Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, Senator Cormier.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. René Cormier: Would the senator agree to take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted? Please continue.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly why I’m saying that in this case, if we want to do a pre-study, it would be urgent to get on it instead of just talking about it. If we continue to discuss this and vote next week, we’re losing out on 10 potential days of work.

No, I’ve never experienced that problem before, and I probably shouldn’t have compared journalism to politics. I just wanted to highlight this idea of using all of the time available to get things done, instead of simply talking about deadlines and saying that we don’t have enough time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Senator Francis: Is the federal government at least willing to forgive debt for Islanders living at or below the poverty line? If so, what does this process involve and how long does it take? What are the consequences of non-repayment for this population?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, and I have heard them as well. I didn’t attend the same summit you did, but of course, since we know that music and other cultural products are so central to francophone minority culture, it should be obvious that this issue is important.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is about the committee’s current mandate.

Can you tell us what the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is currently studying, and how important it is to francophones?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I explained in this chamber, the government decided to appeal the ruling not because it is against the principle, but because the reasons set out in the ruling raise important constitutional issues that must be dealt with and determined by the Supreme Court.

Senator Martin: Last month, after the NDP-Liberal government once again failed to bring forward the Canada disability benefit, Kenzie McCurdy, with the accessibility group StopGap Ottawa, told CTV:

Look how quickly CERB went out. Why do they get it within a matter of months and people with disabilities can’t be helped before a three-year study and lots of promises and delayed action?

That’s a very good question, leader. What is your response to Kenzie? Why are Canadians with disabilities never a priority for this NDP-Liberal government?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my question to you today concerns the status of the Canada disability benefit. Last week, the other place voted unanimously to adopt a motion calling on the government to put this benefit in place without delay. The NDP-Liberal government has previously supported motions and then did nothing to implement them, such as the motion regarding carrying forward lapsed funding at Veterans Affairs, and the motion to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity.

Leader, during Question Period in December, you told Senator Housakos that the government is, “. . . reviewing this important issue.” Is this benefit still under review? If so, how much longer will the review take?

You also told Senator Petitclerc last month that you would make inquiries with the government about the time frame for creating this benefit. What answer did you receive to your inquiries?

(1430)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dasko, we have two more senators who wish to ask you questions, and you are out of time. Are you requesting five more minutes to answer questions?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Saint-Germain, I was on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when we did that pre-study of the Fair Elections Act and I wonder if you were aware of the fact that when we did that pre‑study, it was quite a bit more advanced in the House of Commons than this particular bill is at this point in the House of Commons, and because of our pre-study in the Senate, we were able to make substantive changes to that bill by consensus at the Senate Legal Committee, suggest them to the government, and the government actually took our advice on that and made the changes to the bill. They were then able to incorporate those changes at the House of Commons and then send the bill to the Senate.

That is actually the ideal way that a pre-study would work, have it be advanced to a certain objective in the House of Commons, come to the Senate for a pre-study, have some definite work done so we can do our proper sober second thought, and then have the government take our advice, unlike some other matters where we had the Trudeau government not take our substantive pre-study advice we have given on bills in the last five years.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Batters, I’m aware that this bill is one of the 10 bills that were pre-studied under the Conservative governments in less than 20 months, and I see that this bill is related to the Elections Act. It’s interesting that the sober second thought of the non-elected parliamentarians served the elected chamber. That is an interesting exception because on such bills normally I would say the expertise and the specific context of the members of Parliament are really definitive, so I think the Conservative government made a very good decision. I congratulate you and all the other members on the Legal Committee then because you obviously did great work, and I’m glad that even the current Liberal government recognized this, so thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 17, 2022, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on March 1, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

She said: Honourable senators, once again we find ourselves at this busy time of the year, all of us juggling competing priorities while we ensure that we continue to exercise our due diligence. Without rehashing the remarks Senator Gold previously put to the chamber, I do want to briefly echo his argument on why we must pass these motions on these two pre-studies.

Colleagues, a pre-study gives us an opportunity to maximize our time, to give proper and fulsome consideration to the government’s parliamentary agenda and it gives us the flexibility we need to best achieve our work. Work on government legislation, such as Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, and Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, which has drawn on the resources of several committees, is coming to a close. This motion will empower committees to occupy new space as it becomes available.

For obvious reasons, over the past two years, our Senate work has been sidelined. Adopting our government motions, which would enable these pre-studies, is a small way for us to advance important work Canadians expect us to do.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, let me briefly explain why we should allow the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to conduct a pre-study on Bill C-13. As you well know, during the Forty-second Parliament, the Official Languages Committee produced no fewer than five reports on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The committee consulted young Canadians, members of official language minority communities, stakeholders who had witnessed the evolution of the act, as well as representatives from the justice sector and federal institutions.

The 20 practical recommendations set out in the report were aimed at correcting the issues with the implementation of the act and were divided into the following themes: leadership and cooperation, compliance, enforcement principles, and judicial bilingualism. In total, between April 2017 and April 2019, more than 300 witnesses and 72 briefs and follow-ups informed the measures that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages recommended taking to modernize the act.

In fact, the content of Bill C-13, and its predecessor Bill C-32, largely reflects the work of the Official Languages Committee. It should also be noted that Bill C-13 responds to most of the recommendations outlined in the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.

The committee members possess impressive expertise, and a pre-study of the content that has already been looked at will enhance their ability to guide the government. Let’s not forget that the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969, which was over 50 years ago, and that it has not been substantially updated in over 30 years. Society has changed considerably in that time. Our reality is more complex, and language laws have to better reflect those changes. A pre-study will give us the time we need to give the content of the bill the attention it deserves.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages began its study on francophone immigration to minority communities in order to examine federal government support for the immigration sector. Because Bill C-13 includes elements essential to francophone immigration for the purpose of enhancing the vitality of francophone minorities in Canada, it is one of the focal points of exchanges between witnesses and committee members.

Practically speaking, we are doing preliminary work on this bill as part of our study. It is also important to note that the witnesses and official language minority community representatives very much want this bill to be studied and passed without delay so the government can adopt an immigration policy and start developing Part VII regulations and a multi-year official languages action plan.

[English]

Finally, I would like to remind senators that the general order of reference for the Official Languages Committee states:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and to report on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act . . .

The order of reference goes on to state:

That the committee also be authorized to study the reports and documents published by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Commissioner of Official Languages, and any other subject concerning official languages . . .

So the pre-study of Bill C-13 is consistent with this order of reference.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Plett: So we know where it is not. Of course, I would like to know where it is. They’ve had three meetings so far at second reading — April 1, April 6 and April 12 — and we don’t know when they will have their next meeting. So they have not even considered a vote yet and sending it to committee. Bill C-11 has, at least, made that step, although it also isn’t nearly far enough.

Nevertheless, here is a bill that isn’t even at committee. It has not been referred to committee, let alone had any studies. Again, we are putting the cart before the horse here, and we are studying something that we have no idea when we will get it. We have no idea what it will look like because it may well be amended, and we simply have no idea when it will even go to committee.

Would you not agree, Senator Gagné, that maybe the government should start getting their priorities right over there instead of worrying about our priorities over here? They should get their act together. They should be able to schedule these bills. This, again, is a piece of legislation that is not new to the government. As with Bill C-11, these are bills that were promised — that were presented earlier — and here we are again asking to do a study when we have limited committee time. We are asking to study something that we have no idea what the actual bill will look like when it gets here.

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-228 at second reading. This bill, introduced by Senator Patterson, would eliminate the requirement that senators have a personal net worth of at least $4,000 and that all senators representing a province other than Quebec own real property worth at least $4,000.

In its present form, Bill S-228 does not fix what I would call the constitutional discrimination against all senators from Quebec and only senators from Quebec. With respect to the real property requirements, in order to become and remain a senator, a senator from Quebec must not only own real property in their province of residence, but must also own property in the district or division that they represent. I will come back to this later to explain how this could affect a potential senator from Quebec.

Bill S-228 at least has the benefit of trying to eliminate a selection criterion that could prevent a potential new senator from serving in this chamber.

I do not wish to take up Senator Paula Simons’ historical account, going back to ancient Rome, of the reasons that may have induced the fathers of the Constitution to impose economic restrictions on eligibility for the officer of senator. I will simply state that it is no longer 1867 and that, no matter how much effort it takes, it is time to put an end to constitutional criteria that are nothing short of discriminatory for those who could be called to join this chamber.

Considering the condition for entry set in 1867, it is understandable that the first senators of Canada were all rich landowners, businessmen and bankers. The goal at the time was simply to bar a certain class of citizens from becoming senators. Such a clause would not be tolerated today. The eligibility criteria for the Senate must be modernized and updated for 2022.

Let’s come back to Bill S-228. I will not dwell on the obstacles that the real property requirement creates for the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada who continue to live on their lands. Senator Patterson clearly explained that the citizens of Nunavut like himself do not own the land on which they live and are therefore excluded from being appointed to the Senate of their country. Because the lands of Nunavut are considered to be a shared asset, this makes the vast majority of its residents ineligible for the Senate.

In 1867, the drafters of the British North America Act that created Canada were inspired by the values of the time, of course. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable that the ability to participate in the politics and democracy of a country like Canada is still governed by archaic rules written in terms that in no way correspond to our demographic reality.

The bill we are studying aims to fix certain elements, at least in part. I would like to come back to the unique situation of Quebec senators.

The Constitution of 1867 gave Quebec 24 Senate seats. However, unlike the provisions for other provinces, where a senator’s territory is the entire province in which he or she resides, a Quebec senator is appointed for a particular senatorial district, otherwise known as an electoral division.

In the other Canadian provinces, the real property owned by Senate candidates prior to their appointment can be a residence, a cottage or a plot of land anywhere in the province.

The requirement is quite different in Quebec, as the 1867 Constitution is much more restrictive for Senate candidates in that province. Their property must be located in the electoral division to which they are assigned. I remind you that the province is divided into 24 districts.

Candidates for a Senate seat who reside in their electoral division simply need to own their residence. Anyone who rents is excluded.

That is one kind of discrimination.

Senate candidates who are assigned to an electoral division located outside major centres like Montreal and Quebec City, but who do not live in that division, have a lesser problem because all they need to do is buy a piece of bushland in the electoral division to be eligible for a Senate seat.

That is just as discriminatory because it takes money to do that.

Individuals offered the opportunity to become a senator for one of the two electoral divisions on the island of Montreal face a very different problem if they do not own property there. I am referring to the electoral divisions of Victoria, which I represent and which is located in downtown Montreal, and of Alma, which represents the senatorial district covering East Montreal.

Just like Senator Simons, when I was contacted about a Senate appointment in 2011, I had to scramble to find land or property I could buy to be eligible for the appointment, and I had to do it in record time.

It would undoubtedly have been easier to buy a small plot of land anywhere in Alberta, where Senator Simons lives, or even in Shawinigan. However, on the island of Montreal, or worse yet, in West Montreal, just try to find a piece of land worth $4,000 in 72 hours so you can become eligible to be a senator. Even a plot at the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges cemetery is more expensive than that.

To comply with the real property requirement for senators, I had to buy a condo on Nuns’ Island, which I do not live in. Year after year, I have to prove that I am still the owner in order to keep my Senate seat.

I certainly have no intention of making you cry over my predicament, which I fully accept, but those who would like to follow in my footsteps and become a senator from Quebec should never have to potentially be penalized because they are not property owners and they do not have the financial means to quickly buy enough real property to be eligible for a Senate seat.

In 2022, becoming a property owner in Montreal is not accessible to everyone. I would even say it is hard just to be a renter.

Now that we can all recognize that the constitutional requirements from 1867 regarding real property ownership are discriminatory, we can all make a serious effort to fix this. We can at least make a start with Senator Patterson’s Bill S-228, which would fix the problem for 9 of the 10 Canadian provinces and for the territories.

However, while we are working on this issue, we could also take serious steps to seek approval from the Government of Quebec to change the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding the eligibility criteria for senators from Quebec, to ensure that they are treated the same as senators from other provinces and territories.

Thank you.