Official Languages committee  I often wear both suspenders and a belt for the same reason but, in this case, we don't believe it's necessary. In addition, we need to prevent confusion and, if possible, avoid creating a situation where we have to weigh one rule against another in the same act.

Official Languages committee  I see your concern, because it puts a focus on what rights may exist already under the various language regimes and schemes that are out there, province by province. If you're held to that, there may be an argument that you should interpret it in a way that says we're not going t

Official Languages committee  Yes, of course. It is important to consider context.

Official Languages committee  I cannot venture an opinion on hypotheses or Mr. Drouin's experience. From a legal point of view, I have nothing to add for the time being.

Official Languages committee  Since we're talking about personal experiences, I'll take the liberty of making a personal comment. I argued the case related to the Montfort Hospital file before the Ontario Court of Appeal for the Attorney General of Canada at the time. I am therefore sensitive to the idea that

Official Languages committee  Can you clarify the question?

Official Languages committee  Thank you for the question. Don't forget that, in French, to express the imperative, we use the present tense. So, whether we write "take the necessary measures to advance" or "advance", we come to the same result. In English, we always say "shall." Therefore, it is an obligatio

Official Languages committee  The sentence in new section 21(5) of the act proposed by clause 21 in the French version of Bill C-13 does not end after “mesures positives”, as there is no period. The current wording states “que soient prises les mesures positives qu'elles estiment indiquées pour mettre en œuvr

Official Languages committee  That is also the way I understand it. As I said earlier, the idea is to adopt a series of provisions that are consistent with the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that was mentioned. Obviously, the latter had to deal with the text as it was written. The French version of this amen

Official Languages committee  Are you referring to the debate from earlier?

Official Languages committee  I assume you are proposing the word “necessary” because you feel it is more constrictive than the phrase “that it considers appropriate”. For us, necessity is a criterion that is going to lead to debate when it comes to determining whether or not the threshold of necessity is me

Official Languages committee  Thank you. There is a margin of discretion when implementing positive measures. The phrase “that it considers appropriate” gives some discretion to federal institutions, which are still in control of the design and delivery of their own programs and services. This phrase gives t

Official Languages committee  The word “necessary” imposes a high standard. It also raises some debate about what is necessary and what is not. On the other hand, the word “appropriate” leaves room for institutions to manoeuvre, to have the discretion to implement the commitment in spirit, without necessarily

Official Languages committee  I can provide some clarification. When the terms English and French linguistic minority communities were used in the 1988 version of the Official Languages Act, which the committee is in the process of amending, they were based in part on section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Ri

Official Languages committee  I wouldn't say that we have two different views on the matter. Rather, I would say that the use of the terms in the 1988 version of the act was deliberate, keeping in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already referred to the English or French linguistic minori