Thank you very much for the question.
The amendment targets the beginning of the proposed wording in the bill, which reflects the obligations that would be set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. There is indeed an obligation. The words “positive measures” remain as they are. The wording proposed in Bill C‑13 reflects the case law, and that is also reflected in the amendment. What is new, however, is the word “necessary”. The question here is who decides what measures are necessary. Should the department determine or judge whether a given positive measure is necessary, or should the stakeholders determine and demonstrate that?
Here, the word “necessary” could have a limiting effect on the measures that would be taken. There is indeed a judgment call in determining whether an action is necessary. Is it necessary for the stakeholders or necessary for the department? The department might feel that it is not necessary. Stakeholders would then have to demonstrate why it is necessary. Therefore, it could have an unintended limiting effect.
The language found in Bill C‑13, that is, “that it considers appropriate”, gives the department the option to impose them. Thus, the burden of proof does not apply, in this case.
Mr. Fallu could probably provide more details.