Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, on May 18, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association.

I would like to pay tribute to the co-founder of this association, which I have the privilege of co-chairing today, our former colleague, the Honourable Raynell Andreychuk.

The Honourable Senator Andreychuk is a visionary who is passionate about Africa. She is an experienced diplomat who spent a good part of her working life in Africa, where she served as Canada’s High Commissioner to Kenya and Uganda and then as Canada’s Ambassador to Somalia.

She was appointed to the Senate in 1993, thus becoming the first woman from Saskatchewan to serve in the upper chamber of Canada’s Parliament.

After taking her place in the Senate, she realized that no one was talking about Africa, except in the context of development aid or the role of some African countries in the Francophonie. She also realized that our country didn’t have a foreign policy on Africa, even though we had such policies for most other areas of the world.

For all these reasons, she thought that we needed to establish direct parliamentary relations with the 54 separate countries that make up the African continent. In her opinion, our country needed to develop a foreign policy for this continent that she had the opportunity to visit and get to know well.

With the help of the late MP Mauril Bélanger, she co-founded the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association in 2003 and, together, they served as co-chairs until 2016.

Over the past two decades, the association has organized bilateral missions to 34 African countries, forging direct relationships with African parliamentarians and promoting our democratic values in the countries visited.

Honourable senators, I am honoured and very proud to pursue the path charted by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, to hopefully one day achieve a true partnership and rapprochement between Canada and Africa.

Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. All the provinces and territories welcome, want and need immigrants and a healthy immigration policy in order to flourish, develop and grow. In that regard, I have every confidence that the Government of Canada will work with interested governments and territorial and provincial governments to better understand their particular needs, whether it’s economic or other indicators that would best suit their needs. It will also take into account the needs of those French-speaking communities, for example, in your province and elsewhere, who will also play an important role in identifying their needs and identifying how they can assist in the integration of immigrants once they arrive.

This is not a question of enforcing. It’s a question of encouraging and using the government’s jurisdiction over immigration to make sure that its immigration policy reflects the needs of this country, and not only the economic needs of a particular region or province but also the demographic needs of the minority communities and the French-speaking communities that live outside of Quebec.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for your important question. Immigration is an important vehicle through which our country grows and develops. Unfortunately, the recent census data shows that there is a very concerning decrease in the use of French outside of Quebec. In order to promote and support those francophone communities, especially outside of Quebec, it is imperative that they receive the benefit of the revitalization that francophone immigration would bring to them.

This has been a policy of the government, quite independent of Bill C-13, for some time. It’s a priority to increase francophone immigration so as to halt the decline of French in the country.

In 2022, the government reached its target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside of Quebec, and in that year, Canada welcomed a record number of more than 16,300 francophone immigrants outside of Quebec. In addition, with the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023–2028, the government is planning to invest large sums in new measures in order to promote francophone immigration to Canada.

If this bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it does soon, these plans will be put into place, measures will be introduced and indicators will be developed to guide the actions of the government. Indeed, these are actions, if I remember correctly, that our Senate committee studied, promoted and called for.

I should add, by the way, that the measures to increase francophone immigration across Canada were also enhanced and strengthened by several amendments in the other place.

That’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not sure I answered your question specifically because some of the measures will have to await the coming into force of this law, as well as the action plans that have been developed, but it’s a commitment of the government.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Senator Omidvar’s granddaughter, Nylah Omidvar-Khullar.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Seidman: Thank you for the question. The Official Languages Committee did a pre-study on Bill C-13, that is correct. The bill that returns is somewhat changed, with many more amendments and additional references to the Charte de la langue française. I feel that it is never harmful in a situation of such high-risk to the English-speaking community in Quebec to have a highly expert, very specialized approach to the potential constitutional issue around reference, for the first time in a federal piece of legislation, only to Quebec’s Charte de la langue française.

Senator Plett: You wish there was no opposition.

Senator Gold: I will answer it. You are wrong, dead wrong. Once again, I wish that the opposition in this place was not —

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for that information. Now that diplomatic relations have been restored, Canada will soon have an ambassador in Riyadh. This seems, at the very least, like an opportunity to intervene directly with the Saudis, in person, on Mr. Badawi’s behalf.

Raif Badawi was imprisoned for his political views. When will the government issue a temporary passport or grant him safe passage so that he can finally be reunited with his wife and children, who have been forced to live without him in Quebec for over a decade?

Senator Downe: Just for the record, I am concerned. Sometimes it’s a perception of the conflict as opposed to real conflict that could be a problem. In this case, I think it is.

Senator Seidman: Thank you. With all due respect to committee members and to you, most honourable chair, who are absolutely devoted and committed to this issue — and I well respect that, believe me, and I respect the expertise of all members on that committee and all the experts who have come before that committee. But I could ask the question: Don’t we feel the same way about all our members of the National Finance Committee? A budget bill doesn’t exclusively go to that committee. It goes to various committees who have the expertise to perhaps see it in a somewhat different light. That would be my answer to you.

Senator Wallin: This is the concern: Without understanding how this might be enforced or put into place, it leaves a lot of questions. If you establish a target for francophone immigration — regardless of the country, or the needs they may or may not be meeting in other parts of the country — how would you establish a target for bringing francophone immigrants into the province of Saskatchewan? How would you decide that? How would you assess that? How would you enforce that?

Senator Gold: Once again, I share your concern, esteemed colleague. I’ll add that to my questions to the minister.

[English]

Senator Seidman: Thank you, senator, for the question. I have been here since 2009, and I cannot recall a situation such as that. And I would never call into disrepute the members of that committee, whether they be chair or deputy chair. They are honourable, and I have total respect for them and their ability to deal with these issues.

I do believe, though, that this bill should go to both of those committees, Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well, because of their ability to analyze the potential constitutional problems in this bill. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I do agree. First of all, consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. Unanimity should not be a threshold for change in the Senate — that would simply be a recipe for paralysis. However, as I just said, on the issue of our approach to other business, given the different proposals that have been circulated in the past, I think there needs to be a process of engagement that would yield a policy consensus, or at least to see where one might lie. Again, I would encourage the Rules Committee to take up this issue.

You mentioned Senator Murray Sinclair; he was an important voice in this chamber. His vision of the Senate as Canada’s council of elders is certainly one vision that could inform our debate as we continue our efforts to modernize the Senate, and for the Senate to better correspond to contemporary needs and reality.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Once again, the government wants to see Mr. Badawi reunited with his family. I’m sure that the restoration of diplomatic relations will result in increased advocacy on his behalf. That is certainly our hope.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t believe that it would be necessary or appropriate — in this case — to send it to another committee in addition to the Official Languages Committee.

There are clearly committee members with expertise who have studied the issues. It is also the case that any senator can participate in those meetings, and, therefore, those with a legal background who have an interest in this can be present either as a senator or as a substitute for members in their group. Equally important, the committee will have the ability to bring those experts to testify.

I am not one to exaggerate; when I say with certainty that these are factual references and do not incorporate, in any respect, the provisions, I speak from a lifetime of experience in law and in legal texts — and that will be the testimony I fully expect to hear before the committee.

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold.

I am not a member of the Official Languages Committee. I don’t have the deep knowledge of the bill that my colleagues — who have spoken — have.

I understand what you have said: The reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the bill is not a political accommodation or a substantive accommodation; it’s a reference to fact and context. So far, I think I interpreted you correctly. I’m not a lawyer — I’m trying to explain it to myself in plain language.

My question is as follows: Does this set a precedent for future legislation to reference a provincial law that applies only to one province within a federal law that applies to all others?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I would be surprised if there weren’t examples of this in other federal statutes, but I don’t want to assert that’s the case because I haven’t done that kind of research.

The important point, Senator Omidvar, is that this is, as you correctly point out, simply a factual reference so as to provide the proper context. It has no legal force or effect. Therefore, it is not setting any kind of precedent that has legislative significance. It responds to the unique circumstances that gave rise to this bill, as well as the need to modernize the legislation.

As well, colleagues, it was also a product of a legislative process in the other place that involved not only the government, but also all of the opposition parties that participated, over many years, in the elaboration and drafting of this legislation.

I date myself by quoting Alfred E. Neuman from MAD magazine to say, “What, me worry?”

In my respectful opinion, there is nothing to be concerned about juridically, legally and legislatively here.

I understand; I come from the English-speaking community in Quebec. I have family members who are challenging me on this bill and, indeed, who are involved in public advocacy — taking a position different from the position of the government — and I feel it very well.

I understand what is triggered by the references, but, in fact, the law is clear — and as legislators, we have to be clear. The law preserves and protects English rights in Quebec to the fullest extent that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction to do so. The references are simply to provide the proper context for the linguistic regimes within which minorities have to live, whether it’s in provinces with no official recognition of constitutional bilingualism, as in New Brunswick, or in provinces like Quebec where there is an official language legislated in law through Quebec’s Charter of the French Language.