Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks as well to the witnesses.
I'll get straight to the point. Mr. Chaisson, earlier you said that parliamentarians and officials lacked creativity, and you're absolutely right. I completely agree with you, and I'm going to tell you why.
The only creativity I can show in the House today is by wearing a bow tie instead of a necktie. I warn everyone that I'm going to play the devil's advocate, and you can detest me as much as you want.
From what I've heard to this point, Parliament is governed by a framework and laws. The same is true of the Official Languages Act; it provides a framework for the Canadian francophonie and it interacts with other laws.
I'm repeating your expression because I think it's very good. There is a lack of creativity with regard to the act. Mr. Barry talked about making the act dynamic, which means changing, amending and adjusting it. The framework of an act is what determines the way things will work.
From what I've heard this morning, we all agree that the act should be amended; that's not in question. Before I continue, I'd like to know who among you has testified in the Senate. I see everyone has. That's perfect.
The consultations began a year and a half ago. Mr. Barry said it would be good for the school boards to be consulted. You all said we had to work together. That's wishful thinking indeed, and it's very interesting. I'd do the same if I were in your shoes.
However, some amendments concern the building association, the school boards, consultations, accountability and so on, but the act can't be a pie or a pizza with 50,000 ingredients. An act is a framework, and it's impossible to write down all the details. I completely agree with everything the witnesses have said this morning, particularly the people from western Canada, who have been put in an absolutely unfair situation because the federal government doesn't want to transfer buildings to them so they can be fitted up as schools.
However, there's no provision for this kind of thing in the Official Languages Act or in any other acts either. Will we take action based on the official language or the way buildings are transferred in a specific sector? I suppose Public Services and Procurement Canada is responsible for that transfer.
I'm talking in a somewhat scattered way because I'm trying to make you react on this issue.
My speaking time was shortened at the start. I ask everyone to grant me the minute and a half that Mrs. Boucher took from me.
I agree that the act must be modernized—we agree on that—but we can't turn it into a pizza either. More broadly speaking, should the act be amended to suit you?
Ms. Lapierre, I'm listening.