Thank you.
In 2005, the Official Languages Act was amended to include the possibility of establishing regulations to govern the implementation of part VII. However, that year, a Department of Justice lawyer expressed concern that the greater the level of detail in the regulations, the greater the risk of limiting the scope of part VII. In other words, the potential for innovation was greater in the absence of regulations.
The situation has changed. Part VII has been greatly expanded, and regulations have become a necessity. However, the warnings of the past have come to fruition. The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, considers that the draft regulations for part VII run contrary to the legislator's intentions, considerably reduce its scope and fail to give federal institutions the means to take proactive action to advance the substantive equality of the two official languages.
We'll soon be sending you a more comprehensive brief that elaborates on the observations shared today. However, I would like to focus on three of our general concerns.
First, the regulations run a high risk of stifling innovation in official languages. In our view, the proposed regulations fail to encourage federal institutions to develop positive measures outside the parameters indicated, meaning at specific stages in government actions or when determining the potential negative effects of key decisions. On the contrary, the regulatory framework should encourage, for example, federal institutions to develop positive measures that reflect their mandate or to review current measures that fail to advance the official languages towards substantive equality. Rather than acting as a suffocating ceiling, the regulations must serve as a foundation that propels us together towards concrete, positive and purposeful measures. The proposed framework is too restrictive. It encourages inertia rather than proactive action.
Second, the draft regulations' proposals regarding the analyses, their use in dialogue and consultation activities and their inclusion in final decisions fall short of the mark. The proposed regulations don't state how these analyses must be carried out or who is responsible for producing the data to support them. Some institutions have developed best practices in this area that could serve as a benchmark. There also aren't any plans to publicize the results of these analyses, particularly in preparation for consultation activities. Federal institutions are encouraged only to record the results of the analyses. Yet the results should be shared in the run‑up to consultation activities to ensure that the relevant information makes the consultations effective. Federal institutions also aren't expected to report on how the consultations played a part in the final decision‑making process. The proposed regulations deviate from best practices in civic engagement.
Third, we're bringing back a legislative oversight of long‑standing concern. The act and draft regulations have ruts that limit the scope of federal, provincial and territorial relations. The emphasis on agreements obscures the variety of interactions among the levels of government. A number of federal institutions have developed positive measures that directly affect the post‑secondary sector in francophone minority communities. Yet the act opens the door to an uneven implementation of these measures if the governments refuse to work with federal institutions. We hoped that the regulations would provide a framework for dealing with interjurisdictional conflicts and that they would create effective and equitable conditions for the development of measures with a direct and ongoing impact. The regulations uphold a restrictive vision of government relations, which may hinder the achievement of the legislator's objectives.
The draft regulations are riddled with grey areas and loopholes. These will have a serious impact on the ability of federal institutions to advance the equality of status and use of English and French and to support the development and vitality of francophone minority communities and the strong institutions that serve them. The post‑secondary institutions in particular are crucial in helping to achieve federal objectives. These objectives include providing opportunities for lifelong French‑language learning; supporting key sectors such as health care, justice and early childhood education; and working to restore the demographic weight of francophone minority communities.
As a result, we would like to see more robust regulations that encourage innovation. The ACUFC recommends that Treasury Board take note of the widespread dissatisfaction with the draft regulations, review the regulations in light of the main concerns raised by all stakeholders and come back with regulations that better reflect the legislator's intentions and that set an example in terms of consultations.
Thank you.