Thank you.
The statement would build on the act's three other principles of interpretation, which are taken right from Supreme Court jurisprudence. They indicate how the language rights should be interpreted and applied.
In this case, the language being proposed comes not from the Supreme Court, but from Parliament, which would lay out how its statute should be interpreted. In its sovereignty, Parliament is free to set out principles of interpretation.
The first part of the amendment recognizes a reality, as you mentioned, Mr. Garneau—that French is in a minority situation and that English is predominantly used in Canada and North America.
The second part of the amendment also recognizes a situation, in my humble opinion, which isn't necessarily a legal opinion of the justice department. In stating that the English linguistic minority community in Quebec and the French linguistic minority communities elsewhere in Canada have different needs, the amendment picks up on the concept of substantive equality, instead of referring to formal equality, with the meaning that has always been used in the past. This says that the situations of communities in every province must be taken into account. Some are in more urban areas, while others are in agricultural areas. Those communities have different characteristics. In fact, that's why the 1988 version of the act stated that the specificity of each community had to be taken into account for the purpose of delivering services.
I think that's how the amendment could be interpreted.