In the last meeting, I think it was Mr. Chisu who had asked why we need a preamble. There are preambles in other parts of the language act, so why do we need one here?
I think it's important to have this preamble to reiterate and to encapsulate what this bill is supposed to be about. To take a preamble from another bill and try to apply it, or to take the intention of another bill or another part of the act and apply it to this.... Never mind the legal consequences that might arise, two different parts of the act have two different meanings.
I think this reiterates the importance of this bill and why this bill was brought forward in the first place. It reiterates—or it should—this committee's stance and the government's stance on linguistic duality and the importance of having, in particular, these designated positions as agents of Parliament, which is what this bill is about.
I think we run into the same problem we had prior to this bill, where assumptions are made that it makes sense that this should happen or it makes sense for that to happen. We saw with the engagement of a unilingual auditor general that common sense doesn't always prevail.
This is a guideline. This is a means of saying not only to this government but to future governments that this is the intent of both this bill and the language act. This is to remind us and help us get to a point where we don't make that same mistake again. I think it's our job as legislators to do that, to think forward in that respect. I think the preamble does outline the purpose and give a wider scope or a wider understanding of what the purpose of Bill C-419 is.
Thank you.