If you are bilingual, you shouldn't get a bilingualism bonus anymore than someone who has a doctorate should get a doctoral bonus. I understand that it had its place many years ago as a transition measure, but not that it should go on indefinitely...

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Please allow me...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's the idea of going back 20 years. Those are the exact same words I used here, in this room.

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I just want to add that it is one aspect of labour relations and that the employer will not make the decision alone. The issue will be discussed at the bargaining table, since it falls under collective negotiations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are we going to get into this discussion...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question. Madam Minister, could you send me your definition of what you consider to be the public interest? What is the public interest test?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's included in the appendix.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I've read it. I am asking you for the appropriate definition. But then you may tell me that I should consult with the Department of Justice. But they don't know either.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: So, you didn't like the questions on page 17? All right.

The Jopint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Minister, I would like to know if the service delivery policy also applies to the Territories. In particular, I'm referring to the Yukon, where it seems people don't share the same opinion regarding the roles of the Canadian and territorial governments in terms of service delivery in both official languages.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You want a concrete example? Let's suppose a department wants to transfer certain responsibilities to the Yukon Territory, for instance.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The francophone community in the Yukon is demanding that the government of Canada improve its service delivery, and that government seems to imply that it is the territorial government's responsibility. However, according to the francophone community, the territorial government says it is not responsible for this area. It's a vicious circle. That's why I would like to know whether the policy, which came into effect on April 1, applies in the case of services provided to the Yukon's minority community through the territorial government.

» (1700)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Suppose the Department of Health wants to transfer responsibilities to the Yukon's territorial government. The Yukon government would, in that case, assume those responsibilities. The policy would apply.

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

My next question deals with personnel. We could perhaps address the issue of the public service at another time. I'll see what committee members would like. But let me come back to my question.

If we want a long-term solution, don't you think it is time to consider the possibility of putting an end to non-imperative staffing? Perhaps you should think about it, Madam Minister. I don't expect an answer.

On behalf of members of the committee, I would like to thank you for appearing today. We appreciate the fact that you came. I must admit, Madam Minister, that it is always a pleasure to receive you, since you want to appear before the committee. That is unfortunately not the case with all ministers. We sometimes have to convince your colleagues.

Thank you.

I would ask committee members to stay because we will go in camera to have a brief discussion about a report. We'll take a two-minute break to clear the room and resume thereafter.

[Editor's Note: In Camera Meeting Follows.]