Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start by saying that I believe the amendment should specify that the person should have the capacity to speak and understand "both official languages", as in the other amendment. Otherwise, it will be asymmetrical, and the current amendment would allow a unilingual francophone who does not speak a word of English.
This may appear to be of minor importance, but I nevertheless hope that someone will propose a subamendment to rectify it.
I have two questions.
First, it says, “any corporation subject to the Act”. In the old version of this bill, every corporation under federal jurisdiction that was privately held was subject to this act. Is there any claim in the new version, where there are two parallel acts, that we're now trying to make every CEO of every privately regulated federal business need to speak both languages, including small businesses that have a family-run CEO? I think that in itself would be an absurdity.
Second, let's say I am the CEO right now of a business that is subject to this act and I do not speak one of the two official languages—or, in this case, I don't speak French, if this is not modified. Is the corporation then not already in breach by virtue of the fact that they have a CEO currently in place who doesn't speak the other official language? Would that person need to be terminated as a result, because they're not in compliance with the act? Who will cover the severance from terminating that person?
I believe all of these things arrive by having the word “CEO” in there and making it so. I'm interested in hearing those answers.