THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:30 p.m. [ET] to study the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act, and to study minority-language health services.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Before we begin, I would like to invite the members of the committee present today to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, senatorial division of Mille Isles, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, Saint-Louis-de-Kent.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, senatorial division of Inkerman, Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: Welcome, colleagues.
[English]
I wish to welcome you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
This evening, we welcome the Honourable Anita Anand, President of the Treasury Board, to discuss the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Annual Report on Official Languages 2021-2022.
[English]
We also have the pleasure of welcoming Honourable Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, to discuss Canadian Heritage’s Annual Report on Official Languages 2021-22.
[Translation]
They are accompanied by an official from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
[English]
They are also accompanied by officials from Canadian Heritage. We have Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, and Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions.
[Translation]
Good evening, Madam Minister and Mr. Minister. Welcome. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks on your annual reports. I’m sure you’ll understand that members of the committee will have questions about the future. Congratulations on your new position. We look forward to hearing from you.
The floor is yours, Minister Anand.
Hon. Anita Anand, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you very much and good morning, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
[Translation]
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. With me today is Carsten Quell, Executive Director of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Centre of Excellence for Official Languages. Thank you, Carsten, for being here with me. It’s a great pleasure to appear before you today with my dear colleague, Minister Boissonnault.
Bilingualism has always been a priority for me, from a very early age. I was born in Kentville, Nova Scotia. My parents immigrated here from India. From an early age, I made an effort to learn the French language. My father often reminded me of the importance of learning French. I learned French at school, university and in immersion courses.
As a federal minister, speaking both official languages is not only a good thing to do; it’s a responsibility that we all, of course, take very seriously. That’s why I take courses regularly and remind my team to communicate with me in French so that I can continue to improve and speak in French.
In addition, I often tell public servants that they always have the choice of sending me documents in French or having briefing sessions in English or French.
I was a university professor before becoming a member of Parliament. When I was a professor, I didn’t have the opportunity to speak French. This is an excellent and effective opportunity for me to speak French in government, especially as President of the Treasury Board and in the context of Bill C-13.
When I was 17, like Minister Boissonnault, I took part in the Forum for Young Canadians. We weren’t there at the same time. This experience helped me a lot to speak both official languages and to understand the need to speak them when in the Senate or the House of Commons.
I’d now like to say a few words about Treasury Board’s mandate. It’s about guaranteeing a fundamental right for all Canadians: the right to receive services from the Government of Canada in the official language of their choice. I’m pleased to see that, over the years, the federal public service has become increasingly bilingual.
[English]
The modernized act expands the Treasury Board’s role to include the vitality of the English- and French-speaking minority communities, fostering both official languages in Canadian society in protecting and promoting the French language. In addition, this new law mandates me, as President of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, with a stronger leadership role when it comes to governing and implementing official languages across government.
I want to say that I take this role very seriously.
[Translation]
I’d like to point out that the modernized act strengthens bilingual leadership in the public service. My department is in the process of developing regulations that will provide a framework to ensure that we comply with the sections of the act. I will be working with Minister Boissonnault on this file, and will also involve all stakeholders.
[English]
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Canada’s official languages are a defining characteristic of who we are as a country. Now that might sound trite, but I want to say how seriously I take my role as President of the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
I met with the commissioner last week. We discussed this issue and reiterated that it’s a question of diversity and inclusion. It’s not just about official languages. We need to make sure that everyone can communicate and work in the language of their choice. So I’m here with those sentiments. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
But I want you to know how deeply committed I am to our two official languages and to the work that I can do with Bill C-13 with this work.
The Chair: Thank you very much, for your statement, Minister Anand. We will certainly have questions for you.
[Translation]
Before that, we’ll turn the floor over to the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, Minister of Official Languages. Minister, the floor is yours.
Hon. Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, I would also like to point out that we are gathered here on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
It’s a pleasure to be here with you. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to spend this time with you, along with my dear colleague and friend, the President of the Treasury Board. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I’m here with Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, and Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions.
[English]
I am honoured to appear before this committee in my new role as Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. I’ve shortened the title. It’s minister of jobs and official languages. I appreciate the value of this committee’s work in ensuring that Canada’s two official languages are respected and promoted.
[Translation]
As a Franco-Albertan, I know what it’s like to live, grow up and study in French, and to try to carve out a francophone, francophile, francocurious and francoqueer territory in Western Canada, Acadia or the Far North. It’s not easy, but we’re here because of the policies and processes that successive governments have put in place. I’d like, from the bottom of my heart, to make sure that Alberta and Canada’s francophonie can flourish and be enriched by the talent of more people across the country. I’m convinced it’s the same in official language minority communities from coast to coast.
As minister, I’m excited about my new responsibilities, and I’m going to devote all my energy to them. My priority will be to implement the modernization of Canada’s language regime. In September, I had the opportunity to highlight your committee’s contribution to this modernization, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your remarkable work.
[English]
On June 20, 2023, the Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages came into effect, and implementing the act will help us to support the French language throughout Canada, including in Quebec, and to enhance the prosperity and vitality of official language minority communities.
[Translation]
The act recognizes that francophone immigration is essential to help restore the demographic weight of francophones in minority communities, and the modernized act will increase our support for minority-language education, from the cradle onward, to ensure a true continuum of education.
Finally, the act includes new obligations for all federal institutions to take positive measures in favour of official languages.
Stakeholders and communities have welcomed our efforts to strengthen Part VII of the act. This is an excellent starting point, and I will be working with the President of the Treasury Board to develop the proposed regulations for the implementation of the act. I invite you to ask questions about this.
As Minister for Official Languages, I will also be overseeing the implementation of the 2023-2028 Action Plan for Official Languages. This action plan brings our investment in official languages to a historic $4.1 billion over five years. With this funding, our government will be able to advance the objectives of the act and support concrete projects in communities, such as francophone immigration, lifelong education and support for community organizations. The federal government must set an example. We all know here that our investments in official languages have concrete impacts in the communities.
We’re going to continue to do our job, because we’ve funded a number of school and community infrastructure projects, programs for minority-language education, job creation for young people, and so on. These are great achievements, and I’m going to make sure that this work continues with everyone’s cooperation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my very dear colleague alluded to an anecdote, so I’d like to conclude my remarks by saying that I was 15 years old. There was a teacher who piqued my curiosity and advised me to come to Ottawa to take part in the Forum for Young Canadians, which I did. My mother was afraid of this because she thought that if she put me on a plane I’d never want to come home again; she was half right. That said, the experience was memorable and fun. I wasn’t able to speak with half the delegates, because my French wasn’t good enough.
I went to study at Campus Saint-Jean and forced myself to learn the language of Molière. I couldn’t even put two sentences together when I started. I never thought I’d become Minister of Official Languages. So I’m a product of the system that’s been in place since 1968, even before I was born. So I’m very proud to be here as the conductor of this whole wonderful process to showcase our achievements in linguistic duality here. Thank you.
The Chair: We’ll now open the floor to questions. I would remind my colleagues that they will have five minutes per question, including the answer. I’ll ask the first question, if I may.
The main question I have about your new mandates is: Who, what and when?
In other words, when, for example, will orders-in-council be issued to ensure the implementation of the francophone immigration policy, the administrative monetary penalties regime, the order-in-council on the Act respecting the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses? How will you work together on these decrees? How will you collaborate, and who will do what, to ensure the development of regulations for the application of Part VII of the act?
So, how will you work together? This question is fundamental, it seems to me, to start the conversation. Once you’ve answered it, I’ll turn the floor over to the committee’s deputy chair, Senator Poirier.
Ms. Anand: I’d like to say that my responsibilities lie with public servants and federal institutions, especially with regard to Part VII of the act. I have two objectives regarding it. First, there’s the development of regulations for the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. This means we’ll have to adopt new regulations. New regulations to do what? To enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, ensure the substantive equality of English and French in Canadian society, and include language clauses in federal, provincial and territorial agreements.
This is the first part, the first objective of Part VII, in my opinion. So it’s a big project; it’s a framework, of course.
[English]
I would like to say that the development of this framework, in terms of timing, is under way and is expected to be in place in six to nine months. That is the timeline for that first part of the work under Part VII.
[Translation]
The second objective of Part VII is to develop an official languages accountability framework that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of federal institutions. That’s another very important thing. Adopting regulations takes time. For the accountability framework, we’re talking about six to nine months, while for the regulations, we’re talking about two to three years.
[English]
We are very dedicated to this task. I’ve been in place in this role since only the end of July, and within that time, I have not only met with my department to ensure that they are working very diligently on both the framework and the regulations, but also to ensure that we are working as expeditiously as possible. We know that there is specific and detailed work to do, especially with the regulations.
[Translation]
In order to do this work properly, we need to continue consultations, for example. That could take a year. After that, we have to follow the process with the Senate and the House of Commons; that’s another year.
We have a timetable. We’re responsible for the plan, so we’re going to do it. I want to assure you that we will.
[English]
Carsten Quell is with me, if he would like to say anything, but I don’t want to cut off my colleague either.
[Translation]
I’ll turn it over to my colleague Randy and then maybe to you, Carsten.
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a very nice overview, Madam Minister.
As far as my responsibilities are concerned, they involve putting in place the regulations for private companies under federal jurisdiction to determine the zone with a strong francophone presence, and also the regulations aimed at specifying the new powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. On this last point, I met with the commissioner. This is his job, and we’ll be discussing the powers he’ll have. After that, there’s a process to begin, and you can ask my colleagues Isabelle and Julie how hard I’m pushing for a timetable.
Colleagues, I’ve learned a few things from the bylaws: There are five stages, and I think it’s important for the record to list them briefly. First, there’s a pre-consultation phase: This is the work with stakeholders to identify regulatory options and develop those options. Secondly, there are broad consultations on the regulations: This includes tabling in the House of Commons, then in the Senate, and then publication in the Canada Gazette. Third, there’s the final approval phase before cabinet; this is very important, and comes into effect the next day. However, in the fourth phase — order-in-council — we have to take into account the evaluation of the regulatory work. Finally, for the fifth phase, there’s a process to undertake with Quebec, to see if it goes against their laws and regulations.
These five stages may require work lasting between six and nine months, but it will take two to three years to put all this in place.
The Chair: Thank you. We understand your duties well. However, as far as ways of collaborating are concerned, I think there’s still room for answers. I’m going to give the floor to the deputy chair, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to both ministers for being with us this evening. It’s greatly appreciated.
My first question is for Mr. Boissonnault. We have a concern about Bill C-13: the cost associated with full implementation of the new law. In his report on the estimated costs of Bill C-13, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the funding already allocated will not be sufficient to cover all the recurring costs arising from Bill C-13, and the commissioner is equally concerned about the amount of resources he himself needs. Have you done a comprehensive assessment of the funding required to fully implement Bill C-13? Are we going to see any funding in the upcoming new budget?
Mr. Boissonnault: On that last point, I can’t comment. I used to be associate minister of finance, and we never talk about what’s in the budget before it’s written or presented to the House of Commons. However, when I met with the commissioner, we had a frank conversation about everything he would like to see in the budget. This process was initiated with Deputy Minister Mondou and other colleagues to include all this in the budget request.
What’s important to note is that there is money in the action plan to modernize the act, such as a $20‑million fund allocated to Treasury Board itself. So, there will be a centre of expertise on Part VII, headed by the President of the Treasury Board. For example, in the area of immigration, there will be a centre of expertise in immigration; some $20 million will be allocated for its development. So we’re well aware that this will take time, human resources and commitments to the public. We are aware not only of the importance of Part VII and the role of Treasury Board, but also of a very important issue for everyone, which is immigration.
As for how the communities will receive the money — to answer Senator Cormier’s question — it’s my responsibility to look after these funds, which will go to the communities specifically.
I’m committed to improving funding for existing communities and organizations. But how are we going to make room for new organizations? That’s something I’m working on with the deputy minister and officials. We want to make sure that these improvements and new accesses meet needs. We have work to do not only with the FCFA, but also with the FCIC, to ensure that post-secondary institutions have access.
I’m also responsible for all agreements with the provinces and territories concerning community organizations and education. If I put on my other Minister of Employment hat, it’s from the cradle to the rocking chair, it doesn’t end at the post-secondary level. When people want to be trained in the language of their choice to access the workforce, we are responsible for this social development work. We have earmarked over $260 million over five years to do this work across the country.
The money will be there; as far as the budget is concerned, I’m putting the pressure on.
Ms. Anand: I’d like to add something quickly. The initial implementation work — the changes brought about by Bill C-13 — is already under way and using existing resources. We have an office — it’s Mr. Quell’s office, he’s the director — to implement Bill C-13.
If we need more money and other resources to implement Bill C-13, I’ll go get them, but right now, we have the resources we need.
Senator Poirier: My next question is for the Minister of Official Languages and concerns the immigration targets that should be announced shortly. The stakeholders are all of the same opinion and say that the government’s 6% target doesn’t go far enough; the FCFA and the commissioner are of the same opinion. Such a target will not halt the decline of French. As Minister of Official Languages, what do you think about the fact that the Commissioner of Official Languages doesn’t believe that 6% is enough?
Mr. Boissonnault: The announcement will be made on November 1. I’ve been working almost daily with Minister Miller on this issue, and I don’t want to reveal what he has in mind; it’s very important. We are committed to restoring the demographic weight of francophones in the country to that of 1971, which was 6.1%. I sat on the House of Commons Official Languages Committee as Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Joly. At the time, we’d barely reached the 1.5% target and were aiming for 4.4%. At the time, public servants told us it was impossible, that we should forget about it and that we’d never see it happen; yet we reached that target last year.
We put pressure on, we changed regulations and we changed the way Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada does its work in the field. I want two things — and I think Minister Miller would tell you the same thing if he were here: That the target be achievable and that we rebuild the demographic weight of francophones, which is very important. I don’t want a crazy, unattainable target, I want to do the real things that will prove to francophones across the country that we’re serious. I’ve seen a change in Edmonton, Calgary and the West: Our francophone immigration — which is diverse and comes from all over the world — has changed for the better how our communities function.
I want to restore that 6.1% weight.
Senator Poirier: May I put my name down for a second round?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Carignan: Thank you. My first question is for Minister Anand. I was reading the report and something struck me. I quote:
. . . according to the last report submitted, 91% of institutions stated that they communicate with the public in writing . . . nearly always in the official language chosen by the public, and 87% indicated that this was also the case for oral communications.
“Nearly always,” “self-evaluation.” You mentioned that you had taught at university, but I’m not sure you would have relied on the grade students gave themselves to assess the quality of their teaching. Do you think it’s enough that they rate themselves? Secondly, if 87% said “nearly always,” then that means it “never” happens in 13% of cases. Are we bilingual or not?
Ms. Anand: First of all, we’re asking institutions for proof. Secondly, it’s a way of continuing to assess usage and capacity. As far as ability is concerned, we know that 96% have the ability to speak French. The other thing is language use, and we want to keep increasing that figure. This is not a way about self-evaluation.
It’s always a responsibility of the deputy minister, of the leaders in the institutions, to continue to support the French language and to improve those numbers.
I’ll turn to Mr. Quell for further comment.
Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Centre of Excellence for Official Languages, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: You’re absolutely right. On the one hand, when federal institutions submit their balance sheets, they are required to provide supporting documentation. So they have to rely on the data they provide. Secondly, we have independent information on certain aspects of the law. For example, there’s the survey of federal public servants. We also ask questions about language of work in the reports.
When we compare the two, they don’t always correspond exactly. However, we can see that institutions are careful not to overestimate their capabilities.
I’d like to make one final point. When it says “nearly always,” it means that the next category is “very often.” We can’t assume that when an institution says it provides service in French “nearly always” 90% of the time — and therefore there’s no service for the other 10% — that it’s just another category where service is provided more often.
Senator Carignan: So, what I’m getting at is that the results of the employee survey do not necessarily correspond to the results of the institutional survey or the institution’s own assessment.
Mr. Quell: The opposite is true. Institutions are finding that there’s a shortfall when it comes to language of work. When we look at the results of the survey of federal public servants, we see that, yes, employees also see that the institutions are not the strongest.
Senator Carignan: That’s what I understand too. That’s what I also see with the institutions here.
Let me take you to the Rouleau Commission. I filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and that complaint is currently under investigation.
I also filed a complaint with the Privy Council Office, because that’s the office responsible for archives. Once again, we had a translation problem.
I sit on the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, where translation was requested, because the Rouleau Commission did not comply with the Official Languages Act and the hearings were not bilingual.
At the committee studying emergency measures, we’ve been completely blocked since June, because we haven’t received the translated bilingual documents, even though it’s a constitutional obligation to do so.
It’s hard for me to understand: It’s November and we still haven’t received the translation of documents or testimony that were submitted several months ago by an institution that, what’s more, has not complied with the law. The Privy Council Office is not respecting the law, and we don’t know when we’ll get the translation.
Can you tell us what’s going on with the translation and support system? We’ve never been so technologically advanced in terms of translation. I can’t understand it.
Can you assure me that the Hogue Commission won’t make the same mistakes as the Rouleau Commission?
Mr. Boissonnault: Let’s start in reverse. I’ll make a note of that as far as the Hogue Commission is concerned. It’s well noted.
As far as translation is concerned, demand is skyrocketing and continues to do so. We don’t use artificial intelligence for translation. It’s a job we want to keep in the hands of human beings. We use technology to make their job easier. However, as far as the Rouleau Commission is concerned, we’re talking about thousands of pages of documents, as you know, senator. That’s not an excuse; it’s simply a fact.
What you wanted, and what we wanted with the modernization of the Official Languages Act, is to have a central agency like Treasury Board, which is there to do this work. For my part, my job is to continue to make all the ministers responsible more accountable. We’re going to give the Commissioner of Official Languages additional powers to help with accountability. The Senate, the House of Commons and their committees have a duty to keep pushing the government to live up to the standards of a bilingual country.
Will we be perfect in law enforcement? I doubt it, but we’re here to do the job.
On the question of translation, Ms. Mondou, do you have any clarifications to add?
Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Actually, that’s a matter for the Privy Council Office, but we’ll be happy to follow up with them.
Senator Carignan: I just want to make sure I understand correctly. You’re not using any technological tools for translation.
Ms. Anand: I’d like to add a comment, because I testified before the Rouleau Commission for months. I spoke in French when I gave my testimony. Not everyone present did, but I decided it was very important to do so.
When I practised my lines, no one told me I had to speak in French during my remarks, but I decided to do so myself.
Senator Carignan: If I may, I’d like to add that 75% of the population didn’t understand you, because the notes you read in French weren’t translated into English. It’s appalling.
The Chair: I’d like to invite you all to bear in mind that the more we summarize the context of our questions, the more time there will be for answers.
I understand the meaning of your question, senator, and there’s no problem.
Senator Moncion: My first question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Francophone communities outside Quebec face significant barriers to accessing child care and early childhood development programs in their language. According to the Commission nationale des parents francophones, outside Quebec, only 20% of children entitled to French-language education are served in their language. In 80% of cases, parents opt for English-language child care services. As part of Canadian Heritage’s action plan, Employment and Social Development Canada is also responsible for a number of early childhood initiatives in minority communities.
Could you comment on the collaborative work being done between your two departments, particularly in terms of negotiating agreements with the provinces and territories, delivering programs and developing the implementation of legislation and policies concerning early childhood?
I’d just like to mention that the Ontario agreement has been signed. We know that the money will not be used to create child care spaces, but rather to level out wages. We knew that even before the work was done.
I’d like to hear your comments on these points, minister.
Mr. Boissonnault: Please note that I don’t have three jobs. I’m Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. Ms. St-Onge is Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I want to share with you that I’m not sure Ontario won’t do something about this. I met with Ontario’s Minister of Francophone Affairs and President of the Treasury Board, Ms. Mulroney. We had a very good conversation about daycare. We talked at length about the ”cradle-to-rocking chair education continuum.” Ms. Mulroney made it very clear to me that to ensure that our francophone population remains francophone, we need to support them with daycare.
Our colleague Ms. Sudds, who is the minister responsible for child care agreements with the provinces, is very focused on this issue. She’s a francophile, she speaks French very well, and she’s focused on this issue as part of the agreements to ensure that there will be child care spaces.
There’s a shortage of labour in the early childhood field. I’m seized with this issue, and when I’m renegotiating the workforce development agreements with the provinces and territories, I’ll be very clear with my colleagues that it’s not just a question of building housing and accommodation, it’s also a question of developing the training of people who work in the early childhood field.
We have invested $50 million in developing the capacity of French-language daycare centres across the country. This work is ongoing. I take the work of francizing our young people very seriously; I work closely with Mona Audet, from Manitoba, and with the Réseau pour le développement de l’alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC. They are also sensitive to the issue of ensuring that the “formal,” the “non-formal” and the “informal” inform us about the development of people from minority communities.
I’m seized with this issue, and so are my colleagues across the country. In fact, I’ve already met almost half of them. They’re seized with the issue, which is that we need more teachers and more daycare staff, because they want to see their francophone population grow.
Senator Moncion: One of the facts about daycare is that it’s the daycare workers who finance the network. We have this information and we’re talking about creating $10‑daycares.
If the money isn’t used to create $10-daycare spaces, how are you going to keep track of the money? How are you going to evaluate the success of this program if these follow-ups aren’t done, or if the money isn’t used for the reasons it was invested?
You’ve invested billions of dollars in this project, and we think it’s extremely important for the francophonie in Ontario.
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a rather blunt answer. Without accountability, if they don’t spend the money where it’s supposed to go, we don’t pay out all the money. It’s as simple as that. The provinces have to put the money not only into existing daycares, but also into creating new spaces, and a proportion negotiated with each province and territory has to be French-language spaces for young people. If these spaces don’t exist, it’s up to the provinces to fund the development of the spaces and the staff who will work in them.
We can help with salary funding, that’s one element, but we have to make sure that — It won’t be $10 immediately, because the provinces have up to five years to get there, and it’s different across the country. Minister Sudds and I are working on this, because it’s very important. I was slightly surprised by the willingness of the provinces to do this work on the ground. We’re going to continue to monitor initiatives in the field, including in Ontario. It’s important, because we’re talking about half of our francophonie outside Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, I have a question for Ms. Anand. You said that the public service was, in your opinion, increasingly francophone. I was quite surprised by this conclusion, of course. As my colleague said, it’s pretty hard to trust what public servants themselves say about their language use if you don’t have an independent source to back it up.
I want to bring up qualitative surveys, because the last major qualitative survey that was carried out at Global Affairs Canada showed that, despite all the good will and rules, those who spoke French had fewer promotions, because the French language is little used in meetings. In short, this was found not from internal data, but from external interviews on the real position of French in a department as important as Global Affairs Canada. I’m wondering how to really measure the space for French in the public service, which is, after all, one of the major axes for ensuring that francophones in minority situations can have services in their language.
Ms. Anand: I’ll start by giving you some more figures to explain the real situation in the public service. Firstly, there are more bilingual positions now. There were 42% in 2022, compared to 35% in 2000. More bilingual employees meet the language requirements of their position — 96% in 2022, compared to 83% in 2000. More positions require a higher level of bilingualism, almost 38% in 2022 compared to 25% previously.
So we’ve seen an improvement. That was the point. There are more and more people in the public service who speak French. With the regulations, we believe there will be about 700 new French-language offices — all in French. We will continue to see an improvement and an increase in French in the offices, with the public servants and with the people who speak French every day of their lives.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I don’t have a lot of time, so I appreciate that answer. I hope your optimism is justified.
I also wanted to ask Mr. Boissonnault a question about immigration. You said that the targets will soon be met. I’m wondering whether we’ll reach those targets, because immigration isn’t an easy file for the federal government, and the system is very slow. Now we want to go after francophones. For example, we know that when it comes to visitor stays, Africans from French-speaking countries wait much longer than Africans from English-speaking countries. How are you going to get through all this to ensure that francophones living outside Quebec really have support in terms of numbers? As you said, it makes all the difference. When you meet francophones across Canada, you see incredible diversity, and that’s really interesting. However, I must confess that I’m wondering how you’re going to achieve these targets, given all the difficulties we have in the public service in processing requests.
Mr. Boissonnault: If I may, Mr. Chair, I’d like to clarify something for the senator. Are we talking about immigration difficulties outside Quebec or inside Quebec?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I was referring to the processing of files in Canada.
Mr. Boissonnault: To my knowledge, and this is what I saw when I was a parliamentarian; the fact that we’ve gone from 1.5% to 4.4% in less than 10 years is an extraordinary achievement that proves just how much we can change the system. As far as I know, there was no question of any slowness in the processes that were undertaken before COVID, under normal conditions. I hear this a lot from public servants — I won’t talk too much about Mr. Miller’s file — but the government will have to be much more focused and creative if we really want to reach 6% more, for a threshold of 460,000 to 500,000 people. We’re talking about at least 30,000 people a year.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Boissonnault: You should know, colleagues, that this figure is for all of Canada. Quebec has its own responsibilities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course. I’m talking about Canada.
Mr. Boissonnault: You have to remove the percentage for Quebec, then indicate the percentage for the rest of the country. What we’re hearing from public servants is that if we want to go further, we’ll have to be more creative. I’m very pleased that the minister wants to go that far, because for me, restoring the demographic weight to 6.1% is very important. With our colleague, the Minister of the Treasury Board, who is going to make public servants accountable for their obligations under the law, and thanks to our work as a country, we can live up to our ambitions.
Ms. Anand: May I add something? Since my appointment, I’ve had to speak with public servants in French and English. I was in Calgary about three weeks ago and I asked the question: “What do you want to see in the public service?” Someone said to me: “I’d like to speak French here in Calgary, Alberta, and I’m concerned, because we need to continue to have resources here to learn French and have classes in French.” You’re right to ask that question. Thank you.
Mr. Boissonnault: Do I still have a few seconds?
The Chair: A few seconds, minister.
Mr. Boissonnault: If you think the figures show that public servants are moving forward, if money means more public servants and more work, I’ve got the figures. We’re going to have a francophone immigration centre of expertise; we’re going to invest $25 million in it. It’s very important and it’s new. We’re going to strengthen the integration process for francophone newcomers by investing $50 million across the country. I know, because I know the organization that works in this field in Edmonton and Calgary. We’re going to create a corridor to attract and recruit francophone teachers to work outside Quebec by investing $16 million.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Quebec won’t like that.
Mr. Boissonnault: Let’s be creative, dear colleagues.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m joking.
Mr. Boissonnault: If ever Quebec and Canada wanted to look for French-speaking immigrants together, it would be something very interesting for the country.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Senator Clement has the floor. There are a lot of expectations for the famous francophone immigration centre of expertise in my region. There are a lot of expectations and everyone wants to know how it’s going to work.
Senator Clement: Welcome, everyone. I’m very happy to see you this evening.
[English]
I want to tell you that I thank you for running for office, both of you. I know that you have been working for a long time on behalf of all Canadians, but your presence here in these roles, in these spaces, has special significance for many Canadians. Your presence speaks to representation, and I wanted to personally thank you for that.
[Translation]
My first question is for Minister Anand. I read the annual report with interest. I noticed that you put a lot of emphasis on best practices. Official languages obligations are managed through best practices in human resources, governance and oversight. Have the agencies and departments that have best practices adopted them on their own, or is there a guiding hand behind them?
How do you share successes between agencies and departments, apart from this report? Is it deliberate? How is it organized?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. First of all, I’d like to thank you for your initial comments. As I said in my remarks, it’s all about diversity. There are many types of diversity. There’s official languages, of course, but also being here as a member of Parliament, including being racialized, being a woman, being LGBTQ+, things like that. So I’m very grateful for your comments on that.
As for your other question, I’d like to say that it’s a process that establishes regulations and a framework. The framework is the principle, the way to continue to deliver services in French and support both official languages. The regulations define how this is to be done. I think that deputy ministers and ministers will have a role to play in establishing the rules for each department. I talk to my colleagues about having the freedom to establish what will work in their own departments. I don’t know if you have anything to add.
Mr. Quell: Thank you for the question. This process is almost like a cycle. Good practices don’t come from nowhere; they come from the fact that there are regulations and guidelines that we’re responsible for at Treasury Board, as the minister indicated. Secondly, we support some 200 institutions. We meet with them several times a year. There’s a forum that’s held once a year, a big forum where we discuss the new legislation, for example. After the support, there’s a monitoring process, which ends with reports — like the one you have — on official languages, reporting on the situation within the public service. This cycle allows us to encourage institutions to show initiative and dynamism in the area of official languages, which can be seen in the good practices listed in the annual report.
Ms. Anand: I’d like to add something. We can’t overlook the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who has a very important role to play. If there’s an institution that doesn’t respect the rules, he’ll mention it. Also, on the basis of these investigations, the commissioner can enter into compliance agreements or order, for example, a federal institution to take steps to remedy violations of the regulations. So I think we’ll see the commissioner playing a proactive role with federal organizations.
Senator Clement: I have a question for Minister Boissonnault.
One of the elements of Bill C-13 dealt with the need for bilingual messages in emergency situations. For example, the intensive firefighting across the country this summer was a good opportunity to put into practice the need for bilingual communications. How did you find the process? Have you learned any lessons, particularly from what happened this year?
Mr. Boissonnault: Absolutely. To clarify, I’ll ask Isabelle to say a few words.
Ms. Mondou: It’s been very useful, in fact. We worked closely with the commissioner to improve these practices. He himself established a link with the public safety people, who are often responsible for this work. They work very closely together, which didn’t happen in the past when there were these problems. Links have been forged, practices created and a legal obligation created too. We really were involved at all levels of intervention, and I think we saw the difference last summer.
Mr. Boissonnault: To follow up on what Minister Anand said, as the minister responsible, I saw how things were when Ms. Joly was in charge of official languages: There was less accountability on the part of all departments. Our common role is to hold all ministers accountable for their duties under the Official Languages Act, for the public service and for their services to the community. We have the right and the responsibility to convene, from time to time, the ministers responsible for hot and not-so-hot issues to get internal updates on their own efforts to keep the fire burning, so that they can really deliver on the modernization of the act.
The Chair: We’ll now move on to the second round of questions, but first I’d like to ask two questions, one concerning the Commissioner of Official Languages and the other concerning accountability.
[English]
In his 2022-23 annual report — and the first question is for Minister Anand — the Commissioner of Official Languages made several recommendations that concerned your role. In particular, he recommends that you work with your colleague — the Minister of Transportation — to develop tools and guidelines concerning the linguistic obligations of airport authorities. He recommends that you define, in an action plan, concrete ways of highlighting the place of official languages within the public service. Finally, he recommends that you implement your three-year action plan to ensure that federal institutions comply with section 91 of the act, which deals with staffing.
Have you paid any particular attention to Commissioner Théberge’s recommendations, in collaboration with the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez? If so, in what way?
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: As I said, I’m a law professor.
[English]
I have pulled out the act and I’m reading the act, and I have tabbed and underlined it.
[Translation]
You’re quite right, Mr. Chair. Of course, we have to follow the recommendations and talk with our colleagues, and I will continue to do so. The Department of Transport is a good example of an organization where we need more and more support for workers.
It’s an organization where we need to know the capacity in both official languages throughout the country.
I spoke with my esteemed colleague Minister Rodriguez, but it’s not just about him. As Senator Clement has already mentioned, we need to speak with all our colleagues.
The Chair: Good, thank you. My second question concerns accountability, and this is one of the major issues in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. How do you plan to manage the accountability of federal institutions for taking positive measures and including language provisions in agreements with provincial and territorial governments?
Who will manage data collection for these two elements of Part VII? Will it be Treasury Board or Canadian Heritage that reports annually on the implementation of these two elements? These questions are fundamental to ensuring proper accountability. I’d like to hear what you have to say on the subject.
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s a shared task, and Treasury Board has the primary responsibility. The work is shared according to the agreement with the departments. When we talk about education agreements, which I’m responsible for concluding through Canadian Heritage, it’s an accountability that must come from Canadian Heritage. Treasury Board will indicate that I’ve done my homework, and if not, Minister Anand will come to see me, to hold me to account. That’s how the modernized law works. It’s very important, because the community fought for 50 years to have this accountability to a central agent. Now we have it, and it will take time to find out exactly how it will work.
The commissioner can also impose fines, and he can slap us on the wrist if we don’t live up to our obligations. It’s very important to make sure that we have someone who’s accountable and that every minister is accountable.
Ms. Mondou: I’d like to add that the communities are very lucid in helping us to be accountable. It’s important that we, Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board, work together, because we listen to the community. When they have problems, they’ll talk to us. It’s really happening on all sides.
Ms. Anand: When federal institutions don’t comply with the law, we can decide to intervene, and we have tools at our disposal. These can be informal follow-ups, requests for specific information, external audits, formal directives, mandates to compel the institution to take corrective action, and even the withdrawal of an institution’s authority. So, there’s a lot we can do.
The Chair: We’ll now move on to the second round; we have about 25 minutes left.
Senator Poirier: My question is for the two ministers. More than two months after the cabinet changes, no mandate letter has been communicated to us. You recently met with the Commissioner of Official Languages. Can you share with us your three concrete priorities in terms of official languages?
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a very good question, and I can tell you that I don’t write the mandate letters; that’s the Prime Minister’s job. Our responsibility is to follow the mandate letters of our predecessors. I must first respond to the white papers and the modernization of the Official Languages Act that has been passed. My priority is to implement the act, and then to ensure the implementation of the action plan. Those are my three priorities.
Ms. Anand: For me, official languages are one of the pillars of Canadian identity and an essential part of our community. So, if we have a crisis on one side, we won’t forget our official languages priorities. We must continue to support both official languages in our country. I’m going to do it with my department, of course, but passing Bill C-13 is a goal, a crucial goal for our government. It is now law. So that means it’s an absolute priority for me.
Senator Carignan: The Commissioner of Official Languages made a report concerning the RCMP and indicated that the RCMP had violated the Official Languages Act, with supporting statistics. The commissioner determined that access to information requests made in French took longer to receive a response than requests made in English. This applied to the RCMP. However, have you seen this in other agencies or departments? In my opinion, there are two extremely important rights at stake: the right to information and the right to speak in one’s own language.
I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry for his briefing notes on the bill. I made my request in French, and was told that it would take 630 days to receive these notes. I asked myself this: If I had made my request for the briefing notes in English, would I have received them in 30 days? How much confidence should Canadians have when communicating with and submitting access to information requests to the government? Is what we’re seeing at the RCMP widespread in other government departments and agencies?
Mr. Boissonnault: Thank you for raising an issue that concerns me, namely agencies and departments that don’t meet their obligations under the law. I’ll repeat what I said in the House of Commons to an MP, Mr. Beaulieu: Bilingual positions must be filled by bilingual people.
As far as the RCMP is concerned, Minister Anand and I will have some work to do with this organization to ensure that it lives up to what is written in the law and what is intended in the law. When we talk about the ministers we’ll have to discuss this with, the Minister of Public Security, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs is one of them, and he knows it; he’s also lobbying for changes.
I’ll say it without your asking: Radio-Canada’s gaffe regarding a podcast is unacceptable. I love all the accents in Canada, and I want all Radio-Canada programs to be broadcast with contributions from Canadian francophones. I know that the Commons Official Languages Committee has asked that the CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada apologize for this.
As for the briefing notes, I’ll ask Ms. Mondou to respond. It’s unacceptable that it should take 630 days; I’ll ask Ms. Mondou to see how we can work with the Department of Innovation, Science and Industry to have a deadline that isn’t two years before giving these briefing notes to the senator.
Ms. Mondou: I’ll follow up with my colleagues to see what the problem is.
For my department, there’s no difference if you make the request in French or in English; the deadlines are the same.
Senator Carignan: [Technical difficulties] I would have been upset.
Ms. Mondou: I know; we’re setting the bar high, senator.
Senator Carignan: It would have been a tough late afternoon.
Senator Moncion: I really enjoy the discussion we have with you, because you give us interesting answers.
My question is for Ms. Anand. Can you share your views on the Quebec Community Groups Network’s perception that the Official Languages Act and the Charter of the French Language now create a framework where one linguistic minority is treated differently from another? How do you intend to monitor the effects of Bill C-13 on Quebec’s English-speaking communities?
Ms. Anand: We’re still emphasizing the need for everyone to work together. The modernization of the law is based on the equality of our two official languages.
I am committed to supporting the vitality of official language minority communities, including Quebec’s English-speaking communities. In addition, since 2005, Part VII of the Official Languages Act commits federal institutions to taking positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.
So, we have more work to do on this, but as I said, Bill C-13 now gives us a framework to ensure we continue this work. In consultation with Canadian Heritage, we will be working closely with the English and French communities to develop new regulations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question that comes a bit from left field. I used to sit on an advisory committee for the Commissioner of Official Languages, and I was somewhat alarmed to learn that the commissioner was not allowed to speak to anyone he wanted in the departments he was investigating.
There’s a decision made in departments X or Y to say, “Here’s who you talk to for this investigation.” Now, by definition, the ombudsman — and I once practised this profession — must have fairly broad powers to get to the truth.
This concerns you, since you’re here for official languages. I don’t know whether this kind of supervision or restrictions on freedom can help in the search for the truth.
Mr. Boissonnault: I can’t wait to see what powers the commissioner is going to put on his list and how much money he wants us to put on it. I want the commissioner to have access to ministers. If there are protocols in place and you have to go through an ombudsman rather than a minister’s office, that’s obviously an issue that needs to be looked at sooner rather than later. It’s an issue I’d share with Minister Anand, because there’s the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Let’s be clear: I want not only the letter of the law to be taken into account, but also the spirit of the law. If there’s a department that’s not up to the job, I want the commissioner to be able to report it without having to go through the ombudsman.
Ms. Anand, would you like to add anything?
Ms. Anand: I’ve already mentioned that I think the commissioner has been given greater powers to investigate and intervene. I’ve explained those two things. It’s possible, if necessary, that the commissioner will have the power to do things like that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can he talk to whomever he wants without asking permission?
Ms. Anand: He can look into what happened in a department, for example, investigate and then intervene.
Mr. Boissonnault: I think Deputy Minister Mondou has some clarifications to make.
Ms. Mondou: What I’ve been told is that there is often a resource person appointed to facilitate initial contact with the department. This does not mean that this contact person is the only person to whom the commissioner or his office should or can speak. The commissioner has the right to ask any questions he wants. The people who can answer the questions must be available. It’s more like a front door, because the commissioner doesn’t always know which door to knock on. This person is there to facilitate the process.
I receive and am aware of all the commissioner’s complaints. If there’s anything, he won’t hesitate to intervene with the deputy minister if he feels the department isn’t cooperating. Perhaps it’s more in that spirit, but we can validate this with him if there’s anything else, of course.
Mr. Boissonnault: If the commissioner ever feels threatened, offended or unhappy about this issue, he should discuss it with me directly.
[English]
Senator Clement: I want to take things in a different direction. I will start with Minister Anand. I noted in your opening statement comments around bilingualism. I believe the fact that this country has two official languages and has had that coexistence gives us a bit of a superpower around complexity, that we are comfortable with complexity.
I want to ask you about the report on the use of Indigenous languages in Canada’s public service. It’s the first inquiry of its kind into the scope and use of Indigenous languages in the public service. Because there is quite a survey — 59 survey teams — and 460 employees were found to use Indigenous languages in the workplace out of 2,557 employees. I wanted to know your thoughts on that report. What are you hearing about Indigenous Canadians’ presence in the public service, and how would you like to see Indigenous languages in the public service? I ask this question deliberately in this particular space.
Ms. Anand: Let me say first and foremost that the use of Indigenous languages is a significant asset to the Government of Canada. It follows the spirit of reconciliation, which we as a government want to continue to do.
The survey that you mentioned actually showed that in many departments, Indigenous languages are used to support the delivery of their organization’s mandate.
When I was the minister at Public Services and Procurement, for example, where the translation services reside, I saw first-hand the importance of Indigenous languages, interpreters, and the services that they are able to offer in the spirit of reconciliation but also to facilitate communications in our government and across the country.
The survey itself provided us with information about what expertise we have and what expertise is continued to be needed in order to contribute to developing options to support Indigenous language capacity in the federal public service.
We will continue to look for ways to support the Indigenous languages aspect that, as I said, resides at PSPC, but it is something that we as a government take very seriously.
Mr. Boissonnault: I just to want share that I worked on this when I was a parliamentary secretary with Minister Joly. We had an uphill battle to preserve and enhance Indigenous languages. We did that from the fundamental perspective of preserving linguistic duality and understanding it was a fundamental responsibility for us as a government that was taking a hard look at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we now passed. This is how we walked the spirit of reconciliation.
If I can speak Cree for a minute, I would say, “Tansi tawow,” which is welcome and hello. Then I’d say my Cree name, which is “Strong Eagle Man.” It is not because of the shape of my nose. It is because the great people who provided me with the eagle feather said, “You go back and forth to Ottawa every week from Edmonton. Like the eagle, you see what’s going to happen to the community before it happens to us.” You have a responsibility to take care of the community.
Today, because I was at the Inuit/Government of Canada table, right now, today in Montreal, are 100 people from Nunavut working to preserve and enhance Inuktitut. Why are they in Montreal and not Iqaluit? It is because there are not 100 rooms available because the territory is so busy right now. That meeting comes directly from the work we did, and I think it is fundamental.
Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Canadian Heritage: From the very beginning, when we appeared at this committee in June in the lead up to the royal sanction, it was an important issue that was raised that recognition of official languages shouldn’t compromise the vitality and the revitalization of Indigenous languages.
[Translation]
We’re keeping up the momentum. We’re working closely with our colleagues who deal with Indigenous languages at Canadian Heritage, in the same department. We will continue to find ways to support the development of these languages along with official languages.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m going to ask a follow-up question and make a comment on this issue. I had the privilege of going to Nunavut and discovering that in that territory, there are three official languages. There are enormous challenges in terms of the federal government’s responsibility to deliver services in Inuktitut in this region. I want to bring this to your attention. It’s extremely important. The Commissioner of Official Languages over there has been quite clear on this issue: The federal government should have this responsibility. It’s not doing it the way it should. That’s my comment.
Honourable senators, if you have no further questions, I’m going to conclude with two questions. If there’s a question you’re dying to ask, I’ll give you time to ask it.
Senator Carignan: It’s just a comment. You talked about immigration and teacher recruitment. Last week, I was in Winnipeg at the conference of the Fédération des enseignants francophones du Canada. I was approached by a teacher from the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa, who said: “If you see the Minister of Canadian Heritage — I know you see Pascale, whom I know well, but you see her more often than I do. Pass on this message: There’s a big problem with principal recruitment. If you don’t deal with it, the system will crash.” So I became the messenger. She was an expert, so I gather it’s urgent.
The Chair: I have two final questions. Part VII is extremely important for the vitality of official language minority communities. There is a project to set up a centre for the purpose of strengthening Part VII. I’d like to know more about this centre. How will it work? Who will manage it? What role will it play? Will Treasury Board manage it? It’s an instrument that could be decisive for the implementation of the law. It’s important that you tell us where you stand on this issue.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, this is somewhat related to the roles and responsibilities we have. We each have an important statutory role under Part VII. Treasury Board will play a crucial role. The minister talked about the regulations, but there are also follow-ups to be made in relation to the regulations and implementation. The centre of expertise will help us in this regard.
The Department of Canadian Heritage will have a role to play. As the senator said, the department must approach the communities to find out what their needs are and continue to promote Part VII, because of our role as promoter and conductor. In fact, the ministers may consider writing to all the other ministers to remind them of what has changed thanks to this bill, which has really raised the bar considerably. All departments really need to understand this. The centre of expertise will work hand in hand with Treasury Board, because they each have their respective responsibilities.
The Chair: What other governance mechanism will be put in place to ensure implementation of the law? I know this is a complex question. We’re trying to understand it, and that’s what the communities are asking us too. We’re trying to understand the system, the organization of work and the tools the government will use to implement the law. Are there other mechanisms we should be aware of?
Ms. Mondou: Obviously, as the minister mentioned, the first mechanism is that now, with a regulation — For years, people complained about the vagueness of obligations. With the law and regulations, we’ve already remedied this problem, because when things are vague, people tend to forget their obligations more often. Now, with the regulations, things will be much more precise. It’s something the commissioner will be able to monitor. The commissioner will be able to check whether departments have followed the steps required by law: Have they consulted? Have they sought to implement mitigation measures? Have they examined the impact on communities? The commissioner will have a role to play in this respect.
As for other mechanisms, we already have interdepartmental tables, which were effective, but which will be strengthened, because Treasury Board has a responsibility rather than discretionary power. These will become tables where we can have good conversations about what’s working and what’s not.
The Chair: Will the deputy ministers be at these tables?
Ms. Mondou: I’m at this table with my Treasury Board colleagues. We invite the deputy ministers according to the topic of the day, much as the minister does with the ministers. Finally, the minister mentioned that the two ministers won’t hesitate to propose meetings with their colleagues if they see that things aren’t working as they should for Part VII. It’s a set of measures that have a cumulative effect in relation to the change and seriousness with which Part VII will be treated.
The Chair: Okay. I had one last question, but I’ll leave it for you to think about. Shouldn’t there be a government-wide strategy to boost bilingualism in the public service? You have some weighty responsibilities, ministers. Thank you very much for your presentation this evening and for this conversation. Rest assured that we will continue to follow your work. You can count on us at all times. Thank you very much.
With that, we’ll conclude the meeting, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)