Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member in praise of a certain New Democratic government. Is he aware of what happened in Ontario with a New Democratic government? That government made every effort to slow down construction of the Darlington nuclear station, with the result that the coal-fired power plant north of Lake Erie is still in operation and will be until 2007. It is the biggest source of pollution in North America. It is still there because we had a New Democratic government in Ontario.

Is he aware of that, and is he prepared to denounce the New Democratic government we had only once and I hope shall never have again in the future in my province?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that, once again, an hon. member from the Liberal Party should be criticizing, when his party is in power in Canada and in Ontario, a government that made possible enormous progress in a period of extreme economic difficulty, from 1990 to 1995. We know very well that Ontario inherited a debt of over $2 billion from the Liberal Party.

Of course, after all the tricks by the Liberal Party in Ontario—which we continue to see here, at the federal level—we notice that the hon. members of the Liberal Party are still trying to shift their responsibilities onto someone else.

The members and hon. members of the Liberal Party are responsible for a 20% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. They could have changed something, they could have acted. But no, instead of acting, they do nothing, they try to blame others. That is no longer good enough. I think that Canadians showed very clearly at the end of June they are no longer satisfied with the Liberal Party's casting blame on anyone and everyone across the country.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I agreed with some of the hon. members comments. Although. on his point about the virtues of the British Columbia NDP government, the electorate in British Columbia made it very clear what they thought of its actions. I do not think we have a lot to learn from the B.C. government.

What we do have a lot to learn is the fact that this government has said that greenhouse gas emissions is very important. We know that single cars play a very important role as they are largest source of emissions. We have said that we want to negotiate a voluntary agreement which has clear targets and timelines.

Those people over there are obviously not listening. I understand why. They do not want to learn anything. Having clear targets and actions are important.

I want to point out to those members that if we have to bring in regulations, we will. Unlike that party, we are concerned about jobs in the country. We are concerned about having a strong economy and a strong environment.

He lives in a bit of a wonderland to suggest that we can do all these things without looking at the other side of the coin, which is a strong economy. I thought maybe the CAW had changed its mind. However, I would assume it is concerned about good quality jobs in the auto industry as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that we have nothing to learn from a government that has not even put an auto policy in place. We have nothing to learn from a government that on its watch has led Canada to the second highest per capita emission of greenhouse gases in the world, with emissions growing at 1.5% every year, We have nothing to learn from a government that has a 90% failure rate when it comes to voluntary greenhouse gas reduction efforts, a 99% failure rate when it comes to energy efficient housing and a planned 20% reduction that has developed into a 20% increase.

We have nothing to learn from the Liberal government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary for disposal of the opposition motion shall be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Accordingly the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Official Languages Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

moved that Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to speak again about Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French). You will recall that I sponsored the same bill, known as S-4, during the last Parliament.

First, allow me to name the instigator of this bill, the former senator—I think that I will say the senator for the rest of his life—the hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier. He used this bill to fight for the entire francophone community in Canada, and of course, for the anglophone minority in Quebec as well, because it applies to both minorities. The bill is aimed therefore at both minorities and is equal in this regard.

The senator has retired now, at least in theory. However, he continues to actively follow the development of francophones outside Quebec, the progress of his bill, and of course, he also continues to work and campaign for a number of causes.

Bill S-3, like S-4 before it, is intended to give the Official Languages Act more bite, to repeat an expression that Jean-Robert Gauthier always uses. Senator Gauthier has gone to bat four times on behalf of this bill since 2001 with bills S-32, S-11, S-4 and, of course, the one before us today, S-3.

Before turning to the broad outline of this bill, allow me to use this opportunity to highlight all that Jean-Robert Gauthier has done as a parliamentarian, in both this chamber and the other.

When I was a new MP in 1984, Jean-Robert Gauthier had already been a parliamentarian here for 12 years, having been elected in 1972 and re-elected in 1974, 1979, 1980 and, like me, 1984. Some people say now that I have learned a little about parliamentary procedure. If that is true, it is thanks to Jean-Robert Gauthier, who kind of adopted me in this regard and taught me the rudiments of procedure in the beginning. Most of all, he inculcated the values into me of being a good parliamentarian, spending a lot of time in the House of Commons and learning to love this institution.

I thought today that I would take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate and thank Jean-Robert Gauthier, not only for what he has done for the linguistic communities and for Canada in general by serving in both chambers of our Parliament, but also personally for all the help he gave me.

Now, Bill S-3 focuses on three major principles: first, it provides that federal institutions must implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act and that regulations may be made in respect of procedures for carrying out obligations under section 41 of the Act.

Secondly, the bill obliges the government to take the necessary steps to implement the commitments provided for in Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and finally, it provides the right to apply to the courts for remedy against a violation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Bill S-3 takes account of most of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think it is very important to add this. The Commissioner of Official Languages has raised these issues on many occasions. For example, in her annual report for 2003-2004, an entire section entitled “Clarification of Part VII of the Act needed” was devoted to section 41. That is the title of this section recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is not only Jean-Robert Gauthier—which is already saying a lot—and your humble servant who say so, but also the Commissioner of Official Languages.

In her previous annual report, the same commissioner again recommended that the government clarify the legal scope of the commitment set forth in section 41 of the Act and take the necessary measures to effectively fulfil its responsibilities in this regard. Once again, that was the Commissioner of Official Languages speaking, an objective person in whom we have confidence, an officer of this Parliament, whom we chose unanimously.

So it is time to go further. It is time to give the Government of Canada the tools to enhance the vitality of the francophone and anglophone minorities, given that the phenomenon applies to both, although it may have extra significance for francophones. It must be said that services in our language are by no means offered on all occasions. It is time to ensure government takes the necessary steps to carry through on its commitment.

Bill S-3 takes account of most of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It has been amended several times, precisely in order to improve it and make it better. In the constituency of the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the courts have delivered a ruling on the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Now, it is not always clear whether the Act has this enforceable character or not. The government's position has always been that it was declaratory only, and not enforceable. The Commissioner of Official Languages says that this is not clear. This bill aims to clarify this very point.

If some say that this goes too far, I would even be prepared to accept recommendations on this point. We shall see in committee whether certain of the suggestions made initially by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier and now by myself have to be modified. The views of anyone are reasonable in this regard.

Whatever the case, it is the Commissioner of Official Languages who recommended that Part VII of the Official Languages Act be clarified, together with the imperative nature of the commitment imposing obligations on federal institutions.

The Commissioner maintained that the bill should provide for the adoption of regulations, so as to ensure the implementation of an appropriate regime and a right to judicial remedy under section 10 of the Official Languages Act. This aspect of the bill derives directly from a recommendation by the Commissioner. As our good friend Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier used to say so well, a statute without regulations is like a watchdog without teeth. It is now time to give more bite to this Official Languages Act by adopting the measures provided for in the bill.

It is time to go further; it is time to give the Government of Canada the tools it needs to foster the development of francophone and anglophone minorities. It is time to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to implement the government's commitment.

I also want to highlight the contribution made by a young man who worked for Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier for a long time, municipal councillor Sébastien Goyer. He drafted much of the text and did extraordinary work as an employee of the Senate, at the same time, as we all know, he has been a municipal councillor in the township of Russell, in the electoral district I have the honour and privilege of representing. I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate Sébastien Goyer.

It is rather symbolic that we are discussing this bill today. It was one week ago that I reported to the House on the intolerance of a newspaper toward the francophone minority in Ontario. I am speaking of the Ottawa Citizen . Unfortunately, this paper used appalling language to describe a municipal bylaw in the town of Rockland in my riding.

That article stirred up the public. There were death threats. Bomb threats were made to the town hall and the child care centre. Unfortunately, I must report that today, again, the Rockland child care centre had to be evacuated for the same reason.

All of that, unfortunately, was incited by a newspaper, a formerly respectable one, which is celebrating 160 years of existence this year, and which refuses even to apologize for its actions to the francophone community. The final words I have to say on this bill I am sponsoring will be addressed to the Ottawa Citizen .

I would like to take the last few minutes I have to deal with my bill today to tell the Ottawa Citizen to wake up and smell the coffee and apologize to my constituents for its inappropriate actions in the past, which have caused damage as late as today in the great riding of Glengarry--Prescott--Russell. I speak to it directly again in repeating this.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act in its current form already includes all the necessary tools for the federal government to ensure the full development of official language minority communities.

Can the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell enlighten us on the reasons why his government has not reached its goals with the original act, after so many years?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I misunderstood the question. The hon. member said, I think, that the legislation provides the government with enough tools. Is he saying that the Commissioner of Official Languages is wrong when she says we need to clarify and give teeth to Part VII of the Act because it lacks enforceability?

I am not sure if that is what he is trying to say. I hope I misunderstood when he said we currently have enough tools. In my speech I referred to the three consecutive reports. Four bills have been tabled in the Senate that make us realize this is not true. It is not the case.

I hope the hon. member misspoke or that I did not hear him properly when he said the legislation gives the federal government enough authority. That is not the case.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst is here and he knows the situation in his riding. I am sure he does not think the Official Languages Act has enough enforceability in his riding. We saw what happened a few months ago. It happened here and we talked about it in the House. Questions were asked and cases were made at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which I chaired not so long ago.

The Act clearly lacks authority. This fact has been brought up many times.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The heckling opposite will not change this fact.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who said that the act needs to be given “more teeth” in order for the government to ensure that the official languages are respected.

In my riding, it is true that the case involving Le Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was before the courts. It is also true that the Forum des maires won in Federal Court and that the Food Inspection Agency, i.e. the federal government, is continuing to appeal to the Supreme Court in the hope that the Forum des maires will lose its case. If the federal government just kept quiet when we win a case in court, maybe minorities could make some progress.

I can see that the law needs “more teeth” and agree with Bill S-3. But why does the government appeal every time that the communities win cases in the courts? It is the federal government, the Liberal government, that is not doing its job and does not respect minorities in Canada.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in part but not totally with what the hon. member said. I do recognize that the legislation is not entirely clear. Witness, the fact that we have been forever hearing about the declaratory nature of this act. A court has determined that it was enforceable. The government agency in question, which continues to maintain that it is declaratory, is once again going before the courts to seek clarification.

The hon. member and I am saying one and the same thing: let us give the Official Languages Act clarity—I am not alone in saying so; the Commissioner to Official Languages said so repeatedly—to put an end to this once and for all. This way, it will be made clear in the act that a part to be determined will be enforceable, as I indicated in my bill, or amendments can be made in committee, as required. Still, it will be clear now, and we will no longer face the kind of situation faced in Acadie—Bathurst. It is even worse elsewhere, because, at least, in the Acadie—Bathurst case, some say it is enforceable, including the trial court that made the determination in the matter. Elsewhere, the opposite decision was made.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my hon. colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell respond to the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, I admired his remarkable parliamentary skills, which were coloured by some degree of demagoguery, however. He addressed at length one aspect of the preamble, but trying to avoid answering the question.

My hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert said, in different words, exactly the same thing as the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, as we heard a moment ago: until now, the federal government considered that part VII was declaratory only, which was enough as far as it was concerned to protect the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada.

What the hon. member for Saint-Lambert was asking is: why is it that, after so many years, are we now realizing that part VII needs to be made enforceable, because the federal government was unable to properly protect francophone and Acadian communities? My question to my hon. colleague is the following. Why is it that the objectives set under the Official Languages Act were not achieved? That is my question.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using other terms, indicating he has amended the question, and I recognize that he has. But in his question he says that the legislation is declaratory, not executory and wonders how there could be insufficient powers in something that was declaratory and not executory.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I am speaking of the law in general.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The law, he says, but it is not the law in general we are amending, but rather Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The colleague sitting behind him knows that act personally, and could explain it to him. What we are trying to change is not the executory part, but the part described as declaratory, which we want to make executory. It is already the case for the rest of the act.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am giving the hon. member an explanation. I cannot do more than that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3. I would be remiss if I did not begin by paying tribute to the role played by former Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, his exceptional devotion and untiring efforts on behalf of francophone minorities and the promotion of their rights. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier is the very soul of this bill.

I had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on Official Languages, a committee where partisan politics were very often set aside in order to focus our efforts on promoting the francophone communities. Throughout our debates and deliberations, I was able to witness the efforts of francophones living in minority situations as well as their marvellous tenacity. They deserve our total admiration.

Since its inception, The Bloc Québécois has been a staunch defender of francophone minorities. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, is also a strong defender of the Acadians in particular.

Implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act has been hotly debated for close to 20 years. At this point it is important to read section 41 of the present Official Languages Act, along with its proposed replacement in Bill S-3.

Section 41 at present reads:

The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The words “is committed to” are extremely important here. However, Bill S-3 stipulates:

Section 41 of the Official Languages Act is renumbered as subsection 41(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments under subsection (1).

(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations in respect of federal institutions, other than the Senate, the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament, prescribing the manner in which any duties of those institutions under this Part are to be carried out.

So, the aim of this amendment, as our colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell mentioned, is to section 41 enforceable and provide guidance for its interpretation by the courts.

Subsection 43(1) currently states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to—

If Bill S-3 were passed, this subsection would read as follows:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to—

So, the words “such measures as that Minister considers appropriate” are being stricken and replaced with “appropriate measures”.

Finally, Part VII is being added to subsection 77(1) of the Official Languages Act, which would read:

Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV, V or VII, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy—

First, I want to give a historical overview of Bill S-3.

This is the fourth bill that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier presented in the Senate during the 37th and 38th Parliaments. During the 37th Parliament, he had first proposed Bill S-32 in the first session, then Bill S-11 during the second session, and finally Bill S-4 during the third session. These three almost identical bills preceded Bill S-3, which is before us today. The previous bills died on the order paper when the House prorogued.

After reading and thoroughly studying the bill before us, we must state that we cannot accept it as is. First, we could not accept S-4 during the previous legislature. Moreover, this version of the bill only removes the word “nécessaires”—after the words “mesures positives” in the French text— in sections 41 and 43. In Bill S-4 we read, and I quote:

Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—

In Bill S-3 we read:

Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—

In the French text, the word “nécessaires”—meaning necessary— has been removed.

Regarding section 43, the English version of Bill S-4 reads “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” and in Bill S-3, it says “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” but in the French, the word “nécessaires” has been removed.

Nothing was changed in section 7, where the new bill continues to direct that Part VIII be added.

The reasons the Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 have not changed. We believed then that the scope of section 41 was too broad and too vague and lacked definition.

There is another aspect that one forgets in a debate like this, and that is the fact that the two minority language communities in Quebec and in Canada are not on an equal footing. They do not have the same needs. Some francophone communities in Canada are still very fragile. The rate of assimilation of francophones continues to be very high.

One major flaw in the Official Languages Act lies in the fact that it does not recognize the asymmetry between the linguistic minorities in Canada at this time. The situation of francophones outside Quebec is much more worrisome and precarious than that of anglo-Quebeckers, and the act should recognize this.

I am sure that the sponsor of this bill, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and Senator Gauthier, if he was watching, recognize this fact, but unfortunately this reality is not reflected in the bill and that poses a problem.

The architect of the official languages action plan wrote, in reference to anglophone rights in Quebec, that French Canadians in other provinces can only dream of having the same conditions.

The Council of Europe wrote in its political affairs report that the minority anglophone situation in Quebec is an excellent example of protecting a minority language group's rights.

The Commissioner of Official Languages said something along the same lines during an RDI interview when she said that we must recognize that Quebec—which is where most French Canadians live—is nonetheless a minority in the Canadian federation and therefore a certain asymmetry exists.

However, some departments already use an asymmetrical approach in terms of implementing responsibility pursuant to part VII of the Act. Look at the way Citizenship and Immigration handled the parity committees, which exist only for minority Francophones and Acadians.

Yet, in the fourth version of this bill, the concept of asymmetry is still not included.

These are the main reasons we conclude that, as it stands today, Bill S-3 does not meet the laudable objectives it had set for itself, that is, to encourage the development of minority francophone communities and protect their rights.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the particular situation of French-speaking minorities and it hopes the Liberal government will recognize this particularity as well.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill S-3 unless it is amended to include the concept of asymmetry, which has been recognized by everyone involved in this issue.

I would like to point out, in closing, that the federal government may now and for some time past feel obliged by section 41 to take measures in support of the development of francophone minority communities. It is obvious, however, that the federal government chooses not to see anything binding in part VII of the Official Languages Act and does not really impose any obligations upon itself to take positive measures. This brings us to this bill designed to twist its arm and force it to assume its responsibilities in terms of supporting francophone minorities. It is because of the government's lack of political will that we are finding ourselves in this situation today.

The Bloc Québécois believes that applying the same measures across the board, in Quebec and in Canada, would prejudice the uniqueness of the heart of francophone Canada. The government knows it very well.

The Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 previously. Well aware of that fact, the government still introduces an almost identical bill. Why?

Sometimes, I wonder if the government is not purposely introducing legislation it knows full well to be incomplete.The government keeps introducing legislation that makes no room for asymmetrical needs, as recommended by the likes of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the father of the government official languages action plan, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. But why does it do that?

Perhaps this explains why the bills in question always have names like S-3, S-4, S-11 and S-32, which means that they originated in the Senate, instead of being called C-3, C-4, C-11 and C-32, as bills inspired by the government would be.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the author of this bill, Senator Gauthier, now retired. I also want to thank my hon. colleague opposite, who represents the riding next to mine, for defending this cause in the House.

The major purpose of the bill is to make the commitments set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act binding on the government. The way the act is worded now, the fulfillment of the objectives in part VII is left up to the discretion of the government. The bill before us today would allow the courts to enforce the implementation of part VII.

I can understand why Senator Gauthier felt this bill was necessary. Section 41 of the Official Languages Act commits the federal government to:

(a) enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and support and assist their development; and

b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The government has failed dismally on both counts.

In 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that:

Section 41 is declaratory of a commitment and does not create any right or duty that could at this point be enforced by the courts, by any procedure whatsoever.

In other words, the court ruled that section 41 of the Official Languages Act was a broad statement of principle and not an actual legal obligation. The court went on to say:

The debate over section 41 must be conducted in Parliament, not in the courts.

Bill S-3 addresses this ruling in two ways. First, it would add subsections requiring all federal institutions to take “positive measures...for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation” of section 41.

Second, it would add part VII of the Official Languages Act to a list of specific sections of the act that are justiciable which is contained in section 77.

Simply put, this bill would clearly establish that, if the government does not carry out its duties under part VII of the Official Languages Act, it can be taken to court and forced to do so.

Simply put, the bill would make it clear that if the government does not live up to the obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act it could be taken to court and forced to fulfill these obligations.

As a general principle I am very supportive of legislation that removes wiggle room for ministers and holds them to their commitments. However I am afraid the bill might not be drafted in the best way to achieve that goal.

My first concern with Bill S-3 involves section 41. Provincial governments have complained in the past that this section of the Official Languages Act infringes on their jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois members made the same argument the last time the bill came before the House and I expect them to raise the same objection this time around.

My concern is that making section 41 justiciable, allowing it to be the subject of court action would clear the way for court challenges that might result in section 41 and the rest of part VII of the Official Languages Act being struck down on the grounds that it was ultra vires, outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

This concern was raised in committee in 2002 by the Minister of Justice at that time. To prevent this from happening I would like to work with my colleagues in the Standing Committee on Official Languages to amend the bill, perhaps by adding a section that explicitly respects the provinces and limits the federal government to its own jurisdiction in the way it fulfills section 41 of the act.

My second concern involves another section of the Official Languages Act that is affected by the bill, section 43. While Bill S-3 seeks to make the government's commitment under part VII of the Official Languages Act more enforceable, it does not clarify the scope of these commitments. As a result I fear that unless the bill is amended, it could result in a wave of court actions and the loss of parliamentary control over the nature and extent of the cost of the government's official languages program.

Section 43 currently states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and...may take measures to (a) enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities...; (b) encourage and support the learning of English and French in Canada; (c) foster an acceptance and appreciation of both English and French by members of the public; (d) encourage and assist provincial governments to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities--

Bill S-3 would change the wording of section 43 to clarify that the heritage minister “shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”. However while it removes the minister's discretion when it comes to that general goal, it still leaves subsections (a) through (d), the list of specific measures totally up to the discretion of the minister.

What that means is that the minister does not have to do any of the specific things listed in section 43, but if someone is unsatisfied with the minister's performance when it comes to a very general objective, the person could take the matter to court regardless of whether the minister takes any or all of the specific measures listed.

This bill is supposed to reinforce implementation of the government's commitments under part VII of the Official Languages Act. However, with regard to section 43, only the most general provisions would be binding, while the specific obligations identified in that section would remain discretionary.

To me, this is completely backwards. It would be much more logical to leave the first part of section 43 discretionary and make the specific measures binding. The legislation would then give clear direction to the minister, and a specific legal framework by which the courts could determine if the minister was carrying out his duties or not.

This bill is supposed to make the government's commitment under part VII of the Official Languages Act more enforceable. However, in the case of section 43, only the most general provisions would be mandatory while the specific obligations in that section would remain discretionary. That seems totally backwards to me.

It would make far more sense to have the first part of section 43 discretionary and make the specific measures mandatory. That way the act would give the minister clear direction and it would give the courts a clear framework for deciding whether or not the minister was fulfilling his or her obligations.

In other words, it would better if we could change the last part of section 43 to say “the minister must” instead of “the minister may” take measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, encourage and support the learning of English and French, and so on, while leaving the more general part as a statement of principles. That would make it much easier to implement the act.

This is something my hon. colleague from Lanark—Carleton suggested the last time the bill was before us. I think it is a shame that Senator Gauthier did not see fit to make these changes before making another attempt to get the bill through Parliament.

I hope we can make suitable amendments to the bill in committee to make it more effective in meeting the goals.

I will support this bill in principle. I will encourage my colleagues on this side of the House to do likewise, although they will be free to vote as they see fit since this is an item of private members' business. I think the intention of the bill is something that many members would consider to be reasonable and worthwhile.

I will agree in principle with this bill and I invite my Conservative colleagues to do the same. I believe that a good many members consider the intention of this bill to be reasonable and valid.

Having said that, I am afraid some of the bill's specific provisions may be seriously flawed in the ways I have described. I hope to work with all members in committee to improve the bill and perhaps to make it achieve its goals more effectively.

I look forward to hearing from witnesses, looking into the wording of the bill, bringing it back to the House and if necessary, amending it and sending it back to the Senate. It would be a shame to rush this legislation through, only to find that it had the opposite of its intended use.