Health committee  No, this is not an investigation. Bill C‑293 is forward-looking. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's a diversion to avoid making an assessment that would be desirable. Ultimately, it's up to each administration to do its own assessment. I think the agency could, on its own initiative, learn from experiences it has had in recent years.

Health committee  Mr. Chair, one thing is certain: it's important to recall, as the member did, the scale of the funds already invested and the mission that already exists. If the bill simply repeats the mission that already exists in other words, then it's useless. Otherwise, it must be interpreted as a bill that seeks to create a diversion, i.e., we're preparing for the future to avoid really taking stock of what happened, the mistakes and blunders that may have occurred during the last crisis.

Health committee  Most importantly, there should be a review, an assessment or an inquiry into how the federal government has exercised its powers. I fear that the bill is a diversion to avoid doing this review, assessment or inquiry. I'm afraid it will take us somewhere else, either to repetition or unnecessary legislation, since these are things we can already do.

Health committee  Absolutely.

Health committee  Management that is as close as possible to citizens is more humane and closer to the real issues. It can also be a form of competition. If British Columbia makes a good move, it can inspire Quebec. If Quebec does well, it can inspire Alberta, and vice versa. This form of competition can become a source of inspiration, and in the end, everyone wins.

Health committee  Yes. If Bill C‑293 is all about planning and thinking, I'd say those are already powers amply available to the federal bureaucracy. So there's no need to legislate. All this is already possible and permitted. Otherwise, we're talking about giving the government coercive powers to force things through, particularly with regard to harmonization with the provinces and attempts to standardize.

Health committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would first like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to testify about Bill C‑293. Right from the outset, I'd like to share three criticisms of the bill. First, it's an unnecessary bill in many ways; second, it distracts us from the real issue; and third, it contravenes the principle of federalism and provincial jurisdiction in the health field.

Official Languages committee  This is an important issue that deserves Parliament's attention. Parliament must impose obligations on the government. There are limits to overly vague delegations. You must take the time to amend the bill.

Official Languages committee  Absolutely. The government has rightly made a significant shift, a mea culpa for recent decades, and it should be commended for doing so. However, I'm afraid that overly confining that message to the preamble offers the judiciary a blank cheque for interpretation. I'm afraid that a mechanism the government can use to do many things, such as make regulations and perform other administrative acts, may result in a confirmed preference for slow change that might meet with resistance elsewhere.

Official Languages committee  Mr. Chair, I'm going to be careful how I interpret Mr. Bastarache's remarks, but my impression is the same as Mr. Dalton's. The agreement is difficult because there's an old culture associated with the present Official Languages Act. The basis of that culture is a wish not to combine common objectives with those of Quebec language policy.

Official Languages committee  That's the problem with the present act. It creates a dynamic in which Quebec is, in a way, compelled to part ways with minority francophones or, in some instances, to oppose their wishes. If the amended act focuses as consistently as possible on the objectives of substantive equality and asymmetry and the fact that we have common objectives, but that they are achieved in different ways in Quebec, Acadie, Alberta and elsewhere, then we'll be in a better position to combine our efforts.

Official Languages committee  It's possible to take a personal or territorial approach. I think the key is mainly to accept that national linguistic communities aren't all in the same boat and that adapted and asymmetrical efforts are required in order to move toward substantive equality. Ottawa, with its enormous resources, must therefore be encouraged to assist every one of the francophone minority communities outside Quebec, while promoting French and limiting its decline as a majority language, the common and official language in Quebec, which it previously didn't do.

Official Languages committee  Thank you for that question. I've taken a detailed look at the outstanding work that's been done to illustrate very specific amendments in real terms. As you can see, I really agree with these amendments. If I picture myself sitting on a parliamentary committee, I can understand that it has limited time to make a certain number of amendments.

Official Languages committee  I don't think international law is the important thing. The important thing is to acknowledge that Quebec anglophones are in a radically different situation from that of francophones outside Quebec. They have rights. The Quebec government has always kept its word, and it will continue to do so by providing services of exceptional quality, including the best universities and the best hospitals.

Official Languages committee  I discussed the first point with Mr. Godin. To sum it up in a single sentence, I'd say that the intention expressed in the preamble to the act should also be reflected elsewhere in that act. The second point concerns the intake, integration and francization of immigrants. The federal government has established a language test requirement in its citizenship legislation, which is significant.