LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

¹

1535

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

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board)

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

¹

1550

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

¹

1555

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

º

1600

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

º

1605

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

º

1610

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

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

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

º

1615

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

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

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

º

1620

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Diana Monnet

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

º

1625

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Human Resources Reform, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

º

1630

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

º

1635

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

º

1640

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

º

1645

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Ms. Diana Monnet

º

1650

The Chair

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Ms. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Diana Monnet

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

º

1655

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 020

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting of the Official Languages Committee. Today we will be hearing from the Hon. Lucienne Robillard, President of Treasury Board, who will give us an overview of a number of issues, an update on current issues and a look ahead to the future.

    Madam Robillard, we will invite you to make your presentation in a moment. Then, as we usually do, we will have a question and answer period, going back and forth between the opposition and government side, until members have run out of questions.

    Before we begin, however, I would like to recognize, if I may, a group of young people who are with us here today from the Forum for Young Canadians. If you would please stand, we will acknowledge your presence properly. We are always pleased to welcome young people here and have them see how the real work in Parliament is done in committee. So thank you for being here, and I hope that you will find your visit enjoyable and useful.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible] the question period.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare already wants to ask questions. So I will put you first on the list, Mr. Bellemare.

    Ms. Robillard, the floor is yours.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

    I am pleased to be among you today to discuss the official languages in the public service of Canada. Before I begin, I would like to thank you for the sustained interest that all of you have taken in the matter of official languages.

    As you know, many things have happened over the past year. You will recall that in my 2001-2002 annual report I stated that the renewal of the Official Languages Program had been initiated, whereas a year earlier I had said that the government was in the planning stage. Since then, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, on March 12, 2003, unveiled the Action Plan for the Official Languages; one of its components aims to create an exemplary public service.

    A truly exemplary public service would be able to serve Canadians in their preferred official language, to allow its employees to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated as bilingual, and to promote the development of the official language minority communities.

    We are now ready to begin the process and to implement this action plan, and I can assure you that I fully intend to play a leading role in this great movement.

    Of course, we have made considerable progress over the past 30 years, but there is still much more to be done before the public service can become exemplary in terms of the official languages.

[English]

    An approach that emphasizes the rules and compliance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act was certainly essential in the past and still is today, but that approach is no longer enough to achieve our objectives. We need to modernize our approach in order to lay greater stress on values and respect for others. Serving Canadians in both official languages is really a question of respect for the public. The people of Canada are entitled to expect their public service to be imbued with the culture of our country's two official languages.

    The resulting strategy will lead to a public service-wide awareness campaign. This strategy will aim to transform public servants' attitudes and behaviour so as to create a climate still more conducive to the use of both official languages. It will also encourage managers to demonstrate sustained leadership and to work with their employees to ensure that bilingualism is further rooted in the workplace, rather than being content merely to meet the minimum requirements dictated by the rules.

[Translation]

    In addition, thanks to the recently approved funding, we will be able to strengthen the measures taken to monitor federal departments and agencies and make the Treasury Board Secretariat's Official Languages Branch into a centre of excellence that will support the government's effort to serve Canadians in their preferred official language and create a workplace in which both official languages take their rightful place.

    The branch could become a nerve centre to which departments and agencies subject to the Official Languages Act will turn for support, advice and information, in order to seek and achieve excellence in official languages. The branch will also devote itself to policy direction, departmental evaluation and communication of results.

[English]

    The exercise to prepare the annual report of the Treasury Board Secretariat already involves an evaluation of the activities of departments, agencies, and crown corporations through their activities reviews. To make this evaluation even more effective, the Treasury Board Secretariat is planning to develop new performance indicators and evaluation and self-evaluation tools to be used in conducting the monitoring activities. In fact, this centre of excellence will play a leading role in the exercise to make the public service exemplary in this area.

[Translation]

    As I have already mentioned, lasting change, including better service to the public and greater use of both official languages in the workplace, can be achieved only through a change in the culture of the entire public service regarding the official languages.

    Thus, to value linguistic duality throughout the public service and to help departments and agencies make it an integral part of their practices and core values, Treasury Board decided to invest in innovation.

    Two new funds will shortly be created: a Regional Partnerships Fund and an Official Languages Innovation Fund. Through these two funds, which will be managed by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the centre of excellence for official languages will now be able to support the work to bring about a change in culture in the public service by encouraging federal institutions to innovate in implementing the program.

    The goal of the Regional Partnerships Fund is to help the federal regional councils fund projects to improve service to the public. It will enable a number of departments jointly to sponsor projects that are of general interest but are adaptable to local situations.

    As for the Official Languages Innovation Fund, it will provide counterpart resources to enable departments and agencies to carry out innovative projects aimed at improving service to the public, language of work in regions designated as bilingual, and access to employment and advancement for both official languages communities.

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    It is also evident that no new approach can be launched if our policies continue to embody the principles of the old one. Thus, the time has come to redesign the policies so that we can communicate the main orientations of this new approach to managers and help them to implement it. For that reason, the Treasury Board Secretariat recently initiated a project to review its policies. We will be studying the rationale for certain policies and determining whether they are still valid.

    With regard to the staffing policy, in an address delivered in Dieppe, New Brunswick, in November 2002 I said we would be studying the progressive elimination of non-imperative staffing from the deputy minister level downward, combined with access to language training for public servants from the beginning of their careers. We are currently analysing the impact of such a policy, because we have found that at present the staffing results for all bilingual positions are actually close to a situation of imperative staffing: 96.6% of the incumbents of bilingual positions meet the language requirements on appointment.

    We are also reviewing the proposal made by the Commissioner of Official Languages during her appearance on March 20 before the operations and estimates committee on Bill C-25. The commissioner proposed the elimination of non-imperative staffing, beginning with internal staffing for executive positions as of April 2004 and for other positions as of April 2006. For external staffing, the commissioner suggested that we retain for some undefined period of time the ability to recruit people who don't meet bilingual requirements.

    Of course, the government does not want to deprive itself of skilled employees or managers in order to achieve its bilingualism objectives. Thus, rather than opting for the radical approach of eliminating non-imperative staffing, the government would consider a progressive approach of encouraging senior management to set the example.

[Translation]

    We would plan also to ensure that language training is available earlier in a public servant's career, that it is integrated into the employee's career plans, and that the recruiting of bilingual candidates be done on a more regular basis. Thus bilingualism would become an asset, among a number of others, for accessing bilingual positions in the public service.

    As for language training, the Action Plan and the funds allotted to it will enable us not only to reduce the training delays for the Public Service Commission, but also to computerize the training materials and make them available on the website, as well as further adapt the training methods used for allophone employees and those experiencing learning difficulties. And we will be able to conduct a study on governance in language training.

    As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Board Secretariat is taking a multi-faceted approach in implementing the Official Languages Program: changing the organizational culture, strengthening expertise and capability, investing in innovation and policy review.

    All these facets form an integral part of the overall strategy aimed at bringing about a lasting change in culture and making the federal public service more effective and more efficient.

[English]

    As for the approach proposed, it falls within the context of sound management of human resources practices and the spirit of respect for the official languages community in minority situations and for public service employees serving our country. It is in that spirit that we want to continue to work, building a public service that reflects excellence and reflects the society it serves. Having two official languages is an important asset for the public service and for Canadians. In today's world economy, the people of Canada need a modern public service that can serve it in both official languages and is representative of the communities making up our society. Furthermore, an exemplary public service definitely has a central role to play in a well-performing economy. It can be a tool for greater competitiveness.

    Let me say once again how pleased I am to be among you today.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

I will be pleased to answer any questions on issues of concern to you.

I am accompanied today by Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat, and Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch. We are in your hands, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Welcome, Ms. Monnet and Mr. Lahey.

[English]

    Mr. Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In your view, will there be time for a second round of questions today?

    The Chair: There might be. It depends on how short the first round is.

    Mr. Scott Reid: All right. I'll try to pace myself accordingly.

    The Chair: But you have seven minutes for the first round.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay.

    Welcome to the committee, Minister.

    Let me begin by going back to a statement you made towards the end of your presentation. You were speaking about the Commissioner of Official Languages' suggestion that all bilingual staffing be treated as imperative, rather than as bilingual essential staffing. You suggested that “rather than opting for the radical approach of eliminating non-imperative staffing, the government would consider a progressive approach of encouraging senior management to set the example.” I'm just trying to get my head around “encouraging”. Will those senior management posts become imperative?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: First let me clarify that even the commissioner herself proposed a progressive approach. She does not recommend a radical approach, staffing all positions on an imperative basis.

    What I was saying is that we can do that progressively, but at the same time, we have to make training accessible to all public servants earlier in their career if we want to reach that objective.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, but will the senior management posts at some point during this progress be made into bilingual imperative posts?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Let's speak about current system. Right now assistant deputy ministers, in our jargon bureaucratiqueEX-4 and EX-5, have to meet the requirement and standard of bilingualism called CBC. I could explain to you what that is, but it is a level of bilingualism. This is already the case in the system, since 1998. All new assistant deputy ministers should, before being appointed, meet the requirement of that standard.

    Mr. Scott Reid: No, I'm asking about the future. Will you or will you not?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Under the current system the other ones, when they are appointed, have two years. The progressive approach I'm suggesting is that with the next step down, an EX-3, for example, we could look at requiring that, reaching the standard before being appointed, and a little later an EX-2 and an EX-1. When I look right now at imperative and non-imperative combined, over 94% of the positions are filled with people who already meet the requirement. But to do that, we also need the training earlier in a career.

    Mr. Scott Reid: So “progressive” means progressively moving down from the top executive levels, as more and more levels are shifted from bilingual essential to being bilingual imperative. Is that what you mean?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. That's what I was after.

    Do you have a schedule you're prepared to share with us as to when this would take place?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: No. We are ready to revise the policy this year. It's premature for me to give you any schedule, because I think we have to consult everyone in the system, and we don't want to penalize anybody, we have to be very cautious with that, but my commitment is to revise the policy this year.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: When we talk about bilingual imperative staffing, and this is a point that I've raised with your colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs before, one of the consequences it has as a practical matter is taking the 80% of Canadians who are not bilingual, because they speak only English or only French, and freezing them out of those jobs. They can't even apply for those jobs. That's true for a 57% majority of francophones, for a 91% majority of anglophones, something like 80% of people whose first language is an non-official language. This seems to me to be very problematic. So one of the things I just have to ask is, when we're talking about executive level posts and making them bilingual imperative, meaning you can't even apply for the post unless you're already bilingual, are you prepared to say every single one of the over 3000 posts genuinely requires the capacity to speak both official languages as part of its job function, that is, you could not execute your function properly without speaking both official languages?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Do you speak only about the executive? Let's be clear. I think we have to clarify that all the time in our discussion, because as you know, right now in the public service as a whole it's only 37% of the positions that are bilingual. If you want to speak about public servants as a whole or only the executive category, that's another story.

    Mr. Scott Reid: There are roughly 3200 or 3600 executive level positions, according to your numbers, and my understanding, from what you just said, is that progressively over a period of time, according to a schedule you will share with us sometime later this year, these will be turned into bilingual imperative positions, meaning you can't apply for the job unless you're already bilingual. So are all of those jobs you are planning on transforming as a part of this progressive policy requiring a capacity to speak both languages as a part of the job function? Clearly, what I'm trying to ask you to clarify is whether these jobs are being designated this way in order to fulfil some kind of mandate that is not directly and solely linked to the question of job performance.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Let me clarify the numbers, because you're speaking especially about the executives. Across the country in all departments we have more than 3700 executives. Not all those positions are designated bilingual, 80% of them are. They are not all designated at the same level of bilingualism. Of course, for the ones who are in the bilingual regions the standard is higher, and for those it's 75%. Right now more than 91% of those people in bilingual regions meet the standard, but across the country, with bilingual positions for executives, combined imperative and non-imperative show 94% who meet the requirements. So you have only 6% right now who are appointed and are obliged to go to training because they don't meet the requirements.

    So what I'm saying is that if we give the possibility to public servants to start training earlier in their careers--and as you know, the promotion in our system comes from inside the majority of the time--and we come down with a progressive approach to require that, we should be able to do it without penalizing anyone.

    The Chair: Merci.

    We'll come back to you, Mr. Reid.

    Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Minister, for some people, learning a language is as difficult as learning to play the violin. I know, because I once taught French to anglophones, in the Toronto area.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I understand.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You say that about 6 per cent of senior officials, that is, officials from the EX group, do not meet language requirements. In my riding, I have people who speak English and people who speak French, and I sympathize with those who have trouble learning a new language. There is the humanitarian aspect, and there is also the aspect of operational efficiency to consider.

    So, for the 6 per cent who have trouble, or who have had trouble learning the second language, despite the fact that they genuinely tried, but who just don't have an ear for languages, like some people who just don't have it in them to learn to play the violin, is there a program? If these people are three, four or five years from retirement, it doesn't seem to make sense to send them somewhere on a one-year course. It's almost like being on holidays; it's like being sent to Gaspé for a year, for instance, three years before retirement. Does that make sense?

    As for the humanitarian aspect and the fact that we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our faces, what do you intend to do with the people who are experts in their field, where, were they to be pulled, things would not run as smoothly or efficiently? Are we to tell them that that is the law, that because they did not pass their test, they have to take a course or leave the public service? What do you intend to do with those people?

¹  (1555)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Allow me to clarify. You are probably referring to the announcement I made with regard to those who did not meet the CBC standard by March 31. Let me first explain who this announcement targeted, because it was not meant for everyone. It was specifically targeted at assistant deputy ministers, who are required to meet the CBC standard, and it was also aimed at senior managers working in bilingual regions.

    In 1998, we decided to increase the requirements for bilingualism. Why? First, because these people work in bilingual areas. These are areas where they must provide service to the public in both official languages. In addition, since they are managers, their duties involve supervising bilingual staff, who have a right to work in their language of choice. This means that the staff may write documents and speak to their supervisors in the language of their choice. As a consequence, supervisors must be fairly bilingual. This decision was made in 1998 and we told the people back then that they had five years to learn the language.

    So, you are telling me that after five years, they have worked very hard. First, you would have to prove to me that they had indeed worked hard and that this was considered a priority. But if humanitarian considerations were to be taken into account—and we have to agree on what these humanitarian reasons are—a person may obtain an exemption from the Public Service Commission. But there are very specific criteria defining what these humanitarian reasons are. The criteria include being hard of hearing, or many other things along those lines, but you have to prove it; if a public servant was supposed to have been bilingual for the last six years, since 1998, but is due to retire this year, we can ask the deputy minister to take interim measures with regard to that person, in order not to adversely affect staff, which must also be supervised in the language of their choice.

    Furthermore, Mr. Bellemare, I think that five years' notice is plenty. Some of the people concerned have worked very hard and still did not pass the test, but others, I must say, did not make an effort. So I think it is high time that the government clearly state that enough is enough, because sometimes you have to work at learning another language, as you said, and it may be necessary to be put in an immersion situation. As you know, it's a very good way of learning another language.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you saying that there may be some cases involving people for whom it is hard, for whom it is almost impossible to learn another language, for whom it is extremely difficult to do so, say an expert in a given area who is three, four or five years from retirement—not six months or one year, but between three to five years, at least... are you saying that there will be a certain degree of flexibility for them? Because of the humanitarian aspect and to maintain the operational efficiency of this person's area of work, will there be a certain amount of flexibility?

º  (1600)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, but it is a very slim margin. Do you understand?

    Just because someone is an expert in their area does not mean they can't study another language. I'd be interested in knowing how much effort such a person has devoted to learning the second language.

    The Public Service Commission has the power to decide whether an exception should be made or not, but as you know, as it now stands, there are fewer than 200 people who do not meet the requirements. Over 90 per cent of the people do. We therefore asked every deputy minister to describe the situation of everyone of these people in their department—say 10 or so—who do not meet the requirements, and to present us with a plan of action.

    We are expecting the reports from the deputy ministers sometime in April, but the message being put out is that everyone is required to meet the basic requirements.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is the action plan for a sector or a department, or is it for each individual?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: It is a global action plan for the entire public service. I said, for instance, that two funds were created to help people innovate, including in the area of language learning, to help us begin the training much earlier in a person's career. The funding is provided for under the action plan. Furthermore, we will strengthen our capacity within the Treasury Board Secretariat because, as you have seen over the years, the Secretariat has also not been immune from financial constraints. We have to build on our expertise because it is our responsibility to monitor federal institutions. We must have the ability to do so. The amount we were allocated will help us do a better job.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    Madam President of Treasury Board, I asked you a question in the House last Thursday, and this is the answer you gave me:

Canada Post, as a crown corporation, is not subject to the same employer policies as Treasury Board. I would think that he should be aware of this, given how long he has been a member of Parliament.

    That is what you told me. I am going to explain to you why I asked that question. I looked at the policy concerning language requirements for members of the executive group, and the following is a quote from that document:

Other institutions subject to the relevant provisions of the Official Languages Act must apply the basic principles of this policy with respect to their executives and adapt the policy to their particular situation.

    You said that I should be aware of this, so I am explaining to you why I asked the question. Further along, your policy states that:

Institutions subject to this policy must prepare an action plan for the implementation of its requirements...

    I am sure that you are aware that it also states:

Institutions subject to this policy will report on its implementation in their annual reports submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat...

    I based myself on that policy, but I had other sources as well. Canada Post's annual report says the following:

Last year, Treasury Board made language of work a priority, urging federal institutions...

    So I wondered what a federal institution was. So I looked it up in the legislation, which states:

Any of the following institutions of the Parliament or Government of Canada... a Crown corporation established by or pursuant to an act of Parliament...

therefore Canada Post,

to pay particular attention to that aspect of the Official Languages Program.

    Since it is not clear, they may be talking about the act, but further on it states:

In order for senior managers to have the tools they need to comply with the Policy Concerning the Language Requirements for Members of the Executive Group...

    So I looked at the title and compared it with the title of your policy. I discovered that they were the same.

we informed all the vice-presidents as well as the directors general of bilingual regions...

    And Canada Post's action plan states:

4. Continue to promote the Policy Concerning the Language Requirement for Members of the Executive Group...

    That is exactly the title of your policy. Are you saying that Canada Post and the other institutions do not have to apply your policy concerning language requirements for members of the executive group, or you saying that the other institutions must apply the basic principles of this policy?

    Now that we are not in the House and not getting tangled up in our words, does this policy apply or does it not?

º  (1605)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Let me clarify that.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, that would be helpful. I would like you to clarify it.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We have more than 35 seconds here.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. And you will be nicer than in the House.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: You too.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am always nice.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: The situation is that Treasury Board policies apply to all departments. Under the act, it is very clear; the institutions that come under Treasury Board are indicated. The policy as such does not apply to so-called distinct employers.

    As you indicated in one of your quotes, those institutions, including Canada Post, must comply with the Official Languages Act like we do, and they are encouraged to use...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, they have to apply the principles.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: ... on our policy and procedures, but they could have their own policy with different details, provided it complied with their legal obligations. The principles are the obligations set out in the act.

    With respect to the other documents you quoted, we encourage Canada Post and other federal institutions to draw on our policy in order to comply with their legal obligations. However, they are not required to have a policy that is identical to ours.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In the time you have been President of Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard, and in light of the rigour I have seen you display since you became a member of Parliament, you must have suspected that Canada Post, in addition to drawing on your policy—which did a great deal—actually applied your policy, because Canada Post tabled an action plan, an annual report, which states:

... have the tools they need to comply with the Policy on Language Requirements...

    So I will ask you the question again. Canada Post decided not to draw on the policy, but to apply it in 2001-2002 and since that time, and Mr. Ouellet, who is the person who makes the decision to apply the policy, says that he will do nothing with the three who are not complying with it. Rather than telling the institutions that they do not have to enforce the policy, that they need only draw on it, rather than rejecting out of hand a question designed to defend the right of francophones to work in their own language, rather than engaging in politics with this as you did in the House on Thursday, what message would you like to send to those who are required to apply the basic principle of this policy, as Canada Post has committed to do?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Sauvageau, we must also defend the right of anglophones living in Quebec to work in their language, must we not?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will come back to them on the second round. Don't worry.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: What I mean is that when we talk about the official languages, there is an issue on both sides.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: More on one side than on the other.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: That is my first point.

    My second is that the Canada Post Corporation, precisely because it has this responsibility, appeared before you to explain how it applied its policies and how it intended to comply with its legal obligations. I think Canada Post has the responsibility to do that, and this is why you asked representatives from the corporation to appear before you. That is excellent.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Right.

    Now, if I may, what are you going to do about the other institutions that are subject to the relevant provisions of the act and are supposed to apply the basic principles of this policy? Are you delegating to the committee the power to enforce the policy, or are you relying on your duty to ensure compliance with your policy?

    You have told us that as President of Treasury Board, you do not deal with Canada Post, that it is up to us to do so, and that representatives from Canada Post came to see us. However, that is not what your policy states. Are you giving us this responsibility, or are you keeping it for yourself which, on the basis of your experience, should be the case?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: You are extrapolating from what I said.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, I am not.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, you are.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, all right.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We do not agree, but in my opinion, you are extrapolating from what I said.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What are you going to do as regards Canada Post?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I said that Treasury Board continues to play an oversight role with respect to all federal institutions required to comply with the Official Languages Act and Regulations, whether the institution is Canada Post or another such institution. We are going to continue to urge Canada Post to comply with its legal obligations. We are going to continue to do that.

    All I said was that you asked representatives from Canada Post to appear before your committee, and that is a very good thing—so that they could give you some explanations, as of the case with Air Canada and other institutions. Representatives from these institutions come in to account for what they have done to live up to their legal obligations, not only to the President of Treasury Board, but directly to members of Parliament.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister Robillard and Mr. Sauvageau.

    Ms. Thibeault.

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

    Good afternoon, Minister, and ladies and gentlemen.

    Earlier, Minister, in reference to the 200 or so employees who had not achieved the required level of bilingualism by March 31, you said that you had asked the departments to submit an action plan to you in April. I imagine this action plan has to do with what will happen to these employees. Would you be satisfied if a department said that it simply planned to send these people back for more intensive language training, perhaps?

    As you know, we were all very interested to see what would happen on April 1. I know that you intend to follow up on this matter, and I congratulate you on that. So we are a little concerned—we want to know what will happen to these individuals.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: In their action plans, departments have to demonstrate to me how they are going to respect employees' rights to use the language of their choice. That means that if the supervisor has not achieved a certain level of bilingualism, there is a problem as regards employees' rights. In some cases, therefore, they will have to make what I call some horizontal transfers—that is, transfer a particular supervisor to a different position, one that does not require the same level of bilingualism, or is actually a unilingual position. Some departments will have to make some horizontal transfers.

    But I was very clear, and when I look at the figures, I think people understood. A total of 2,315 individuals were supposed to achieve this standard. Two years ago, 726 individuals had still not done so, and today, there are fewer than 200 in this situation. So we started at 68 per cent, and we went up to 91 per cent. The message was understood, and some of these people, as I said, had five years to learn the other official language. So, I am willing to be indulgent for proven humanitarian reasons, but otherwise, managers will have to think about making horizontal transfers.

    The only people who could get an extension are those who were already studying full time on March 31. They were therefore not in their positions, which means that the rights of employees had not been disregarded. So an extension will be possible for these people.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Over the last two years, we have heard a number of witnesses from various departments—and I do not want to mention any names here—who told us that there may be a problem in this area, because there do not seem to be enough money to provide this training in French or English.

    Do you think that is a valid excuse?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I would think that in the case of senior managers, I would be very surprised if this were the case, because they have priority for training. Moreover, in the case of employees generally, because I told you earlier that 37 per cent of our positions throughout the public service are bilingual—and we have managers in regions other than the bilingual regions who are also required to take training—I'm not denying the fact that there were some delays with training. People signed up with the Public Service Commission to take training, and there was a very long wait before they could actually go on language training. That is why the action plan announced by the Prime Minister includes a very significant amount—over $36 million of the $38 million for the Public Service Commission—strictly for language training purposes, in order to completely deal with the problem of waiting times for training.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you. I have one final question. Earlier, in answering a question asked by Mr. Reid, you said that over the years, you hoped to extend or create more and more bilingual positions—that is to add levels in descending order.

    Can we hope that these language requirements will apply to deputy ministers as well some day?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I assume that even though our deputy ministers are appointed by order in council, they must be bilingual, because they supervise people in both official languages. I can tell you that the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is somewhat the "boss" of the deputy ministers and the head of the public service, has included bilingualism as an objective for the second consecutive year in the performance agreements signed by deputy ministers. The current Clerk of the Privy Council does that.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

    Mr. Godin.

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

    I would like to welcome the minister and her officials and particularly the participants in the Forum for Young Canadians, who are here with us today. I hope that one day they will become politicians. Yesterday you saw the theatre known as the House of Commons, and today you are going to see the theatre of committees. This week will be a wonderful experience for you. I wish you good luck in your future studies and I hope that some day you become politicians so that you can work for all Canadians.

    Madam Minister, are there any loopholes for the government or some way of not complying with the Official Languages Act by hiring people on contract for a certain number of years, rather than hiring them permanently?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: For a bilingual position?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

    Ms. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): In the case of temporary positions, individuals must meet the language requirements of the position from the outset.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: So they are all imperative appointments. So the requirements are even more stringent in this case.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: They're even more stringent. Thank you.

    I'm going to tell you about a specific case, Minister, because I think sometimes they are the best examples. I will try to be as brief as possible.

    Mr. Gilles Savoie, from Lamèque in New Brunswick, worked for Fisheries and Oceans for six years as a temporary employee, on the NGCC Opilio, during tests at sea. Mr. Savoie is not bilingual; he is a francophone from the Acadian Peninsula. In March 2002, he saw a competition notice which specified that candidates had to be bilingual, that it was imperative for this position. He applied for the job and was told the following on November 4, 2002:

This is to inform you that the selection committee has now completed its evaluation of the candidates in the above-mentioned selection process. The committee thought you had all the required qualifications for the position and your name was placed in the third position on the eligible list, which could be used to fill other positions.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: A permanent position?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: A permanent position.

    In January or February, there was a cancellation with regard to this competition. He then received another letter explaining that this had happened because in the bilingualism test, he had level A, rather than level B.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: And level A is lower.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I have been asking questions of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard in Halifax, and they told me that they decided that the position was going to become bilingual, but that when they hire someone to a temporary position, they are not required to comply with the Official Languages Act. The person who told me that is Marguerite Beaubien-MacLean. She works for the Coast Guard.

º  (1620)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Wait a moment, we are taking notes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: That is why I am giving you this information, Minister. My question is this: Why is it that in order to work on the vessel CCGS J.L. Hart, from Dartmouth, I believe, in the Bay of Fundy, where the employees do the same job at sea, with the same job description, what is known as the position SO-MAO-O2...

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I am having trouble following you, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I will start over. It is the same type of boat, but it is not located in the Acadian Peninsula, it is in the Bay of Fundy. The job is the same and so are the responsibilities—these are fishermen who do tests on the groundfish. All the people on board the vessel in the Bay of Fundy speak English only. The woman told me that the requirement for bilingualism depends on the vessel on which people work. So there is a sort of double standard.

    As you will remember, we asked Air Canada how many positions were held by anglophones who did not speak French, and how many positions were held by francophones who did not speak English. There were no francophones who did not speak English.

    Why is there a double standard in this case as regards the language requirements for these positions? What would you recommend?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, it is very difficult for me to reply regarding a specific case. I see that my officials have made some notes to try to check further into this specific case, but perhaps Ms. Monnet could remind us of some of the Public Service Commission criteria with which managers must comply in identifying a bilingual position.

    Ms. Diana Monnet: Normally, when a position is identified bilingual, that means that incumbents must supervise employees in both languages or communicate with the public in both official languages or represent the Government of Canada—and that is probably not the case here—or work in interdepartmental relations. So I think we are going to have to look at the question you have asked and get back to you, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the circumstances of the case.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: You said earlier, quite clearly, that there is no difference between a temporary job and a permanent job. That means that it is impossible for managers to get around the system, as Ms. Beaulieu-MacLean outlined to me. She said that when people were hired on temporary contracts, they were not required to comply with the Official Languages Act.

    Ms. Diana Monnet: We would have to check with the manager, but if it is a temporary position, the candidate must meet the language requirements of the position before assuming his or her duties.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: My question still stands, because I am determined to get an answer, Mr. Chairman.

    Whatever the situation, whatever managers may say, you say and the act states that a decision must be made first of all as to whether or not a position is a bilingual. That is what I understood. And whether it is a contract job or a full time permanent job, the same rule applies in both cases.

    Ms. Diana Monnet: The same criteria apply, except that in the case of a temporary position, candidates must meet the language requirements when they are hired.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Whereas for permanent positions, managers must decide immediately how to staff the position—either imperatively or non-imperatively.

    Mr. Godin, we will check on this and get back to you personally, with your office.

    The Chair: That is fine for this specific case, Minister. However, it might be useful for Treasury Board or yourself to extrapolate the principles that apply in this case and inform committee members, through the clerk.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: However, for this specific case, we will get in touch with the member directly. That is fine.

    The Chair: There are no other questions on this side, so if my colleagues permit, I would like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions myself. We will then move to the second round.

    In your presentation, Minister, you made a number of interesting points. I picked up on the new tools that Treasury Board intends to develop, for example new performance indicators, evaluation tools and even self-evaluation tools. This could be interesting. I was wondering whether you intended to give us more information on this at some point.

º  (1625)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we will do so as our work proceeds. The funds earmarked for this purpose will enable us to do this work in order to have much more specific indicators on the performance appraisal of all the departments and institutions. When we talk about self-evaluation, we would like to have departments evaluate themselves as well. This could be a very good thing: it may encourage them to do better. However it would enable us to be much more specific about the performance of each department when we submit the annual report to Parliament.

    I do not know whether Ms. Monnet could add anything to this.

    Ms. Diana Monnet: I'm not going to add a great deal. I would just like to tell you that some departments have already developed some self-evaluation tools. We are going to see whether these tools could be used in other departments, and whether their use could be generalized. We are going to share what is learned from this.

    The Chair: I think that one thing is quite important here. As members of Parliament, we have certain tools that belong to us, and not to the government. I'm going to distinguish here between members of Parliament and the government. This is a committee of Parliament, and we do not necessarily represent only the interests or will of the government.

    One of the tools is called the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Commissioner of Official Languages herself. Could you tell me what sort of involvement the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages might have in developing these tools?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that every time we review a policy on official languages, or the tools we use, we always do so in cooperation with the Commissioner of Official Languages. For example, the study on attitude and perceptions, which is a first within the public service, was carried out in this way. Consequently, there are frequent exchanges between the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Treasury Board Secretariat, Official Languages Branch.

    However, I must confess quite candidly that I have been very pleased to see this increased budget in the action plan for the Treasury Board Secretariat. We found ourselves in a situation in which the commissioner—who, as you say, is completely independent, and who submits audits and reports to Parliament—was relatively well equipped, while we did not really have the resources we needed to be more proactive, and to engage in prevention.

    What I mean is that this will enable us to do more work, and I hope this will reduce the number of complaints to the commissioner. I also hope that audit reports will be more favourable.

    The Chair: You also said in your presentation that the Treasury Board Secretariat had recently undertaken a project to review Treasury Board policies on official languages. I imagine that there were internal consultations on this—that goes without saying—but what consultations does Treasury Board intend to hold outside the government with respect to these new policies?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Perhaps I could say a few words about the review of Treasury Board policies. How many policies do we have at the Treasury Board Secretariat, Jim?

    Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Human Resources Reform, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): A great many. There are roughly 300 policies.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: There are policies in all areas, including official languages. At some point, there is a danger of a lack of consistency and also a very great danger of a lack of follow-up in the enforcement of our policies.

    At the moment, we have therefore undertaken a major project to better target our policies in all areas. You ask whom we will be consulting when we review the policies on official languages. Naturally, there is a major consultation process within the public service, but we also consult the communities specifically. We consult the communities on any matter relating to minority communities. It is actually somewhat similar to the task force for reviewing the Official Languages Regulations that we established. I think it is also part of the new accountability framework philosophy to involve the communities in the policy from the outset so that they can have an influence on its content rather than having to react once the policy is already in place.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Will parliamentarians be consulted as well?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: If you wish, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    In the gradual attempt to eliminate non-imperative staffing some day—and I'm not talking about managers, but about the public service generally—will the concept of service to the public be more important than other considerations?

    I understand that employees have a right to work in their own language. No one challenges that, and everything that is being done as regards managers at the moment is heading in the right direction. That is very good. But as regards service to the public, if it were decided to implement the policy gradually, could a decision be made to start with all the positions that involve direct contact with the public? A decision could be made that in this case, all bilingual positions would have to be staffed imperatively. Is that something that could be considered?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Of course. That should already be a consideration. In deciding whether or not a position will be advertised as imperative or non-imperative, service to the public is one of the criteria that must be taken into account. If the position is unique, with an obligation to serve the public in both official languages, the manager cannot proceed to non-imperative staffing but must use imperative staffing.

    The Chair: Madam Minister, the last time the Public Service Commission appeared before us, if I remember correctly, they said that there were tens of thousands of bilingual imperative and non-imperative positions. Some of these positions—I believe there were about 29,000—involved direct contact with the public; that was the reason for their designation. Among the 29,000 positions, 23,000 or 24,000—I will have to get the exact figure—were not filled by people who were capable of meeting the linguistic requirements of their position.

    At that time, we asked the Public Service Commission representative, as we are asking you today, if, in terms of imperative staffing, it would not be logical to begin with the positions that already have that designation, since they involve a direct contact with the public?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: When services are provided to the public, if a manager decides on non-imperative staffing, he must be able to prove that other arrangements have been made at that location in order to provide services in both official languages. That is one of the criteria that is used to choose between “imperative” or “non-imperative”. As to the future, I am fully prepared to state that this must be a priority.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to come back to the positions that are open to unilingual candidates. In your annual report, on page 31 of the French version, you stated that since 1978, there had been a drop in the number of positions open to unilingual anglophones. However, what is much more striking is the enormous drop in the number of positions open to unilingual francophones. The two groups known as "French essential" and "English or French essential" represented, in 1978, 31,000 of all of the positions open to unilingual francophones. However, for 2002, only about half, or 17,357 of those are available.

    I find it hard to accept that the bilingualism policy in the public service, which was intended to reduce the systematic discrimination against francophones in the 1960s, has resulted in this type of situation. I would like to know why, 30 years after the bilingual system was instituted in the public service, the number of positions open to unilingual francophones—57 per cent of francophones in Canada do not speak English, and there are even more in Quebec, more than 60 per cent in fact—has been constantly decreasing.

º  (1635)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Reid, I think you should pay more attention to the percentage in that table rather than the absolute numbers. Why is that? Because when you look at the figures for 1978, there were 211,000 employees in the public service; today, there remain only 160,000.

    The public service has experienced massive downsizing. If you were to examine the percentage rather than the absolute number, which, to my mind, has no relation to reality, you will see that in 1978, 8 per cent of the public servants could be unilingual francophones, and in 2002, 15 years later, they represent 6 per cent. So the drop is not all that drastic. Among anglophones, the rate dropped from 60 per cent to 51 per cent. I think the percentages are more significant than the absolute numbers. That is the first thing.

    Secondly, I think that we must consider how the changes to the act in 1988 affected those figures. The designation of bilingual regions was added to the Official Languages Act in 1988, which must surely have had an impact in terms of the requirements for more bilingual staff in bilingual regions.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I accept the fact that the total number might be lower now than it was in 1978, but I still think that 6 per cent is less than 8 per cent, and there is no way around that.

    I have another question on the same theme. You said that 80 per cent of management positions are in bilingual regions and 20 per cent are in other parts of Canada. So they would be open to unilingual candidates. I would like to ask you exactly how many management positions are open to unilingual francophones and unilingual anglophones.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: By region? For the entire country? Only for administrative positions?

    Mr. Scott Reid: Yes, only for administrative positions.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: For unilingual anglophones? I'm sorry, was that your question?

    Mr. Scott Reid: Anglophones and francophones.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: For administrative positions, for the entire country, if I read this correctly, 10.9 per cent are unilingual anglophone and 0.5 per cent are unilingual francophone. Are those the correct statistics? Your question dealt only with administrative positions?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: Yes, administrative positions.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Do I have the right statistics? Yes, thank you.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that we can identify each of the regions in the country. Of course, there are more unilinguals in regions that are not designated bilingual, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The same applies to all of the positions in the public service. When we quote the 37 per cent of public service positions, if I look at British Columbia, they represent only 3 per cent, in Alberta, it is 4 per cent and in Saskatchewan, 3.8 per cent. Naturally, the percentages would be greater in bilingual regions, because of the bilingual requirements.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We had to break away earlier, just when things were getting interesting. I would like to come back to the answer you gave me last Thursday in the House, and ask you to elaborate on it. You told me:

The Bloc Québécois member should know that Canada Post, as a Crown corporation, is not subject to the same Treasury Board employer policies.

    And in your policy, you say:

The other institutions that are subject to the relevant provisions of the Official Languages Act must apply the fundamental principles...

    So there seems to be a discrepancy between the wording and the interpretation of the policy. I'm not sure if, in less than 30 seconds, you would respond differently, but since your policy states that the other institutions “must apply” rather than “draw on”—we rarely see the verb “must” in policies; rather, we see the term “may be based upon” or “may apply” but here, it says “must”—do you know who is responsible for monitoring the application of this policy in institutions? Who does the monitoring and how is it done? Do you have any tools for that purpose? Is the committee responsible for monitoring the enforcement of these requirements? Is it the Treasury Board Secretariat? Is it Ms. Copps? Is it Mr. Dion, the new coordinator? Who ensures that the institutions, the ones that are not covered by the policy, according to what you told me last Thursday—even though in writing they are—actually apply said policy? It's an easy question.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I will repeat. The principles are based on the legal obligations incumbent upon all of us, including the employer, and all institutions covered by the employer as well as federal institutions that are subject to the Official Languages Act. Therefore, the fact that everyone must apply the same principles arising from the act seems perfectly logical to me. It is up to Treasury Board to monitor the federal institutions to ensure that they are in compliance with the act.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A federal institution, of course, I should know that. But would this be a federal institution as defined in the act?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: According to the Official Languages Act.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Okay.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: According to the Official Languages Act, Mr. Sauvageau. It is up to the secretariat to do the monitoring.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But now, since you have given a deadline to the departments that are covered by the Public Service Employment Act, and since there does not seem to be a deadline for other institutions that must also apply the provisions of the act, what will you do about all of the ones that do not have a deadline, but must nevertheless respect the principles that are set out in your policy?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We are discussing principles. We are not talking about the policy in detail.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, we are discussing bilingualism only.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We are discussing the principle. We are not talking about all of the requirements, from a to z, that would be involved in the procedure and the fact that the president...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But what principles must they apply?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: ... said, that for the ones that are subject to Treasury Board regulations as employers, that March 31 was the deadline. That is something that involves my personal responsibilities as well as the institutions for which I am responsible, including the departments.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Fine. So don't drag me into discussing details on how the policy is applied. We are talking principles.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But I think that the details are important. Other institutions that are covered by the act must apply the fundamental principles of the existing policy. Do you personally feel that the basic principle of bilingualism is a detail?

    I must admit that if I...

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: It's that I...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Just a minute please, Madam Minister.

    If Mr. Ouellet were here instead of me, would you...?

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, please let me do my job. Go ahead.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

    If Mr. Ouellet were here instead of me, would you tell him that, because you are President of Treasury Board, he is not subject to the act, or, rather, would you not tell him that he must enforce the principles of your policy? Is he or is he not subject to the act?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: It's because we don't have the same definition of a principle. Do you understand? He must apply the principles.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I don't think, Mr. Sauvageau, that the fact that we have a March 31 deadline can be considered a principle. Do we agree on that?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Agreed. But how will you ensure...?

    Your policy applies to 4,000 EX-4s and EX-5s out of 60,000 bilingual employees. There are 60,000 positions that are designated bilingual. If we exclude the 37 per cent, there are 59,000 bilingual positions.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Are you talking about the linguistic requirements for members of an administrative group?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The linguistic requirements policy applies to about 4,000 or 3,000 EX-4s and EX-5s, is that not so?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: It applies to 3,000 people.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It applies to 3,000 people, and there are 59,000 positions that are designated bilingual. So it applies to 3,000 out of 59,000 people. As for the institutions over which you have no control, who just have to apply the principle, you say they do not have any deadline. Why not give them a deadline at the same time, or work with the coordinator, the person responsible for coordinating all that, Mr. Dion, so that there is a coordinated policy? Why not work with your other partners to enforce this policy?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: But we do work in cooperation with them.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What obligations do the institutions have to implement your policy?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: They must apply the principles.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.

    The Chair: Is that all right?

    I will continue in the same vein, Ms. Robillard. In the chart Mr. Reid drew to our attention, in your most recent report, the total number of civil servants had dropped considerably. You had noted that it had dropped from approximately 211,000 in 1978 to 160,000 in 2002. That represents a major change; I think it is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Am I correct in saying that this drop is probably what explains the difference of approximately 40,000 employees?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, you are correct, because the agency has become a separate employer.

    The Chair: Fine. I would like to briefly expand on that topic, because the agency's representatives have appeared before this committee, and I may be wrong in drawing a conclusion here, but some of us were not impressed by the agency's commitment to official languages. It is perhaps different for some regions. For example, I know that interesting things are happening in the Quebec region. But overall, at least based on their testimony, it did not look very impressive.

    I would like to know what audits Treasury Board plans to do on the agency. Am I correct in saying that the entire situation must be reviewed in a year? I believe there was to be a comprehensive, in-depth review of the agency five years after its creation. Does Treasury Board currently check to see whether the Official Languages Act is implemented and audit the principles and methodologies used by the agency?

    Ms. Diana Monnet: An audit is done every year. They give us a report on their activities and tell us what they have done to implement the Official Languages Act. I must say we work hard with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We have several promising pilot projects and we are very encouraged by their level of commitment.

    We have seen tremendous progress with regard to the working language in the Quebec region and the National Capital Region. We are doing some interesting work with them. We are doing a follow-up, as we do for all departments. So we review their figures, their reports, etc., as we do for the others.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Is there information you could share with the committee?

    Ms. Diana Monnet: What information?

    The Chair: Your most recent analyses of the agency's performance with regard to official languages.

    Ms. Diana Monnet: You always receive a copy of the annual report. We are expecting another at the beginning of the summer.

    The Chair: If I may, Ms. Monnet, I would suggest you reread the minutes of their appearance here about two months ago.

    As for the agency's managers, could you tell us what the current situation is? Have they applied any policy at the management level?

    Ms. Diana Monnet: We will provide you with the details later on. Since Treasury Board is not the employer, I do not have the numbers here with me.

    The Chair: You do not know them off hand?

    Ms. Diana Monnet: From memory, no. I'm sorry.

    The Chair: I anticipate these things.

    I have one last question, Ms. Robillard, if I may. On page 3 of your opening statement you mentioned language training and you talk about computerizing the training materials and making them available on the website. Does that mean that any Canadian would have access to these training materials?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We are talking about the language training that we provide our own employees, and basically, we want to review the way that we provide this training. We think that we could take the methodologies, and I could even say the pedagogical approach that we are currently using, much further.

    When we talk about computerized tools, we would also like to be able to develop tools to enable people who have taken courses and met their requirements to maintain these skills. There are tools to enable people to maintain their skills.

    Secondly, we realized in our language training that we had to review the methods used to teach one of the official languages to allophones, to those whose first language is neither English nor French.

    The Chair: I will ask my question again...

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: No, it will be strictly for our employees, won't it, Diana?

    Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes, at least at the beginning.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, in the beginning, we will use that. Now if these magnificent tools can be used elsewhere, why not?

    The Chair: So it will be an intranet site, if I understand correctly?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

    The Chair: So it would only be accessible to public servants, and probably to former public servants, unless the passwords change once the person leaves his or her job. Is that correct?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

    The Chair: My colleagues will perhaps feel that I am off topic, but I must admit that I have had representations from several Canadians who are a bit jealous that certain categories of Canadians, if I can put it that way, very young Canadians or newcomers, have access to language training. Many of these people would like to have the same free access to language training.

    So I have always wondered to what extent the Government of Canada, through its departments, its agencies, like Canadian Heritage or Treasury Board, could offer Canadian people computerized language training like that. If we are offering it to our employees via the Web, is this something the government could seriously consider offering all Canadians at some point?

    What kind of a constitutional quagmire are we getting involved in now?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, let's say that before I make any commitments whatsoever in this area, the Treasury Board Secretariat will have to reflect on the issue and analyze it from all angles.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Do colleagues want a third round? Okay, third round.

    Mr. Reid, you have two or three minutes.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: I want to ask you, Minister, about something a constituent has passed on to me. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the information, but it concerns French language training for public servants. I am told you only have three shots at trying to qualify, to demonstrate that you have a certain level of second language capacity. Is that correct or is that incorrect?

º  (1655)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Diana, could you answer that?

    Mrs. Diana Monnet: I believe it's incorrect. Perhaps someone here knows better.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm sorry. Did I hear someone say five or six times?

    Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

    Mr. Scott Reid: The other thing I am told is that it's not possible, after having taken a test, to get the tapes in order to examine and learn from the mistakes you've made, and I'm not sure if that's correct either. I'm trying to find out if you know if that would be correct or not.

    Mrs. Diana Monnet: There are feedback mechanisms. I know they will not give out the tape used for tests, because I don't think the test afterwards would preserve its validity. However, if a student takes the test and fails, they can request and receive detailed feedback on what the problems were, what they should be working on, and how they should better prepare for the next try.

    Mr. Scott Reid: So the point of not giving the tape back is that you don't want to have the particular questions invalidated for future use. Is that correct?

    Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You probably won't believe me, Ms. Robillard, but I think that I have understood what you were trying to explain about the principles, as to those people who must comply with the act and those who must comply with the principles. I understood you, but I just want to be absolutely certain that I understood correctly.

    So Canada Post is required only to comply with the principles of the language policy. Does complying with the principles mean waiting two years to send two managers into retirement, and sending three others who do not meet the bilingualism requirements on full-time language training?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: As you pointed out, federal institutions must first and foremost comply with the Official Languages Act. As for the policy on language requirements that apply to management, the principles must be applied to all managers, but may be adapted to account for a specific situation.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Let's take the example of a manager who is required to supervise bilingual employees but is unable to do so. Canada Post decides not to proceed with a horizontal transfer and leaves the manager in his or her position. However, this manager must ensure that the rights of all the employees he supervises are respected.

    A transitional measure could then apply. For example, another manager, who is bilingual, could supervise the employees even if the incumbent manager keeps the position and goes on language training.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you accept the principles whereby they can take two people and wait two years for them to retire, and take three others and send them on full-time language training, even though they had known for five years that they had to comply with the act since they incorporated it voluntarily—they were not forced to do so—into the action plan that they tabled as part of their annual action plan.

    So, the message you are sending to managers is that as to the regulation that stipulates that they must meet these requirements, you are lowering the bar and telling them that they must simply draw their inspiration from it and apply it as they see fit. Are those the principles that managers are to use?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: They must apply them and adapt them to their specific situations.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is very constraining. Thank you very much.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: That is exactly what is written in the policy.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

    The Chair: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank our colleague, Mr. Godin, for having tabled our fifth report in the House on our behalf. The report dealt with readjusting federal electoral boundaries. Our conclusion on the concept of official languages communities of interest does not seem to have been retained in the case of New Brunswick and Alberta.

    Secondly, committee members, our first meeting following the Easter adjournment will be in camera, and we will discuss future business, as well as adopt our report on immigration. We should not put that off indefinitely.

    Finally, I would not want to leave people listening today with an impression that is not the one we had following Canada Post's appearance. In fact, when they appeared last week, all members of the committee who were present agreed to congratulate Canada Post for the work the corporation has accomplished in terms of official languages. In their very comprehensive report, Canada Post representatives clearly explained the steps they were taking on a regular basis to comply with the act, and everyone around the table publicly agreed that it was a pleasure to hear from an organization such as Canada Post, as it takes the Official Languages Act to heart and enforces it.

    Having said that, thank you, Ms. Robillard, and see you next time.