Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome everyone. It is a beautiful day.
With me today are Mr. Hubert Lussier, whom you know, and Mr. Michel Francoeur, who discussed with you all the ins and outs of Bill S-3.
It is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act. The object of this bill is also to promote French and English. It was originally presented in the Senate by the Honourable Jean-Robert Gauthier. First of all, I would like to commend Mr. Gauthier for his tenacity and commitment to Canada's official language policies. S-3 is the fourth bill proposed by the former senator on this subject.
Bill S-3 targets changing the Official Languages Act in order to impose a legal obligation on federal institutions to guarantee the implementation of the federal commitment described in Part VII of the Act. The government shares the objective of increased accountability that Bill S-3 advocates and I would like, at this time, to remind you of the unequivocal commitment of the Government of Canada to promote our linguistic duality.
First, as noted in the most recent Speeches from the Throne, the government is entirely committed to reaffirming linguistic duality as a fundamental Canadian value and to promoting the vitality of official-language minority communities.
Secondly, I would like to remind you that Cabinet now includes a minister responsible for official languages, tasked with horizontal coordination of the implementation of the official languages policy.
Thirdly, the Government of Canada is working towards full implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages, at the heart of which are found the policies attached to governing Canada's official languages. I think that it is important therefore that I now define certain dimensions of the plan in that respect.
The action plan is the new road map for Canada's linguistic duality. It contains an accountability and coordination framework as well as an investment strategy, including three axes: education, official language minority community development, and measures to make the public service exemplary. The accountability and coordination framework, which is the linchpin of the action plan, targets all of the act. It reiterates the obligation of each federal institution with respect to parts I to V of the Official Languages Act and specifies the conditions for implementation of part VII, which we are talking about here today.
Its aim is vast and its range is far-reaching. It ensures the official languages dimension is included in the conception and implementation of public policies and government programs. In this way, the new accountability and coordination framework specifies that in order to implement the federal commitment contained in part VII, federal institutions must sensitize their employees of the government's commitment and the concerns of the official language minority, identifying policies and programs that have consequences with respect to the status of our two official languages and the vitality of their official language minority communities, consulting them, and taking their needs into consideration. The accountability and coordination framework also includes a whole series of clauses that reinforce horizontal coordination.
In short, the action plan and its accountability and coordination framework are geared towards better collaboration and better results and in this way demonstrate how much the commitment and actions of the government meet those included in Bill S-3: making federal institutions increase accountability and in doing so, increase support for Canada's linguistic duality.
I must, however, tell you about the reservations I have with respect to the current wording contained in the bill. It appears to me that its impact could prove harmful.
Remember that Bill S-3 replaces a non-justiciable policy commitment, which is in great part a commitment based on spending power, with an obligation to take decisions and attain results. S-3 creates this obligation with respect to a very broad objective which is difficult to evaluate - contrary to Parts I, II, IV and V of the Act which target precise situations such as language of laws and regulations, parliamentary debates, services to the public and language of work.
In addition, the obligation to obtain results becomes justiciable, which means that it could be the subject of a court case.
Put this way, the adoption of the bill could cause major repercussions.
First, it could considerably affect the relations between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Currently, many priority areas related to official language minority communities are provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and the government could find it extremely difficult to attain required results without the collaboration of other levels of government.
I would like to remind you that the bill demands, among other things, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”. Under these circumstances, trying to achieve desired results with part VII of the act could cause major pressure on federal-provincial-territorial relations.
Next, Bill S-3 could also have the effect of considerably reducing the government's margin to manoeuvre within its capacity to develop policies and programs and when exercising its spending power. Ministers' decisions could be subjected to revision by the courts, and the courts could rule for amendment or cancellation of government initiatives.
I think that the bill should be improved in such a way that, while still maintaining its first objective of increasing the accountability of federal institutions within the implementation of Part VII of the Act, it respects the capacity which the federal government must maintain in its discussions with the provinces and territories, in its choice of policies and programs to be developed, as well as in exercising its spending power.
It is important to preserve the partnership that we have with the provinces and territories in the many areas where we work together.
It seems to me that the best way to proceed towards this end would be to require federal institutions to implement means to fulfill the government's commitment, as opposed to requiring them to attain results to do so. Let us be clear: we are all agreed that it is important to maintain good relations with the provinces and territories. But, at the same time, is it reasonable to ask the federal government to attain results when we know that it would be extremely difficult without the cooperation of the provinces and territories?
I would also like to remind you that, in this regard, the federal commitment found in Part VII of the 1988 Official Languages Act which is declaratory and not justiciable, was written in that way because of serious concerns expressed by the provinces and territories with respect to federal government pressure in areas outside of its jurisdiction.
I want to be sure that you understand what I mean. Putting obligations on measures taken instead of results to be attained does not aim to eliminate federal encroachment in provincial jurisdiction, because it goes without saying that a federal law could not sanction encroachment.
The amendment that I propose aims to reduce the risk of political tension that could arise as a result of a federal institution wanting to obtain results—mandated by the Act—but which depend on other levels of government.
The proposed amendments my colleague submitted to you last week are therefore based on an approach that targets the means as opposed to the results, while at the same time reinforcing the federal government's commitment to the promotion of French and English in Canadian society. With these amendments, federal institutions would be required, when developing policies or programs, to determine whether the policy or program impacts on the implementation of the commitments, consult where appropriate any interested organizations, including organizations representing English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada, and take into consideration the impact of the promotion of French and English as well as results of consultations. The obligations of the Minister of Canadian Heritage would also be subject to similar measures.
I would like to repeat the fact that these steps, which would be justiciable, are far from being banal or negligible. The legal obligation to consider the impact of a policy or program on the promotion of English or French would be substantial and would allow federal institutions to respond more appropriately to the needs of the official-language minority communities and the interests of linguistic duality as a whole. It is along this track that the Commissioner of Official Languages made reference in her last annual report (2003-2004). She said, and I quote:
Institutions subject to the Act must usually consider the needs of official language communities when drawing up policies and programs.
This requirement would have a much larger impact if its binding nature were clearly established. Indeed, all institutions would have to take a much more searching look at the effect of their policies and programs to ensure that they support the development of the communities involved. The Commissioner concluded by recommending that the government “clarify the legal scope of Part VII through legislation or regulation by defining its compulsory nature as well as how federal institutions should implement it under the terms of section 41 of the Act.” It seems to me that the amendments put forward by my colleague are very much in line with this way of thinking.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to present my point of view on Bill S-3. The government accords much importance to its commitment with respect to official languages and I hope that the committee can agree on the best way to improve it.
Mr. Chairman, we are in your hands.