LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

¹

1550

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

Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)

Ms. Jill LaRose (Director General, Strategic Branch Management and Programs Support Directorate, Human Resources Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)

¹

1555

º

1600

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

º

1615

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1620

Ms. Suzanne Routhier (Acting Director, Official Languages Division, Strategic Branch Management and Program Support Directorate, Human Resources Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

º

1625

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Brian Brimble (Director General, Operational Policy and Coordination Directorate, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)

º

1630

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

º

1635

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

º

1640

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1645

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

º

1650

Ms. Jill LaRose

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Jill LaRose

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Jill LaRose

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

Ms. Suzanne Routhier

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Ms. Jill LaRose

The Chair

Mr. Denis Lefebvre

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, today we will hear from officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We apologize for the delay, but since the session began in January, it has not been easy because of problems with the scheduling of committees. Several of our members are also on other committees that are sitting at this very moment, which is why we have not yet solved the problem. We are trying to, but it is not easy.

    Today, we will hear from Mr. Denis Lefebvre, Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch; Ms. Suzanne Routhier, Acting Director, Official Languages Division; Ms. Jill LaRose, Director General, Strategic Branch Management and Programs Support Directorate, Human Resources Branch; and Mr. Brian Brimble, Director General, Operational Policy and Coordination Directorate.

    I don't know which one of you will begin, but I would ask you to direct traffic at your end of the table; I will do the same around the table as a whole. You have about 10 minutes, perhaps more, if need be. We will then move on to questions. Please go ahead.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Today, Ms. Jill LaRose, who is responsible, with Ms. Routhier, for the Agency's Official Languages Program, will begin with a general presentation. I will then continue with more detailed information with regard to the customs program, for which I am responsible, because I think the committee today is particularly interested in the customs program. Therefore, if the committee does not mind, Ms. LaRose will begin.

    Ms. Jill LaRose (Director General, Strategic Branch Management and Programs Support Directorate, Human Resources Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre, and thank you, committee members, for giving me the opportunity to be here today.

    We have a brief presentation. I believe there are copies for everyone. I will begin as Mr. Lefebvre said, by giving you a brief snapshot of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's Program.

    On page 1 of our brief, we present a few salient points concerning our working environment. As you no doubt know, we have nearly 50 000 employees in 750 service points across Canada at peak periods. We also receive nearly 28 million requests for information from the public every year, and we pay out over $11 billion in benefits and credit payments to over 10 million eligible Canadian recipients.

    On the next page, you will see that the CCRA's Web site receives nearly 5 million hits each month during peak tax season and that we process over 23 million individual and trust tax returns and nearly 2 million corporate tax returns. Further, over 100 million travellers enter Canada every year and nearly 11 million customs commercial releases are made. All this indicates that we interact with Canadians on many levels every year; that is the scope of our organization.

    On page 4, we speak of the Official Languages Program and our obligations. We fall under the Official Languages Act and also under our own legislation, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, which repeats and reinforces this obligation.

    We also fall under Treasury Board policies. We apply the same policies. We produce an annual report for Treasury Board, as well as an annual report to Parliament, on the performance of the agency in all kinds of areas, including, of course, our performance with regard to the Official Languages Program.

    On page 5, we speak briefly to our commitment to the Official Languages Program, beginning with our mission statement, and our strategic objectives, which focus on providing Canadians with quality service and on the importance of communication with our clients. We also have a clients' rights declaration and a manager's charter; both deal with communication with our clients, the Canadian public, in both languages.

    As for the responsibilities of executives, all CCRA executives have specific obligations with regard to official languages and their performance objectives. These expectations are considered for performance pay, or “at risk” compensation, as we now call it.

    In the introduction of our annual report on official languages, last year, our commissioner and the deputy commissioner spelled out their commitment to the program by stating:

Together with our management team, we are determined to move forward and ensure that noticeable and sustained progress is made to achieve our official languages objectives.

    This message was sent directly to each executive.

    On the next page, which regards monitoring, we have a list of mechanisms and measures to ensure that the program is duly applied and managed well.

¹  (1555)  

    I have already mentioned our annual performance report to Parliament, and we also conduct client satisfaction surveys, which include questions on service in both official languages. We use a balanced scorecard approach, which is a systematic method for monitoring our performance in a host of management areas, including, among others, finances, and of course, official languages. We have a number of monitoring mechanisms in place; however, we are currently developing a comprehensive monitoring framework for our program.

    On page 7, we talk about monitoring. We undergo external audits by Treasury Board Secretariat and the Commissioner of Official Languages, and we conduct internal audits. We also carry out studies. Complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages are another way of monitoring program management, and our managers are also responsible for an annual planning and reporting process which includes their plans to meet linguistic requirements. We have a network of functional, regional and local coordinators who work with managers and with us to solve problems and improve our performance under this program. Moreover, each manager monitors his or her own performance and makes changes as required.

    Let's now turn to page 8. Even though we feel that our performance in this program is good, last year, we conducted a diagnostic, or an extensive study, to take an in-depth look at our program management. The results of this review were presented to the management committee last year. Of course, it demonstrated both our strength and our weaknesses.

    Following the presentation, the commissioner and our management committee called for the development of an action plan. We have developed the action plan, and we are now in the process of delivering it.

[English]

    On page 9, to give you an indication of some of the areas in our action plan we are working on, we have appointed champions for official languages at the national level, at the regional level, and in our branches, and we've now created a network of champions, who provide advice, support, and guidance for the program. We have a number of interesting pilot projects under way, some in partnership with other organizations, including Treasury Board and Citizenship and Immigration, and with support from the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have developed kits of information for managers and distributed those broadly across the organization. We use our internal website, which we call Infozone. We have an official languages site on which all policies, best practices, and helpful information can be found, so that it's broadly shared. We provide some specialized language training, certainly for customs officers, and perhaps Mr. Lefebvre will talk about that a bit later, and we are continuing to look at our whole approach to language training to ensure that we're doing the best job we can in that regard.

    So that's just a brief overview of the official languages program at CCRA. I would just like to close my part of the presentation by saying we take our responsibilities in this regard very seriously. I think we do a good job, which isn't to say we don't have some issues to deal with and problems to resolve. When we identify those problems or issues, we do try to correct them quickly and find solutions to meet all the needs.

    With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Lefebvre to continue.

º  (1600)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Thank you, Jill.

    I invite committee members to turn to page 14, as the following pages are a bit repetitive. On page 14 and subsequent pages, we talk more specifically about our customs program. Jill mentioned that during the tax season, we employ some 50,000 people at the agency. More than 9,000 of them are assigned to the customs program, including 3,794 customs inspectors, in other words, our officers in uniform.

    On page 15, you will see that in 2001-2002, we processed 102 million travellers who entered Canada. This is done 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, either at a land border point or an airport, for all means of transportation obviously, and also using alternative release methods.

    On page 16, we have broken travellers down by region. We have the Atlantic region, Quebec, the Pacific region, in other words British Columbia, the Prairies, and we divide Ontario into southern Ontario, which is SOR, and northern Ontario, which is NOR. Northern Ontario is essentially Ottawa and ports around Sault Ste. Marie and Fort Francis. We have 10 international airports that include 12 terminals, because there are 3 terminals in Toronto.

    On page 17 we have broken travellers down by airport.

    We have three types of land border sites: large, medium and small ports of entry, which are often staffed by a single inspector.

    On page 18, you have the list of the 10 busiest land border sites, as well as the number of travellers entering through these sites each year.

    We have some 500 points of service, including small airports that we serve to enable people to enter Canada directly. There are also some marinas where we do customs release for people who are coming in by pleasure craft. In these 500 points of service, we have 153 bilingual offices and some 1,400 employees in bilingual positions. Seventy-seven per cent of these employees meet the language requirements of their position. In 2001-2002, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages received 24 complaints regarding service in one official language or the other.

    Turning to page 20, we talk about our automated customs information system that offers different types of services to our clients. We obviously have bilingual signs to direct traffic at the ports of entry, as well as in airports, to direct people to the booth staffed by a bilingual officer.

    We work closely with the Commissioner of Official Languages and her office to improve bilingual services, especially in the southern Ontario region, where problems have been identified and have been ongoing for a number of years.

º  (1605)  

    The problems we have encountered in southern Ontario—and I am referring here to page 21, are in part due to the shifts involved. Sometimes, even if we can recruit a number of customs inspectors, spreading them over three shifts so that there are enough bilingual officers at all times can be difficult.

    As a result, we implemented pilot projects in conjunction with the OCOL, and we have attempted to find new ways of actively offering services to our clients. One of these projects is carried out at Rainbow Bridge, in Niagara Falls, and another at the D&C Tunnel in Windsor, from May to October 2002. We are trying to ensure the availability of bilingual service to travellers at all times.

    Moreover, in southern Ontario, we have moved up training sessions for bilingual employees so that they adopt an active way of offering services and to help bilingual employees to retain their bilingual level, especially in Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Windsor-St. Clair. We have also stepped up our recruitment, and we publish newspaper advertisements in both official languages in order to recruit bilingual people from outside the area immediately around the ports of entry.

    Retaining these employees, however, remains a problem. In fact, when these people get a job in these offices, they often quickly request a transfer to work in offices that are closer to their region of origin.

    On page 23, I mentioned that we placed advertisements in newspapers and publications that seemed the most likely to interest candidates from other regions. In doing so we wanted to broaden the pool of candidates and recruit francophones, especially for southern Ontario.

    Using external recruitment, our challenge is to attract enough bilingual employees to areas such as southern Ontario, and of course to the airports in Toronto, and Vancouver, so that we can continue to provide the services required of us. When we are successful in doing so, we then need to keep these employees in these places, since that is where we need them.

    Providing service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is a challenge for us. As I mentioned, we do not want to penalize bilingual employees. For example, to ensure bilingual service during the night shift when there are only two or three employees on duty, we do not want to penalize bilingual employees by requiring them to always work nights. They must also have an opportunity to work the day shift.

    So in order to have employees at the booth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would almost be necessary for all employees—there are about 500 in southern Ontario, around Windsor, and another large number...

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: I will ask you to conclude, Mr. Lefebvre.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Yes, I'm almost there; I am on the last page and the last point. We use several means, including training and recruitment, to fulfil our mandate in the best way possible.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, you have 7 to 10 minutes, given that there are not many of us.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Fine, thank you.

    Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. To begin with, I would like to ask you a few questions that you may not be able to answer immediately. However, if possible, I would appreciate it if you could send us that information through the clerk.

    On page 19 of your brief, one of your slides states that 77 per cent of employees meet the language requirements of their position, in other words, positions designated as bilingual. Therefore you have statistics. Could you send us information on the number of unilingual francophone employees working for Customs and Excise Canada? Could you also tell us what you expect to do with the 23 per cent who do not meet the requirements of their position, given that Ms. Robillard has probably given you a deadline of March 31, 2003, as she has done with all of the federal public service. I would like to know what you will be doing about that. But I will ask you to answer at the end, because I have a more important and more interesting issue to discuss with you; I appreciate having 10 minutes to speak.

    I will cover it quickly and I will ask you for your position or opinion on what I am about to tell you. I asked the person who sent me this letter for permission to read it in public; he accepted. The issue will then be yours. I will start reading. In his first letter, dated October 28, 2001, he writes:

I would like to tell you about the arrogant and contemptuous way in which I was treated by Canadian customs officers at the Lansdowne border crossing in Ontario on Thursday, October 25, 2001, around 6:30 p.m., for having insisted on being served in French.

    I will skip over some parts because it would be too long otherwise.

...I stopped at the customs wicket with my load, turned off my engine and handed in my documents...

When she was stamping my documents, she told me in rather approximate French that if I wanted to continue in French she would have to send me to inspection...

    We're talking about a heavy-truck driver.

...because she was not bilingual. I was surprised because my load had been cleared through customs and I told her that I did not agree, that I wanted to be served in French at the wicket as an anglophone would be served in his language, and that this was discriminatory[...]. She answered that I had no choice and that I would have to comply. I refused, she panicked, closed the window, and called for help over her radio. Yes, sir, three customs officers and two OPP police officers came to help.

The three customs officers went into the wicket with the customs officer. Only one spoke French, customs officer No. 11276.

    Further on he writes:

So No. 11276 tells me in French that I have to go to inspection to finish the transaction in French.

    Later, the person said he wanted to lodge a complaint, and he was told that there was no complaints procedure and that if he wanted to complain, he should call his member of Parliament.

    That is why I received this letter.

Supervisor No. 11272, a unilingual anglophone, told me that he would lodge a complaint against me with my employer...

    I met this gentlemen and he is not violent, or excitable, or anything of the kind. On November 15, 2001, I sent this letter to the minister at the time, Mr. Cauchon. Five months later, in April, 2002, we received a reply from Ms. Caplan, who was the new minister. It said:

CCRA officials for the northern Ontario region have investigated the circumstances surrounding your constituent's clearance through customs and have concluded that the service that was offered complied with the Official Languages Act...

    This letter was signed by Ms. Caplan, and it stated that when Mr. Corbeil arrived at the border crossing, wicket No. 5 was designated as the bilingual wicket but that he went to wicket No. 7. But when you have a tractor-trailer truck, you go to wicket No. 5. Wicket No. 5 was for tractor-trailer trucks and No. 7 was for cars. He couldn't get to wicket No. 5 with his truck, and he therefore chose the one he could get through. Further on, in the letter signed by Ms. Caplan, it says:

There is not a sufficient number of bilingual officers at Lansdowne to be able to provide a service in both official languages in all lanes at all times.

    She ends with that.

    Mr. Corbeil says that he does not agree with that reply and he also says, even more interestingly:

Here is a brief summary of the events that occurred on December 13, 2002 at the Lansdowne, Ontario, border crossing. At around 5:30 p.m., I go to wicket No. 5, the wicket designated as bilingual and identified as such, following Ms. Caplan's recommendations...

    This time he goes with the minister's letter.

I give the customs officer the document for my load and say "Bonsoir" [...]. The customs officer replies abruptly "I don't speak French".

I then insist on being served in French...

    I will conclude by saying that after 1 hour and 15 minutes, after having gone through inspection because he insisted on being served in French, he was able to leave. It took 1 hour and 15 minutes because he was francophone.

    Can you explain this?

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: At first blush, what happened is deplorable. According to the rules that unilingual anglophone employees must follow, if by mistake or for any other reason travellers go to a unilingual wicket when there is another bilingual wicket, they must be told very politely: "One minute, please": and the service must be provided. Let us broaden the debate somewhat. If this were in an airport...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like you to be brief because I have other comments and I only have 10 minutes. I would like to have an answer on this particular case, if possible, and not a description of the Canadian government's general philosophy on bilingualism.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Under our policy, when someone goes to a unilingual wicket, the employee must take the traveller to the front of the line at a bilingual wicket. This is possible in an airport, but not necessarily when you have an 18-wheel truck.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, but he was at the wicket identified as bilingual.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: But the first time he went to a unilingual wicket.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: He went to a bilingual wicket both times. The minister told him in her reply that he was at a unilingual wicket, but that was false. He went to a bilingual wicket both times.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Then, at a bilingual wicket, there must be someone able to provide service in both languages. Nobody should be made to wait an hour and 15 minutes because they want to speak French at a bilingual wicket. I will look into this situation again. We looked into it the first time.

    Given what I mentioned earlier, we can't always have bilingual staff at wickets, but the service must be provided. If it is provided at a second place, the person in question should not, in going to that second place, have to be cross-examined. The service should simply be provided.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Both times, his load had been cleared through customs. But the second time, even though he had been cleared, because he went to the wicket, a one-hour and fifteen-minute inspection was done on his truck because he was francophone. The answer I obtained in 2002 was this:

Officials [...] have investigated the circumstances surrounding your constituent's clearance through customs and have concluded that the service that was provided to him complied with the Official Languages Act and with CCRA's policy.

    Are you telling me all is normal?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: What I am telling you is that if someone has been cleared, normally they should be able to leave.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: He can just leave. There's no more conversation necessary if he has cleared customs. He can leave. If he was sent to the next step, it's most likely because the release was not given.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Surely you know how it works. In some places, there are unilingual anglophone officers who are extremely friendly, who give him the phone and who do the transfer by telephone. It's all done very easily. This driver, who travels regularly and who works for a company that does transport regularly told me that the problem keeps reoccurring at the Lansdowne border crossing in Ontario. Can you tell me whether you will pay special attention to this border crossing and to officers 11276 and 11272 so that they will apologize to this gentleman? In my opinion, he deserves an apology. There were two OPP officers with their hands on their revolvers to deal with a francophone citizen. His only crime was being francophone. I'd appreciate it if he received a letter that stated not that after investigation, there was compliance with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency policy, but one that offers an apology for the way he was treated because he was francophone.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I will give the matter special attention.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As well as to the Lansdowne border crossing.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: That's right.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I thank you very much.

    Ms. Routhier, would you like to tell us about what you would intend to do with the 23 per cent of employees who do not meet the language requirements of their positions? Will they be bilingual in two months?

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier (Acting Director, Official Languages Division, Strategic Branch Management and Program Support Directorate, Human Resources Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): I must admit that we are experiencing problems right now with regard to the agency's bilingual capacity. We are currently examining ways to remedy this situation through language training, for example. That's one of the reasons why we are reviewing the approach we use to provide service. We're also reviewing our approach to funds allocated for training.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good afternoon. Thank you for being here, ladies and gentlemen.

    The Chair: I went over 10 minutes.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very much.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: First of all, I would refer you to page 14 of the document you brought with you. There's something I find quite amusing here. You say there are 9,675 employees. If I understand this correctly, in the Quebec region, there are 1,370 employees of whom 1,384 are bilingual. There are 14 who must do the work of two people in there somewhere. I just thought I'd mention that in passing.

    On page 19 it's more serious. You state that in 2000-2001, there were 27 official complaints. The Official Languages Commissioner's table that I have here tells me that there were 52 and that there were 26 the following year, in 2001-2002, whereas you indicate 24. But what concerns me even more is what follows. I have here the figures for 1999-2000. It says there were 12 well-founded complaints. In 2000-2001, there were 52 well-founded complaints and in 2001-2002 there were 26. What happened from 1999 to 2000 that made the number of well-founded complaints rise from 12 to 52, as reported by the Official Languages Commissioner?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Could I ask for a point of clarification? Are you referring to complaints concerning service to the public only?

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: "Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: complaints filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages since 1999".

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: That's for the agency as a whole. I did not bring information regarding 1999-2000. I would have to...

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Only 12.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I find that surprising.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: In 2000, it goes up to 52. The number of complaints has increased almost fivefold.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I've been with the Official Languages Division for several years. I've been in this position since December 1998. The number of complaints in 1999 and 2000 was actually higher than 12. Therefore, I'd have to go back and check my documents to understand this.

    According to the information we have here, in 2000-2001, we received 64 complaints of which 50 were well founded. In 2001-2002, there were 57 complaints or which 26 were well founded, and the number keeps going down from one year to the next.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Yes, it goes down from 2000 to 2001, but from 1999 to 2000 it certainly rose dramatically.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I don't have the answer here today.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Allow me to add that a single complaint is one complaint too many, but we still have to consider the context. We have 102 million travellers and over 30 million taxpayers who have to file a tax return and to whom we provide service. Once again, one complaint is one too many, but it's not a large number.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Lefebvre, earlier you stated that if I arrive at an airport and the officer who sees me is anglophone, I can demand to deal with a francophone officer and I will be brought to a line that says "bilingual". Is that in fact what you said?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Yes.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: But what happens when there is no bilingual line at the Toronto Airport?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: There is always a bilingual line at the Toronto Airport. We have a presence in two or three international airports and I'm told that there's always at least one bilingual line.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It does say "bilingual line", but it's not lit up and there's no one at the wicket. That happened to me personally. I was able to observe that. When you arrive from overseas at night and tired, you really would prefer to get service in your own language. I'm perfectly bilingual, but when you're tired, that's another matter.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I was told that in Toronto there was a bilingual officer present at all times. If that's not the case—I can imagine it might happen if the person is on sick leave or if there's some other reason for their absence—someone from secondary should immediately be brought in to help the traveller through customs.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: For the time being, let me give the floor to someone else.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Lefebvre, what is the percentage of unilingual and bilingual employees at the border in Niagara, Windsor and Hamilton?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I will give you those figures, Mr. Bryden, but I do not have them with me now.

    Mr. John Bryden: I am interested because it is my region.

    The Chair: Certainly. Please send them to the committee clerk so that we can distribute them to all the members.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Agreed.

    Mr. John Bryden: What kind of training sessions do you provide for unilingual and bilingual employees so they can improve their French?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Mr. Brimble will answer this question.

    Mr. John Bryden: Are the courses prepared in the local schools, for instance at Brock University? I wonder whether schools and other institutions participate in providing training services to unilingual and bilingual employees.

    Mr. Brian Brimble (Director General, Operational Policy and Coordination Directorate, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Generally, we hire our own teachers to give courses in our offices, but our policy is also to give training in universities or high schools to those who wish to continue the courses and improve their language skills.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Bryden: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether there are problems, for instance in Hamilton, where most of the people speak English. I wonder if any management problems arise in Hamilton or perhaps at the border, when unilingual employees are put to work together with bilingual ones. Does this cause a problem?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I visited Hamilton and southern Ontario, especially the Fort Erie and Niagara region, where I talked with managers about the difficulties we had in recruiting bilingual employees, especially francophones, in that region, and there really are no management problems. One of the difficulties is that francophones recruited from other regions find it hard to adapt to the community and often ask to be transferred soon afterwards. Some of them may stay for a year or two, but social adaptation may take a long time or not even happen at all. These are the facts, but there are no specific management problems due to this.

    Mr. John Bryden: And when you put ads in newspapers for a job in Hamilton, which newspapers do you put them in? In the local newspapers or in Ottawa newspapers? I would like to know what is being done.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: That is a good question. In the Sarnia and Windsor regions, the francophone communities have newspapers. We also put ads in those regions, but I think we also targeted northeast Ontario. I think that we even put ads in New Brunswick, perhaps more in Quebec, to attract candidates. Perhaps we also did the same in Quebec. I do not have the list, but we discussed the possibility of placing ads outside the region.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

    The Chair: Could we ask you to please send us the list of newspapers in which you have placed these ads.

    Mr. Lefebvre, if I may, I would like to ask you a few questions before we begin the next round.

    I liked your first comment about the number of complaints. You said that one complaint is one too many. But I wasn't as happy about your next statement. You said there had only been 24 out of the 100 million people that you served, etc. I asked my colleague this question; and I will now state it for the record.

    Ms. Thibeault, did you file a complaint after the incident that you told us about?

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: No, absolutely not. Even though I was in Ottawa in my capacity as a member of Parliament, it never occurred to me to complain.

    The Chair: You have before you the vice-chair of the Official Languages Committee who was faced with a situation where a bilingual customs officer was not on duty, and she did not file a complaint, Mr. Lefebvre. You might draw some conclusions from that. You know, most people don't want to get on the wrong side of a customs officer, either because they are tired, or they don't want to be subjected to a luggage search. So, people just go with the flow. From time to time I have been unable to obtain service in my mother tongue, which is French, in various airports, be it Vancouver, or Toronto, and even once in Ottawa. But when that happens, you are usually tired, you've had enough, you just want to go home, and you are not alone; there are other people there as well. So I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from the number of complaints that you have received, if you don't mind my saying so.

    You said that 77 per cent of the positions that are designated bilingual were filled by employees who satisfied the linguistic requirements of their position. What year are those statistics from?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: The statistics are from 2000-2001.

    The Chair: Do you have statistics for the previous years?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: The previous year?

    The Chair: Previous years.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: We can get them for you.

    The Chair: Are you familiar with them?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I know that in 1994-1995, the percentage was higher.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: So, it is dropping.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes.

    The Chair: Could you send us the statistics from five years ago or the statistics for that year? How do you explain the drop in the number of complaints? How many were there in 1994? Do you know them?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: No, I don't remember.

    The Chair: But it was higher.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: It was when we appeared before the Joint Committee on Official Languages, and I remember having seen 77 per cent. That, incidentally, is the percentage for customs. I can also give you the percentages for the agency.

    The Chair: Yes, but I would like you to make a comparison. If that was the situation at customs in 1994, can you compare that to what was happening at the agency in 1994, when it was still a department?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes, of course.

    The Chair: Could you explain why things have regressed?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: First of all, a greater number of employees and incumbents must redo the SLE (second language evaluation) test. If they hold a bilingual position and if there is no staffing action, the employees are not re-tested in order to confirm that they still need the two required levels. This is a Treasury Board policy as well. Of course, this does not always help us to ensure a level of service comparable to what we had previously.

    We also have problems with language training. The PSC waiting list for required courses has been quite long for some time now. Some people who have been appointed to positions are still waiting for their training. We do try to train them within the two-year exemption period, but unfortunately, that is not always possible, especially with the long waiting list at the PSC. I know that they are working on a solution to this situation, but that is one of the effects of it.

    The Chair: I know that I am changing the subject, but I would like to come back to the figures. In your brief, on page 6, you say, since the agency's inception, you have been conducting customer satisfaction surveys. The last one was completed in 2001.

    With respect to customs, 97 per cent of the respondents agreed that they obtained service in the official language of their choice. Must we assume then, that 3 per cent of the respondents did not agree? How many people would 3 per cent represent? Would that be 3.2 million people?

    Mr. Lefebvre.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I am not a statistician and I really couldn't tell you, by looking at the figures that we have here, how many people responded to the survey, but I assume that means that some of them did not agree.

    The Chair: If we apply that to the whole... Earlier, you said that 102 million people passed through customs, at the border. Is that correct?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: That is 102 million people.

    The Chair: Can I then extrapolate and say that more than 3 million of your clients are not satisfied with the service in terms of official languages?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: No.

    The Chair: Well then, can you explain that to me?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I doubt that 3 million people were not satisfied with the official language aspect of the services we provided.

    The Chair: Do you maintain that there are only 24?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: No.

    The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to make the point that I had raised earlier.

    Can you tell us how much the agency spends for language training on an annual basis?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I can find the answer if you give me two minutes.

    The Chair: Two minutes? I won't have much time left.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Two seconds.

    I have the figures that were prepared last year for the analysis that was submitted to management. I have the figures for 1993-1994 to 2001-2002.

    The Chair: When did the agency begin operating? Was it 1993-1994, or later?

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: It was in 1999.

    The Chair: Give me 1993-1994, 1999 and the last one.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: First of all, let me explain why I have the figures for 1993-1994: that is when both customs and revenue merged, and two budgets were consolidated.

    At that time, the budget was $2,530,000. Then, in 1999-2000, the language training budget was $670,000. I administer that budget within the Official Languages Branch on behalf of the agency.

    In 1999-2000, that budget totalled $670,000. There was also an amount of $750,000 paid by the managers themselves for language training.

    The Chair: And for last year?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: For 2001-2002, $600,000 were earmarked for language training and $1.2 million came from the managers themselves.

    The Chair: In other words, the amount is decreasing.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes.

    The Chair: Could you draw a correlation between the staff who will be receiving language training and the number of people who do not meet the requirements of their position?

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: To give further precision to the amounts Suzanne mentioned, that doesn't include the statutory training provided by the Public Service Commission to us free of charge.

    The Chair: The Public Service Commission did provide some in 1993-94.

[Translation]

    Could you provide us with some statistics on the number of employees? Let's compare employees from year to year and let's compare apples with apples. We would like to know the amount of money earmarked for language training and the percentage of those employees who meet or do not meet the language requirements of their position so that we can have a more accurate picture of the situation. We will come back to this point. This is not the last time that we will ask you to appear before us.

    My 10 minutes are up so I will turn the floor over to Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will catch the ball thrown by our chair and ask you to provide us with a hierarchical breakdown of these statistics. If we come to the realization that all of the senior positions are filled by unilingual anglophones and that the lower positions, namely those dealing directly with service to the public, are staffed by bilingual people, we may have other questions to ask. But we must not make presumptions before we see the figures.

    Ms. Routhier, you are a Director at the Human Resources Branch. How long have you known that the deadline for staffing positions that have been designated bilingual with bilingual personnel is March 31, 2003? When were you given these instructions?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: By the way, the deadline applies only to members of the EX group, the executive group, whereas the 77 per cent applies to all employees in the agency, namely not only the EX members, but also those who are in, for instance, customs inspector, auditor and manager positions.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is it not true that there are still some people who are supposed to be bilingual by March 31, 2003, but are not?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I think that the percentage right now is 5 per cent.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As the Director of the Human Resources Branch, did you meet with these employees in the 5 per cent group two or three months ago to ask them to take language training so that they would be in compliance with these conditions?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes, we do follow-up work on an ongoing basis.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What will happen on April 1 if 3 per cent of these people still do not meet the requirements?

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Ms. LaRose and I met with Mr. Wright, our commissioner, a few weeks ago. We meet with him periodically to provide him with a progress report on language training completed by the members in the EX group. Obviously, there is a deadline. We have talked about this, and we are requesting that he provide us with more information so that we should know what to do with the few individuals who will not have obtained the CBC level by April 1, 2003.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The fact that you are talking about this matter reassures me a great deal. Now, over the past few months, you have probably hired people to staff positions that have been designated bilingual.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Of course.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are you certain that these people are bilingual?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Are you referring to the EX level positions or positions...?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am talking about those who have to be bilingual within two months.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes. The policy...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Over these past two months, when you hired people to staff such positions, did you ensure that they were bilingual, or did you hire unilingual English-speakers with the idea that they would be bilingual in two months? That is my question.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: When we became an agency, we prepared a new directive pertaining to the EX training program and the staffing of bilingual positions at the EX level. In actual fact, our policy is stricter.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could you simplify your answer?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Of course.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will simplify my question and perhaps this will enable you to simplify your answer.

    You hired some people last week and the previous week. These people were hired to staff bilingual positions and they should be bilingual by March 31. Do these people...?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: These people are under no obligation to become bilingual by March 31, 2003. This pertains solely to those people who are subject to the policy that was changed in 2000.

    The Chair: If I may, I will try to clarify something.

    The new executive employees, who are not unionized, have two years in which to meet the language requirements of their position if they do not meet them. The difference is that the president of Treasury Board announced that those people who did not meet the language requirements of their position within the two-year time period and had postponed the deadline several times would no longer be able to postpone the date. However, if I understood correctly, new employees who do not meet the language requirements of their position have two years in which to do so.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To whom does this March 31 deadline apply? Does it apply only to those people who are on some station on the moon and may not come back?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: No, it applies to people in the EX category. I was trying to say that, at our agency, the employees in the EX positions are not entitled to a one-year exemption period. They have to meet the language requirements of their position before they can be appointed.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Who, on March 31, has to be bilingual?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Those employees who were subject to the previous policy.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But, aside from talking about the problem, what are you going to do with those people who will not be bilingual? It seems to me that the question is simple.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Some may be transferred to positions where they will have no supervisory duties; they may have to participate in other types of development programs.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is it possible that they may keep their job and their office, but that their position will no longer be bilingual, but unilingual English?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: If I may, I would like to make a clarification. My colleagues may perhaps correct me, but I will try to go to the heart of the question.

    Right now, at the EX level, an individual who is not bilingual will not get such a position. Not now, not last week, not the previous week.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's wonderful to finally get an answer.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Is that all?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes, that's it.

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I can also tell you that if, on March 31, there are certain employees who are not bilingual but who decide that they do not want to take language training, we will have to assign them to a position with no supervisory duties.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay. I have no further questions, your honour.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I have a question relating to Ms. LaRose's presentation, I believe. On page 8, you refer to a diagnosis. You say that an in-depth examination of official languages was carried out in 2002, that the results of this analysis were presented to the agency's management commission—I suppose you are referring to your agency—and that you later received a mandate from the Commissioner of Official Languages to develop an action plan within three months.

    I don't know in what month of the year 2002 the commissioner's request was made but I'd simply like to know if the action plan has been completed. Has it been tabled with the commissioner or somewhere else? Could we see it?

º  (1650)  

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: For clarification, we weren't asked by the Commissioner of Official Languages to prepare the action plan, that was our own decision. Therefore, it did not require any approval by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It was an internal plan. It was approved by our own internal management committee in June of last year. It's a three-year plan, and we are currently implementing it.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So, when you refer to the commissioner in your presentation, you are not talking about the Commissioner of Official Languages. Apparently I misunderstood.

    Ms. Jill LaRose: Yes, I'm sorry.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I see. But my question remains, has the action plan been completely executed?

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: It's a three-year plan we began to implement in June of last year, and it will be unfolding over the course of the three years.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I see. Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden, is everything all right? With respect to the question just asked, I'd like to know if we can obtain a copy. Is it something that you are ready to share with the committee?

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: Yes.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you. I'd like to put a question to you that isn't fair; it sometimes happens. Let me go back a bit in time.

    In August 1994, the cabinet made public a list of agencies and departments that were required, and still are required, to prepare an action plan to implement section 41 of part VII of the Official Languages Act. Am I right in believing that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not mentioned on this list of 26 or 27 agencies?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes, you are right.

    The Chair: But if I understand correctly, your commissioner did instruct you to prepare one, which you did, and you are implementing it over the next three years, is that so?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Our action plan does not relate solely to section 41 but all our obligations: service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and promotion of the two official languages.

    The Chair: Does it relate to section 41?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Yes.

    The Chair: Let me congratulate you. So you did not wait until the cabinet decided to add you to the list. Is the agency ready to make a formal request to the government that it be added to this list?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: We never thought that it was necessary.

    The Chair: No, but it would be an example for us.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: After 1994, that is after the announcement was made, we did prepare an action plan within the agency. We took it upon ourselves to prepare a guide for managers to undertake promotion activities. I've taken note...

    The Chair: I am asking you the question and you can come back to this. I realize that it must be addressed to the commissioner and I would like you to talk to him about it.

    First of all, would the commissioner be willing to ask the government to add the agency to this famous list? Secondly... and you will understand why I am asking you this... will the other departments and agencies required to prepare an action plan also have to submit it to the Department of Canadian Heritage for assessment and follow-up? Is that something you do?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: We do not present any action plan or report to Heritage Canada but we are part of the network and we are involved in meetings with the network. Heritage does have people looking after section 41.

    The Chair: Do you mean champions?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: Champions yes, but not only. There is also a committee made up of people active in the field. We are regularly involved in these meetings and the preparation of activities.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Have you already asked the Department of Canadian Heritage to evaluate your plans?

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: I cannot answer in the case of the first plan we prepared.

    The Chair: The last one.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: The most recent one relating to our business action plan? No, we didn't ask but we can do so.

    The Chair: You are free to do so, unless cabinet decides otherwise. I'd now like to come back to the champions. Who in fact is the champion for the agency?

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: The champion is the assistant commissioner of human resources, Dan Tucker, who is fluently bilingual. We also have two regional champions, who are also assistant commissioners:

[Translation]

    In Quebec City, it is Ms. Elisabeth Châtillon, and in Vancouver, Ms. Barbara Fulton.

    The Chair: Do they take part in the twice yearly champions' meetings? I gather that is so?

    Ms. Jill LaRose: Yes.

    Ms. Suzanne Routhier: As well as the two committees.

    Ms. Jill LaRose: There are two committees, the departmental committee as well as the committee for non-departmental organizations such as crown corporations. Those are the two champion networks.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Concerning the document I mentioned to you earlier, I have handed it in to the clerk because it is the official procedure. He will see that it is conveyed to you.

    As for the 24 complaints, and for the lady who did not make a complaint, if ever you are looking for ideas about complaint forms, we can discuss this at another meeting. I have my own idea about this. Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any further questions?

    Excuse me, but I do have one last one. In your presentation, you referred to an in-depth study of your 2002 official languages program. You say "The results of this study were presented to the agency management committee". Is this document also available?

[English]

    Ms. Jill LaRose: As far as I know. I was not at the agency at the time, so I would have to check.

    The Chair: In 2002?

    Ms. Jill LaRose: Yes. I came just after that was done.

[Translation]

    The Chair: I see. Mr. Lefebvre, do you know if the document is available?

    Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I don't see why it wouldn't be. We'll take a look and we will provide it to the committee if possible. Otherwise, we'll explain to you why that is not possible, but I do think it is available.

    The Chair: Thank you. I'll just take a short time, ladies and gentlemen, to inform you about our next meetings.

    First of all, the resolution we passed and that was presented to the House on Monday on behalf of the committee is causing a slight problem; we are attempting to correct the situation and it should probably be done over the coming weeks. In our request, aimed at reducing the quorum from nine to seven, we must be sure that our definition does include one opposition member of Parliament. We took this for granted but it must be specified. It's a simple matter.

    As for the second point, I would request that you not react immediately. I wish to inform you that according to the results of the survey of members relating to our hours of meeting, it would appear that the best time for our first meeting is between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday. Before going any further, we intend to consult all the members who did not answer this question and we can discuss it later. In the case of Wednesday afternoon, there doesn't seem to be any problem but we can't do much for the time being.

    As for the third point, let me note that next week we will be considering immigration. Our witnesses for February 17 are the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Quebec Community Groups Networks; Statistics Canada for February 19; Minister Coderre for February 24; the Steering Committee, Citizenship and Immigration Canada—francophone minority communities—for February 26; Minister Dion—it is confirmed—for our first meeting upon our return, that is March 17; and lastly, this is also confirmed, Minister McCallum and the chief of staff of National Defence for March 26. At some point we may have a certain amount of latitude for a report on immigration. There is also the matter relating to the RCMP that we intend to come back to. We agreed out of politeness that we would not study this question in the absence of Mr. Reid.

    I believe that that is all.

    I would like to thank you and wish you a good weekend. We'll see each other next Monday.

    The meeting is adjourned.