Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Fraser for attending our meeting, along with Ms. Tremblay, Ms. Charlebois and Mr. Giguère, all from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
First of all, Mr. Fraser, I am pleased to hear your comments on the bill concerning agents of Parliament and of the Senate, that is the 10 persons cited in the bill, and the way in which you describe the responsibilities of those people. You said that every parliamentarian should be able to engage in private conversations with those individuals. They are agents of Parliament and of the Senate, not of the government. That also reflects the Official Languages Act.
Unfortunately, we know what has happened. We now have a bill, and the government publicly told us that it would support it. However, rumour had it that there would be amendments. I believe that was clear in committee. For example, they would like to strike the preamble.
The preamble to the bill reads as follows:Whereas:
the Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada;
Whereas English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament;
Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons have the right to use English or French during parliamentary debates and proceedings;
And whereas persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of those Houses in both official languages;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
That is the preamble. Do you not think it is normal for a bill to have a preamble to assist in interpreting the bill and to indicate where it comes from? It clearly states that these individuals are appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate or the House of Commons and that parliamentarians have a right to use English or French during debates. We are talking about people who have to deal with Parliament. The 10 individuals are people who have to deal with Parliament and who represent it. They are agents of Parliament.
By striking the preamble, we open the door to the possibility that anyone could be included. The government could appoint up to 500 people. They could be presidents of crown corporations. They could be anyone. With the preamble in place, it is clear that we are not talking about them. We are really talking about the 10 individuals who deal with Parliament and the Senate. That is clear; that is why there is a preamble. It is normal for a bill to have a preamble. It conveys an idea and an interpretation of the bill by citing the reasons why it is there.
I would like to hear your comments on that point, Mr. Fraser.