Actually, if we want to do this right, I suspect that we're going to be spending even more on it. If we want to develop it to a standard that is a standard where we want to go, and we want to be sure that we have the whole thing done in the best and most secure manner, we need something far more automated. We need a larger bank of questions and a testing process that offers a unique test to every person who comes forward to be tested. The actual operation of this would be a lot cheaper than the paper and pencil system I have. The investment of putting it in place would be higher.
I'll tell you why this is so important. The way our statutes are struck, we're committed to a bilingual public service. We have a requirement that language proficiency is an element of merit, which the Treasury Board as the employer defines as a standard that has to be met. We have to be assured that this standard is met. We also have to be assured that we're giving everybody fair and equal treatment.
I can assure you that I get more complaints about language assessments than anything else. It is difficult for adults to learn a second language. I have to be certain that I'm meeting the standard, so that we actually have the level of proficiency that is being sought. I also have to be certain that we're being fair, which means that I have to have expert opinion telling us that the standard we set is accurate and equitable. That's also why, when we have a breach like this, we treat it so very seriously. I am concerned that I now have people in their jobs who don't meet the required standard of language proficiency. It's required for the public service to function, and it's required by the statute.