As for the institutions, yes, they have an obligation. It’s possible to reinforce that obligation in the act. It is possible to set up an official languages tribunal and to give the commissioner more of an enforcement role. I’ve learned something though, throughout my work on the value given to language when offering services in both official languages. I now realize how important it is that the act set out an active offer obligation. Otherwise, the offer of service can take various forms. Establishing the obligation in the act would have the benefit of clarifying the issue.
What does active offer mean? It’s a term that is very misunderstood and therefore needs a clear and specific definition. I've realized, however, that even if the term is defined, a heavy-handed approach is not enough. The real focus has to be on building organizational skill and capacity to establish the resources and practices necessary to ensure service of equal quality in both official languages.
That’s why I say relying on the act alone is not enough. It can help things along, of course, but we have to resolve all of the issues related to implementation. That requires careful consideration. Establishing regulations and directives may be one way to go, but perhaps we should consider other resources that aren't currently on the radar. It may be appropriate to create a centre of excellence specializing in the area, to guide agencies and institutions and give them the tools they need to ensure an active offer of service in both official languages.