To begin with, the parts of the act that deal with what you just talked about need to be reviewed. Part VII addresses federal institutions' obligation to take into account the needs of official language minority communities, and the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that obligation in its decision. It also recognized the need to ensure that the programs and policies in place support the development of those communities—not hurt it. The government also needs to be proactive by taking positive measures to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.
Turning to the elements that address French specifically, I would say that if the objective is to achieve substantive equality, the act cannot be implemented in the same way across the country. Some regions are home to communities that are extremely vulnerable, such as out west. We are talking about very small communities, including those in my province of Manitoba. To achieve substantive equality, it's important to implement the act in a differentiated way. The Supreme Court provided a very clear definition of substantive equality, which is the objective.
On the compliance front, Bill C‑32 sets out the authority to enter into enforceable agreements with federal institutions, make orders and establish conflict resolution mechanisms, powers that are not currently available. Administrative monetary penalties could be added to the bill. That would provide a much larger tool box, giving the commissioner's office access to various resolution mechanisms, depending on the situation. Right now, the commissioner's office can make recommendations, something it has been doing for years.
Furthermore, the discussion around how to better protect French should also focus on mechanisms within the federal government. When it comes to language of work, it is crucial to recognize that English is the predominant language in the workplace. That means the appropriate conditions need to be in place to ensure that federal government employees can work in French, whether it is their mother tongue or their second language.
The way things are currently structured greatly favours one language over the other. That issue receives very little attention in the discussion around modernizing the Official Languages Act. The idea of providing better language training receives some consideration. That is a first step, but it is absolutely vital that part V of the act, which deals with language of work, really give employees the tools they need to speak their first or second language. That means changing how things are structured, because, as I see it, French very often receives secondary treatment within the federal government. That has been the case for years now.