Official Languages committee  Thank you very much. According to this amendment, it's clear that the departments have to consult minorities and other stakeholders. The departments are responsible for the disposal of property. The Canada Lands Company handles sales on behalf of the departments. The amendment specifies "every department and supporting federal institution".

Official Languages committee  Thank you.

Official Languages committee  I could cite the example of Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Employment and Social Development). In its decision, rendered in January 2022, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government had failed in its obligation to take positive measures to offset the negative impact of one of its decisions pertaining to the francophone community of British Columbia.

Official Languages committee  Mr. Chair, would it be possible to send me a copy of the new amendment NDP‑9 being introduced?

Official Languages committee  Okay. Amendment NDP‑9 suggests taking the potential positive repercussions of that a positive measure might have. That means consequences that could benefit the official language minority community. The amendment says that direct negative impacts on the community should be avoided.

Official Languages committee  Thank you for the question. Amendment NDP‑8 is proposing that the federal government take appropriate measures, when it negotiates agreements with provincial and territorial governments, to promote the inclusion of language clauses in the agreements. It does not propose making them compulsory.

Official Languages committee  I'm going to ask my colleague Chantal Terrien to answer this question.

Official Languages committee  That's right. I confirm that the language clauses would not be obligatory, and that they would rather be a matter for discussion with federal stakeholders.

Official Languages committee  In my opinion, this is not a lessening of commitment. It is clearly an obligation for the federal government. It seems to be a more direct way of saying that the government must take positive measures, in the plural. Indeed, the exact number of positive measures to be taken is not prescribed.

Official Languages committee  Mr. Chair, I will let Mr. Fallu answer.

Official Languages committee  No, the amendment doesn't do that.

Official Languages committee  I thank the member for his question. In my opinion, this reflects the current jurisprudence, as the proposed wording in the French version of amendment LIB-14 uses “de mesures positives” in the plural. The requirement that “de mesures positives” be taken therefore implies that “des mesures positives” will be taken.

Official Languages committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The current wording of the bill requires departments to ensure that the commitments under subsections (1) to (4) of section 41 of the act, as amended by Bill C-13, are implemented by the taking of positive measures. This amendment would express the first obligation mentioned in part VII of the act more directly.

Official Languages committee  I would ask Mr. Newman from the Department of Justice to explain the distinction between the two terms more clearly.

Official Languages committee  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.