Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I urge you to support this motion whose purpose is twofold: First, to serve as a reminder that despite the commitment made in 1982 to have a fully bilingual Constitution, in accordance with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to this day 22 of the 31 texts forming the Constitution of Canada are official in English only, including most of the Constitution Act, 1867; second, to call on the government to include, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, the obligation to periodically report back on the efforts made to implement section 55 and the constitutional commitment made almost 40 years ago.

With its Bill 96 to amend the Charter of the French Language, the National Assembly of Quebec is preparing to propose that two provisions be added to the Constitution Act, 1867, to affirm that French is the official language of the Quebec nation and the common language of Quebecers. In the recent election campaign, all federal parties promised to support this bilateral constitutional amendment.

At the same time, the government made a commitment in the Throne Speech to table a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act in order to reaffirm the importance of French in Canada and to promote its use.

While the status of French is becoming an issue of concern, both in Parliament and at the Quebec National Assembly, we keep forgetting that although our country’s official languages are French and English, there is still no official French version of the Constitution Act, 1867. The majority of the founding document, an imperial statute adopted by the Westminster Parliament, is only legally valid in English. Canada is probably the only country in the world that claims bilingual status but has a Constitution essentially written in just one of its official languages.

It is even more surprising that this is the case in 2021, since section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states the following:

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

(1630)

[English]

As you know, our Constitution is made principally of the Constitution Act, 1867, often called the British North America Act, or the BNA Act, and is complemented by 30 other pieces of legislation, including acts to officially add the colonies of Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Newfoundland to Confederation.

While eight of these additional texts, including federal statutes creating new provinces, including Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, were adopted in both official languages, to this day, 22 constitutional documents remain official in English only, including, as I said previously, most of the Constitution Act, 1867, the foundational text of our federation.

While French-speaking Canadians have the constitutional right to rely on the French text of all ordinary federal statutes, they lack the means to exercise this fundamental right in regard to nearly all of Canada’s constitutional texts, despite the country being officially bilingual since 1968.

During the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, following the Quebec referendum, two things were promised to rectify this situation, which was no longer acceptable, with the adoption of section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982: first, a constitutional obligation for the Minister of Justice to have the French version of all texts that are part of the Constitution drafted as soon as possible; and second, the obligation of the governments of the country to take the necessary steps for the coming into force of these French texts as soon as available.

[Translation]

In 1984, the Honourable Donald Johnston, Canada’s justice minister, created the constitutional drafting committee to draft the French text of the Constitution. The committee was made up of distinguished jurists, including Senator Gérald Beaudoin, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Robert Décary, who was later appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and Gil Rémillard, who later became Quebec’s justice minister.

In 1990, the committee submitted its final report to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Kim Campbell, who then tabled it in the House of Commons and the Senate in December 1990. That fulfilled the first institutional obligation in section 55. Unfortunately, the second obligation is a whole different story.

Over the next seven years, governments took no concrete action to adopt the French versions of the constitutional texts. It wasn’t until April 1997, a little more than a year after Quebec’s second referendum, that the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien’s federal government invited the Government of Quebec to start talking about fulfilling the second obligation. The provincial government, under the Honourable Lucien Bouchard at the time, declined the offer.

In April 1998, the federal Department of Justice again contacted the Government of Quebec to advise it that Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan had indicated that the French texts were acceptable to them and that other provinces were awaiting approval from Quebec and Ontario before giving their final response.

This request was ignored by Quebec City, and no one in Ottawa seemed to want to restart the process that would have finally led to an official French version of the country’s most important law, the Constitution Act, 1867.

Accordingly, nearly 40 years after the solemn commitment made in 1982 and 30 years after the tabling of the French versions of some of the texts, we still don’t have a French version of the founding text of the country, on the grounds that an adoption of the whole text requires, in accordance with the amendment procedure put in place in 1982 at the time of the repatriation of the Constitution, a resolution passed by both houses of Parliament and a majority of the provinces representing more than 50 per cent of Canada’s population, or, according to some, perhaps even unanimity among the provinces.

[English]

As the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Raymond Théberge, explained in his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages last June, in response to a question from Senator Bovey:

The timeline is in the hands of the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General across the country. In order to do that, we have to bring the provinces around the table so that they can agree.

Mr. Théberge also said that:

The work still has to be done. It is up to the federal government to bring people around the table from the other provinces and territories to do this.

[Translation]

Fearing the risks involved in starting such a process, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have done nothing for over 20 years to ensure that Canada has a bilingual Constitution. They nevertheless have recognized that Quebec is a distinct society, a nation, that the Acadian nation is important, and that the government wants to promote the use of French across Canada, especially in regions where many francophones live.

Because Canadian governments have shown such a lack of appetite to use an amendment process that yet would change nothing in terms of the division of powers, the structure of the federation and its institutions, these governments have clearly neglected their constitutional obligation set out in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It is of course a travesty that Canada does not have a bilingual Constitution that reflects a fundamental characteristic of our country, but there are also practical implications. In an October 2018 report entitled Access to Justice in French and English in the Context of Modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Canadian Bar Association stated the following:

The absence of an official French version has practical implications for the development of law and devalues French-speaking jurists’ and litigants’ participation in discussions on the interpretation of our society’s most fundamental legal texts.

Honourable senators, it would be an understatement to say that not having an official French version of our Constitution, despite the constitutional obligation under section 55, is a source of embarrassment, particularly for federalists living in Quebec; it is also evidence of a lack of political leadership. I am not the first person to point this out, but I am doing so today in a very specific context. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government plans to modernize the Official Languages Act to strengthen the use of French in Quebec, in Acadia and elsewhere in the country.

As the government works on drafting the proposals it intends to table in the other place in the near future, I would like to see this chamber invite it to include a provision requiring reports to Parliament every five years outlining efforts made to finally ensure compliance with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Incorporating this provision into the Official Languages Act would ensure that the government’s efforts are periodically shared with the public and would remind other governments in this country of their constitutional obligation to complete this woefully incomplete part of the repatriation of the Constitution. As the Canadian Bar Association explained in its report, the addition of a requirement to report every five years would contribute to the accountability of all the stakeholders whose participation is essential to making the applicable constitutional amendment procedure work.

As a final point, I would like to highlight another initiative taken to remind the government of its obligation to remedy the unilingualism of the Constitution of Canada. In August 2019, Senator Serge Joyal, our former colleague, together with Professor François Larocque of the University of Ottawa, filed an application for a declaratory judgment and judicial review before the Quebec Superior Court.

(1640)

The purpose of this process is to have the federal government initiate talks on the accuracy of the French version of the text as soon as possible with the provinces whose approval is required, in accordance with the applicable procedure for amending the Constitution.

In closing, honourable senators, I invite you, by means of this motion, to call on the government to do what is required to ensure that the constitutional rights of the francophones of the country are fully respected.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to the commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the historic Battle of Hill 355, which took place on November 26, 1951 during the Korean War.

It was cold, there was fog, and uncertainty hung in the air. Canadian troops from the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the Royal 22nd Regiment, nicknamed the “Van Doos,” redeployed to Hill 355. Hill 355, so named on military maps because it was 355 metres above sea level, was nicknamed “Little Gibraltar” because of its shape and size. Located about 40 kilometres north of Seoul, it was highly valued because it was the highest ground overlooking the surrounding front lines and supply routes.

Outnumbered and exposed, the Van Doos held their ground until the Americans retook Hill 355 for good on November 25 and the communist attacks came to an end.

(1410)

The Battle of Hill 355 remains a proud moment for the Van Doos, but it came with a heavy price. On November 26, I had the honour to organize a special commemorative ceremony to pay tribute to the service and sacrifices of all those who fought in the Battle of Hill 355 and all of our beloved Korean War veterans.

Two of our proud Van Doos, Claude Charland and Delphis Cormier, who fought in the Korean War, participated in the seventieth anniversary ceremony. They spoke about their wartime experiences and the pride they felt for their comrades. They were moved to tears by our tribute to them and by their own memories of fierce battles and lives that were lost.

The colonel of the Royal 22nd Regiment, Lieutenant-General Marc Caron, spoke about the long, proud history of the regiment and its members’ sense of honour and duty. He spoke about the gratitude that all members of the Van Doos have for our Korean War veterans, and he spoke about the brotherhood, the camaraderie and the teamwork —

Hon. Gwen Boniface: I will be very quick then, Your Honour. Senator Harder, would you agree with me that as you look at provincial-federal responsibilities of the RCMP you may want to start looking at the three provinces that have provincial police services to see how those divisions take place today, particularly in the integrated fashion, and that may be helpful to look at some of the fit-for-purpose issues that you raise? Would you agree with that?

(On motion of Senator Busson, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:03 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 2 p.m.)

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

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Harder, thank you for that. I think that it would be a fascinating study, and I think that it’s important that we turn our minds to leadership of this particular important institution as well as — as Senator Jaffer talked about today — Corrections Canada. And, of course, we’ve had discussions about the Canadian military. You’re right in terms of the RCMP being a paramilitary culture, and that’s the same in corrections as well. It brings with it — as evidenced by the crisis that we see in the Canadian military itself — this kind of cultural behaviour that follows attitude.

I want to participate in your inquiry and potentially a study looking at that, but I want to ask you today about federal policing powers. I think that you’ve hit on something very important. I know that the RCMP has certainly put forward this position at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I have been part of conversations that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians have had about this. In addition to the list of federal policing powers, you talked about organized crime. So, for example, in this latest round of special measures for CERB, we found that organized crime was involved in skimming money from those benefit programs. Yet it is my understanding that the RCMP is very strained in terms of its budget to be able to fulfill its federal policing duties. Could you speak a little bit more to that, please, and what the impact of that is? Thank you.

Senator Harder: Thank you very much, senator. It is a bizarre situation where a national organization such as the RCMP has a contractual understanding with the Attorney Generals of the provinces, for whom they are provincial forces, on precisely what the priorities and obligations of the force are in respect to the provincial policing role. They don’t have such a contract with the federal government, so the constraint of budgets is all felt at the federal level. And the training that is necessary for the kind of RCMP work that you and I referenced just isn’t up to scratch with our competitors or even the criminals with whom they are dealing. I think the time has come, at least in my view, that the federal policing role be adequately resourced, deliberately defined and properly managed.

Senator Gold: Canada’s two official languages are fundamental to its identity. Recognition of Indigenous languages is also an important step on the path to reconciliation. I think the appointment of the current Governor General and her commitment to mastering French are assets for Canada.

Senator Boisvenu: I think you’ve identified the real problem. What’s really disappointing is that it takes a private member’s bill to protect women in Canada, when it should be the Justin Trudeau government introducing this bill. As a member of the Privy Council, will you commit to asking the Minister of Justice to introduce the same bill that I have introduced here, but as a government bill, to protect women in Canada?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question for the government leader today is related to the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which will be observed tomorrow. There have been other questions related to supporting that important community.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government attempted to phase out funding for the Centre for Equitable Library Access and the National Network for Equitable Library Service, which both work to provide accessible reading materials for people with print disabilities. Thankfully, this decision was reversed in March, and the two groups had their funding restored for one year. This was described at the time as an interim solution.

Leader, the year-long reprieve that your government granted will soon come to an end. Has your government found a long-term resolution to help these two organizations continue their important work?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I must begin by telling you how impressed I was by the letter the Minister of Finance, Ms. Freeland, sent to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau, to denounce his attitude toward bilingualism and his affront to all francophones in the country, which your Prime Minister described as a gaffe. I hope that Ms. Freeland will undertake a rigorous follow-up of the commitments she received from the Air Canada board of directors. In fact, I wonder why it was not the Prime Minister himself who signed that letter on behalf of Canadians and francophones, a group to which I belong. I could also ask you whether the Prime Minister was uncomfortable with requiring the CEO of a private company to be bilingual when he himself did not observe that rule in appointing the Governor General of Canada.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, in my question last week regarding the murder of Marylène Levesque, I mentioned a report by coroner Stéphanie Gamache, who recommended that dangerous criminals released by the Parole Board of Canada be made to wear an electronic bracelet.

Yesterday, Deputy Premier Guilbault, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, announced that the government would start requiring violent men to wear an electronic bracelet starting in the spring of 2022. The electronic bracelet has become an increasingly popular tool to protect women who are the victims of domestic violence and to save lives.

During this week of action on violence against women, I want to remind you that, over the past six years, your government has done nothing to protect women who are victims of domestic violence, and when it did act, it was only to hide them at home. I introduced Bill S-205 last week, which would require the use of these electronic bracelets. Senator Gold, since Bill S-205 would take the measure Quebec is considering to protect Quebec women and apply it to the rest of Canada, would you agree to prioritize this bill, so that it can be sent quickly to the Legal Affairs Committee, to ensure better protection for Canadian women?

Senator Gold: Thank you for raising the question. Yes, indeed, I’ll have to inquire and report back. Thank you for that.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): With respect to the issue involving the CEO of Air Canada, the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland work as a team.

As for the Governor General’s bilingualism, first, I hope that Canadians agree with me to say that the effort the Governor General made in delivering the Speech from the Throne was impressive. She clearly made a great effort, and that was a sign of respect for our official languages. We should also note the historic significance of this event, because this is the first time a female Innu member of our Indigenous peoples has become Governor General. It is a credit to the government that it made that choice, but it is also an honour for Canadians.

Senator Moodie: You have given me a challenge because there is, as you say, no clear research approaches that would lead to a definitive cause and effect.

I would say this: We do have surrogate models that do show us how children’s brains develop in response to various negative triggers. We know a lot about toxic environments and toxic recurrent exposure that children gain early in life and the long-term effects.

There are other surrogates that my colleague Senator Kutcher might be able to share as well, around the development of the brain and behaviour patterns of children who are exposed repeatedly to negative stimuli.

With that in mind, I would extrapolate it to say that although we cannot in any purposeful way expose children to noxious stimuli, such as recurrent exposure to pornography and to sexually explicit materials, in fact, we do have surrogates that suggest that they would behave in the same way and in a very similar way to the outcomes. That’s the best we can do. I know that we do have limitations in this area, but we also know that there are lots of examples where if we modify the exposure that we give children, we can change the outcomes that we see.

(On motion of Senator McCallum, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I commend you for your dedication to such an important cause and for your work on this bill. Since it is a Senate public bill, I am on the same footing as all other senators and can’t do anything to prioritize it. I urge the parliamentary groups to ensure that they make decisions on your bill and all of the others on the Order Paper.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, a recent CTV News report revealed that a large number of Afghan refugees are living in Canadian “ghost hotels” for months on end. Those hotels lack basic amenities, such as a kitchen and laundry facility. To make matters worse, children are not allowed to go to school. These families often arrive wearing sneakers and sandals that are not appropriate for our harsh winter. They rely on the kindness of neighbours to get their basic needs.

Senator Gold, the government committed to welcoming 40,000 Afghan refugees but is already struggling to provide for fewer than 4,000 Afghans here today. Why has there been no follow-up with those families? What is the government planning to do to help them?

Senator Gold: Again, I confess that I don’t know the details of all the different measures that are being taken by all the many groups, whether faith-based, community-based or government-supported. I know that Canadians in all parts of the country and organizations are doing their very best to assist.

As I said, again, I will try to get a fuller picture, and I would be happy to share it when I can.

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which is tomorrow. I wish to highlight the intersection of disability and poverty with information released by Campaign 2000 in their 2021 report card on child and family poverty in Canada, No One Left Behind: Strategies for an Inclusive Recovery. Thank you to Senator Moodie, who shared information from this report on Tuesday during her statement on National Child Day.

Almost one in three working-aged people with disabilities live in poverty. Before the pandemic even started, 26% of people with disabilities reported their needs were unmet due to financial barriers when it comes to the cost of required aids, assistive devices or prescription medications. Campaign 2000 is urging the inclusion of children with disabilities in any legislation involving disability income benefit reform. They are recommending that the federal government develop a “comprehensive, broad, and adequate benefit program for children with disabilities.”

I often say that there is no such thing as child poverty, since children do not live in isolation from their families. We should be talking about family poverty. Families caring for a child with a disability are often burdened with extra costs that other families are not, leaving them with a significant need for more support and, at times, unmet needs.

Honourable senators, when we talk about the need to build back better after the pandemic, we know there are some groups at risk of being left behind, such as children with disabilities. Colleagues, I urge you to help ensure that the government’s attempts to build back better leave no one behind, especially not children with disabilities. Asante. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you. Senator Kutcher, a year before I was named to the Senate, I actually testified at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in favour of Bill C-300, the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act. Given the tragic life experience of the suicide death of my husband, former MP Dave Batters, the Health Committee called me to testify about that bill.

As the Conservative government was then in power, I was named to the Senate a year later. I had the opportunity to have frequent interactions with the health minister of the Conservative government at the time and with my MP colleagues, of course, in the Conservative caucus. Then the Trudeau government has now been in power for six years.

During the time of the Conservative government, I know that substantial progress was made to set up the framework and to do consultations across the country. But since the Trudeau government has been in power for six years, I really haven’t seen much if any progress on that. Could you please tell us what the Trudeau government has done to implement the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act in those six years?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Batters. You and I both share the tragedy of having to deal with family suicide, yours much closer than mine but a tragedy nonetheless.

The importance of us both having that understanding and having lived through that difficult time — and it never leaves you; I’m sure you would agree with me, it never leaves you — is that we’re committed, and we should be committed, to ensuring that whatever government is in place, whatever its political stripe, is using the best evidence to ensure that the guidance from any framework it creates is the way we need to go.

I applaud the previous government for bringing in Bill C-300, which actually laid the groundwork for the framework. It has been there for a decade. We have an opportunity to answer the question you’ve just posed to me. It’s exactly the same question I posed to this chamber: What has been the impact of the framework? Has it actually made a difference, a substantive and real difference, in decreasing rates of suicide, not just in all of Canada in general but in those specific populations where the need is greater?

If it hasn’t done that, should it be improved? Are there things that can be done to make it better? I think you and I both share a wish that that will happen. I hope that every member in this chamber also shares the wish that you and I share. Thank you.