Thank you very much for the question.
Under amendment CPC‑41, Treasury Board would be responsible for “federal programs for the implementation of this Act”, that is, the Official Languages Act, “including the government-wide strategy on official languages”. I would like to point out that, earlier in this study, the Standing Committee on Official Languages approved a provision of the bill that gives this role to the Department of Canadian Heritage. Adopting this amendment would therefore create inconsistency.
This amendment also includes the following wording: “In carrying out its responsibilities under subsection (1), the Treasury Board may recommend regulations to the Governor in Council to give effect to this Act.” Where it says “of this Act” without mentioning its parts, that implies that the regulatory measures could apply to all parts of the act. That could be problematic in view of the separation of powers that is a feature of our parliamentary system.
If it applied to parts I and II of the act, that would mean that Treasury Board could tell parliamentarians what to do. As a rule, the public service never tells parliamentarians what to do.
Further, if it applied to part III, Treasury Board could tell the courts what to do. That would be problematic.
Finally, if it applied to part IX, which defines the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages, that would mean that Treasury Board could make regulations applicable to an independent officer of Parliament.
So this amendment would apply very broadly. I don't know if parliamentarians want to be told what to do by Treasury Board, but that could happen if this amendment were adopted.