Senator Housakos: Government leader, it is really remarkable that three weeks after getting this question, you can’t answer in a transparent and honest forthwith fashion. It’s not a complicated question.

I think I understand why your government refuses to answer the question. I would be embarrassed as well if I were part of a government that is paying $44 billion of interest this fiscal year on the debt that you have doubled since you have come into power. I would be ashamed to actually come up with that number. You have had ample opportunity to answer the question.

I can understand the shame, because in this fiscal year your government is about to spend as much money on the interest on the national debt as you are in health transfer payments, which explains why one in five Canadians — and I would venture to say one in four in some provinces — don’t even have a family doctor.

I have another question for you, and it’s an even simpler one. If you look at this current fiscal situation, your government’s spending is almost even on interest payments on the debt and health transfer payments.

In 2015, I was a member of this chamber when the government at the time was spending $27 billion in interest payments on debt that previous governments had accumulated. It was less than two thirds of what they were paying in health transfer payments to the provinces.

If you weren’t a Liberal government representative in this chamber and you were an average Canadian, which one of those two fiscal pictures would you prefer to have as a Canadian citizen?

Senator Gold: No, I’d be happy if there were an opposition that was as independent as you claim to be. I wish there were an opposition that did not put partisanship upon the protection of Canadian national security. I wish we had an opposition or a Leader of the Opposition in the other place who had the courage to read the information as opposed to protecting himself —

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Environmental regulation and jurisdiction of the environment is a shared one. This government works with all willing provincial and territorial governments with the common objective of reducing emissions, promoting climate change and promoting a transition to a sustainable, greener economy. Nowhere is that more important than in the oil and gas sector, which is in many ways a leader in innovation in this area.

With regard to your question, Canada’s emissions reporting, as you would know, is prepared in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is based upon science.

With regard to the more specific aspects of your question, I’ll bring those to the attention of the minister.

[Translation]

Senator Seidman: No, I can’t. Thank you.

Senator Cormier: Thank you, Senator Seidman. First, I want to congratulate you and thank you for your dedication and commitment to official languages. You have been on the Official Languages Committee for years, and you have done a lot of work. You are dedicated to the anglophone community in Quebec.

Considering that the Official Languages Committee’s mandate is broad and allows it to examine any matter relating to official languages in general — which includes constitutional language rights guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — considering it is mandated to review the application of the Official Languages Act and the application of its regulations, and considering that the Official Languages Committee has paid particular attention to legal and constitutional questions during its pre-study of the bill, don’t you think that this committee is better equipped to exclusively examine this piece of legislation?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. The answer is yes because we are here to analyze the bill. As I used to say in my former life, we’re going to have to live with all this for a very long time. It’s not a matter of days, weeks, or months and that’s why we have to do things right. Either we do this properly or not at all. So I believe this is an option we should look at.

I also agree with Senator Seidman, who’s of the opinion that, in addition to the expertise of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — as is already done at the National Finance Committee and the Banking Committee — we study several bills, with one committee being ultimately responsible for gathering the opinions of others who have some expertise that your committee may not have.

[English]

Senator Seidman: Senator Gold, would you take a question?

Senator Seidman: Of course.

Senator Gold: Yes, Senator Seidman.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. If I understand your question, Senator Quinn, Bill C-13 explicitly refers to the bilingual status of New Brunswick. As I’ve tried to outline in my speech, throughout the whole structure, the DNA of this bill is to promote the substantial equality of both English and French throughout this country, regardless of where folks live.

The reality in this country is that, in areas of provincial jurisdiction, there is a great disparity in the services that are offered, whether in education, government services or, indeed, in the legislature to those who find themselves in a minority language situation. That’s why it was important for the drafters of this bill and the parliamentarians who supported it in the other place that the law reflected the true juridical context within which the lived experience of minority-language communities lives. Those who live in New Brunswick have at least formal equality of status in all respects. Those who live in some provinces have virtually no legal guarantees and certainly not constitutional guarantees. And many who live outside of Quebec would only dream of having the institutions that we in the English-speaking community were able to build over centuries and that still, despite the challenges, serve our community well.

We as legislators have a duty to analyze and study legislation properly, obviously, to make sure that we understand properly what we’re doing. In that regard, I look forward to the committee’s study of Bill C-13.

The law is very clear in its objectives to promote the equality of English and French. It is very clear in the measures it places to enhance what the federal government can do to support English and French across this great country. It is also clear that it does not derogate from rights, whether it’s Indigenous‑language speakers, minority-language speakers or acquired English‑community rights in Quebec.

Senator Gold: I’m sure this question will and can be both asked and answered at committee, but it is clearly in the law. Again, as I have noted, the provisions here that remove the exemption have been in place for federally appointed judges for decades and it is certainly not the case that all federally appointed judges have had to have been bilingual. It wasn’t like that in the past, nor will it be in the future, whether for the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario or Supreme Court of Canada.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Absolutely.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I understand very well, in a diverse country like ours, how important it is for all the institutions that share similar objectives to communicate with each other and for collaboration to be established as needed and where appropriate.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize that the raison d’être of Bill C-13 is the two official languages and their legal status in Canada.

As I’ve already mentioned, there were consultations, but I don’t want to claim that this was done within the framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s a bill that deals with other matters, notwithstanding the fact that it respectfully recognizes the acquired and constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples.

The other component I talked about in my bill on Indigenous languages relates to the commissioners and all the resources that will be brought in — This is another vital and important bill that’s still in its early stages, meaning that it isn’t quite ready yet. Some projects do exist, and there have been some successes. There’s still a lot of work to be done. We hope all this will continue and even progress a little more quickly, but we have to distinguish between the two camps. A patchwork of measures will do neither Bill C-13 nor the Indigenous languages bill any good.

[English]

Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Gold.

This is a very emotional topic for me, but I believe that you will understand that Innu-aimun is also an official language in my heart. My other half, my Quebec half, reminds me that it is important to also protect French throughout Canada.

It is my Innu half that will ask you a question, Senator Gold.

Quebec has nations, chiefs and also the First Nations Education Council, which has 22 First Nation member communities. They are currently suing over the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, and have filed an application for judicial review to defend their position on the act. This will have direct consequences for education in our schools and our communities. I would like you to comment on the following scenario, as it frightens me. I am not a legal expert, but when I see a bill that becomes law and that specifically mentions a provincial charter or law, I wonder if that government can say, “Now, the federal government gives you full recognition, so I’m sorry, but you are covered by the Official Languages Act, and one of those languages is French.” I am speaking on behalf of Quebec’s First Peoples.

Senator Cormier: Would Senator Loffreda take a question?

Senator Cormier: Senator Loffreda, thank you for speaking about the concerns expressed by the anglophone community in Quebec, particularly regarding the inclusion of references to the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13. My question is fairly simple. Did I understand correctly from your speech that you’re suggesting that the Chair of the Official Languages Committee invite legal experts to clarify concerns regarding the inclusion of the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13?

At the same time, did I also understand correctly that you’re suggesting that the committee chair, who is also the bill’s sponsor, vacate his seat, which he intends to do, to ensure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for your presentation.

Here is my question. Is there not a big difference between a budget bill that’s referred to different committees to study their part of the issue — each part that’s referred to them — and this particular situation where you would request that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, on which I sit, redo a study that was already done several years ago by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages?

[English]

Senator Plett: This is ludicrous. Wouldn’t it be great if the Trudeau government showed as much effort when working to protect Canadians as they do trying to cover up — and, again, I’ll use that word — the fix —

Senator Loffreda: Yes, of course.