The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Loffreda, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise briefly to speak to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages. I want to thank all who have spoken before me and contributed to the debate on this important bill.

This legislation is an important milestone in Canada’s long journey toward true equality between speakers of English and French — in law, in fact and in the daily experiences of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The context of our debate about Bill C-13 is, in part, that of a digital age in which English has become the language of globalization, commerce and popular culture. It’s a challenge facing many linguistic communities around the world, but it’s one felt acutely by francophones in Canada — not least by those who live in majority English provinces in our majority English country on this majority English continent.

The context of this debate is also Canada’s long history of hostility and discrimination toward people who speak French, going back to the 18th century when British policy sought overtly to assimilate or expel them. This discrimination persisted after Confederation and well into the latter part of the 20th century when most of us were already of age. One example includes the denial of constitutionally protected minority language education rights in Manitoba, which persisted for almost a century until they were restored by a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1985. One can also cite the shameful abolition of French-language instruction in New Brunswick and in Ontario at the turn of the previous century. There are many other examples.

Colleagues, francophone communities have fought for years to establish institutions and secure basic rights, including the right to education in their own language. In doing so, they’ve had to overcome both the ugliness of prejudice and the bitterness of indifference.

Let me tell you one story — one story can illuminate the stories of so many: In 1966, Micheline Saint-Cyr moved from Hull — now Gatineau — to Toronto with her husband and five children. Were they greeted favourably by their neighbours? No, they were not. This was reported in the Toronto Star, by the way. When they arrived, neighbours threw eggs at them, lit fires in their garage and scrawled graffiti on their home with slurs like “Frogs live here.” Faced with that reception, Micheline didn’t give up, or fold her tent and her family’s; she applied herself. She worked with other francophone parents to establish community institutions, including a French cultural centre and Toronto’s first French public school — l’École secondaire Étienne-Brûlé — which her children attended in spite of the fact that the school regularly received bomb threats.

The bravery and determination of Micheline Saint-Cyr paid off for her community and her family. Today, in Etobicoke, there is a school that bears her name, and, in this building, there’s an office that bears the name of her grandson — my chief of staff — Éric‑Antoine Menard.

Colleagues, the efforts of Micheline Saint-Cyr and so many others have paid off for us here in Canada. Our country’s bilingualism is a tremendous national asset, both domestically and internationally, notably giving us an entry and influence in institutions and parts of the world that would otherwise be largely beyond our grasp. As former Governor General Michaëlle Jean has put it, the French language is “a bridge, a strategic vehicle, a powerful lever, and a tremendous opportunity.”

But the health of Canada’s bilingualism is not something that we can afford to take for granted. That’s why, more than 30 years since the last major reform of the Official Languages Act, Bill C-13 seeks to respond to social and demographic trends affecting our country, and to better affirm Canada’s aspirations in matters of official languages.

Assembling Bill C-13 was a collective effort. In recent years, researchers, minority language communities and various stakeholders collaborated and inspired the content of the legislation, which is designed to protect official language minority populations. Our chamber has played a significant part in that process. From 2017 to 2019, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages undertook an exhaustive study about the prospect of modernizing the act. Then, in a follow-up study, the committee examined a 2021 document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada, which outlined potential reforms and was tabled by Minister Joly, who was the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages at the time. Bill C-32 was later tabled, but died on the Order Paper. That legislation was then significantly reworked, improved and introduced in its current incarnation last year.

In its pre-study of Bill C-13, the Official Languages Committee held eight meetings, heard from 41 witnesses and received 41 briefs before tabling its report in the chamber late last fall.

Colleagues, Bill C-13 contains key measures to address the decline of French in Canada. It clarifies and strengthens the part of the Official Languages Act designed to promote official languages, and it enhances supports for official language minority communities — all official language minority communities. It also compels federal institutions to improve compliance with their obligations under the act.

[Translation]

The Official Languages Act states that one of its purposes is to, and I quote:

This paragraph clearly shows that the notion of substantive equality is the norm in language law. According to jurisprudence, this equality stems from section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges.

[English]

The English and French languages benefit from substantive equality of status in Canada. However, to make equality a reality, the government must take positive steps, steps that take into account the vulnerability of the French language and of francophone minorities in Canada and in North America.

The case law, which includes Supreme Court of Canada decisions, has time and again recognized this vulnerability and, on several occasions, stated a need for additional efforts and government action. Bill C-13 addresses this need and takes proactive steps to protect minority-language communities and further the goal of equal status for French and English.

As Érik Eastaugh, Professor of Law at the Université de Moncton, stated in his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages:

That doesn’t mean that the guiding value isn’t equality. It simply recognizes that equality, in concrete terms, in practical terms on the ground, requires asymmetry in measures adopted by the government, and that’s recognized in all fields.

Let’s talk about the reality on the ground. Now, I would like to speak to you as a Quebec anglophone who grew up and still lives in Quebec, and as a Quebec senator who represents a unique section of the Canadian mosaic made up of Quebec’s anglophone communities.

Now, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is no question that English is the predominant language in Canada and, if you will, the lingua franca in much of the world.

At the same time, the English-speaking communities of Quebec have valid concerns and face distinct challenges — concerns and challenges, frankly, that are not obviated by the fact that English is predominant elsewhere in this country.

Fifty years ago, over 13% of Quebecers had English as a mother tongue; today, the number is 7.5%. To be sure, mother tongue is an imperfect barometer. These numbers clearly indicate a significant decline in our communities’ demographic weight. This has been most pronounced outside the Montreal area, where English-community institutions are less robust, English-language services are harder to access and — in some places — dwindling numbers of senior citizens are all that remain of once-thriving anglophone communities.

There are also economic indicators that should give us pause. They were referred to by Senator Seidman. Last year, the Provincial Employment Roundtable found that English-speaking Quebecers had an unemployment rate fully 2% higher than francophones — 8.9% as opposed to 6.9% — and a median income $2,800 lower. These disparities are, again, most notable in rural areas, as well as among young adults and within racialized anglophone communities.

Colleagues, I don’t mention all of this to be alarmist. The sky is not falling on Quebec anglophones. As minority-language communities go, ours is, on the whole, in comparatively good position. It’s always going to be a tricky situation because anglophones and francophones in Quebec are both simultaneously part of a minority and part of a majority. Both communities are used to feeling vulnerable and, frankly, to having our sense of vulnerability questioned, if not sometimes indeed belittled. Still, most of the time, we get along pretty well in Quebec. We enrich each other’s lives every day.

My point is simply that we should be clear-eyed about the real and unique challenges faced by Quebec’s English-speaking communities. However, my expectation, colleagues, is that under the Official Languages Act as amended by Bill C-13, with the support of new funds under the Action Plan for Official Languages, and hopefully with the support of the provincial government, these challenges can and will be addressed.

Honourable senators, Bill C-13 preserves the rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities; moreover, it contains notable improvements, such as those made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which articulates specific commitments to the protection of both English and French minority communities, their rights and their institutions.

This ranges from interpretive clauses instructing the importance of taking into account the English-language minority community in Quebec in section 3(1), protecting the continuum of education; bolstering and clarifying the government’s obligations under the act towards the English-speaking communities and others; protecting the Court Challenges Program, which is a vehicle for the vindication of minority rights in language and would and can benefit the English-speaking community; supporting the institutions of official language minority communities, and those include, of course, those in Quebec and providing new powers as well to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Moreover, Bill C-13 does not affect the specific rights that the English-speaking community has in Quebec; indeed, this is a constitutional asymmetry that’s built into and reflected in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides for the protection of language rights of anglophones in Quebec in the administration of justice, before the judiciary and within the National Assembly, including providing for legislative bilingualism in our province. These rights, not enjoyed by most French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, remain fully in effect.

Now, we have heard outside this chamber and, indeed, today, of the concerns raised about the references in the bill to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. But, colleagues — and here I say this with respect, and I wear my constitutional lawyer’s hat as much as any other — we have to be clear about what these references mean, what they do and what they don’t do. These references are statements of fact. They’re factual references, if you will allow me that phrase. In no way do they incorporate the Quebec charter into Bill C-13.

In legal terms, these are references of fact and observations of fact. They are not, to use legal terms, an incorporation by reference. No, this does not incorporate parts of the Quebec charter into Bill C-13. In no way does that do that, period.

Bill C-13 recognizes the reality that is part of the context within which language rights live and breathe in this country, and the context within which Bill C-13 attempts to modernize and promote the equality of our two official languages. It recognizes the reality that the Charter of the French Language exists as an important element in a province which houses a French-speaking majority. It does not make federal institutions, much less this law, subordinate to the Quebec charter.

As Warren Newman, a senior Justice Department official, said at committee in the other place:

I don’t see that federal services from federal institutions would be in any way compromised by the mere mention of the fact that the Charter of the French Language and other linguistic regimes are matters that the government recognizes as part of the overall context.

Bill C-13’s reference to the Charter of the French Language does not limit communications or services in English to Quebec’s English-speaking communities, because these are governed by sections 16(1) and 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, as I had mentioned already, section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 also does not limit access to English education as guaranteed by section 23 of the Charter. The references in fact do not endorse the Quebec charter, much less its subsequent invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause.

With the greatest respect, there are no constitutional issues raised by the references to the Quebec charter. They are references of fact and as part of the context within which this bill is meant to live.

[Translation]

As noted by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Raymond Théberge, Bill C-13 reflects the different language regimes of our regions, whether it is the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, section 23 of the Manitoba Act or even the constitutional amendment made by the only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick.

Naturally, we can’t speak about our linguistic differences without recognizing the realities and the vulnerabilities of Indigenous languages.

[English]

As has been noted over the course of this debate, English and French are, by virtue of our Constitution, Canada’s two official languages. But they are by no means Canada’s only languages, and they are — let’s be frank — languages brought to these lands by colonial powers. Indigenous languages were being spoken here long before anyone from England or France knew that this continent even existed. And for far too long, Canadian governments have not only failed to protect Indigenous languages, but, for much of our history, actively sought to eliminate them.

Finally, in 2019, Parliament adopted the Indigenous Languages Act, which recognizes Indigenous language rights and supports efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages and promote their use. At the same time, Parliament created the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, whose mandate is to help promote and protect Indigenous languages and to review complaints made under the Act.

To support these efforts, the government allocated $840 million through 2025-26, with $117.7 million ongoing. Bolstered by these investments, the number of federally funded Indigenous‑language initiatives increased from 301 in 2019-20 to over 1,000 today.

These are positive, albeit initial, steps, with more work under way. The bill currently before us, Bill C-13, is distinctions-based legislation which seeks to protect and promote French and English. Bill C-13 is explicit, stating:

Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right . . . with respect to any language other than English or French, including any Indigenous language.

It further states:

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the maintenance and enhancement of languages other than English or French, nor with the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages.

Colleagues, it is entirely valid for senators to ask questions about how Bill C-13 might impact or interact with Indigenous language rights and with efforts to protect Indigenous languages. I expect that the minister and her officials will be glad to provide answers on this subject at committee and to discuss the government’s consultation process, which I understand included engagement with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council, as well as the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, among others.

Ultimately, our collective goal must be to have thriving Indigenous-language communities and thriving French- and English-speaking communities in majority and minority settings throughout Canada. The law we passed in 2019 advances the first objective, and Bill C-13 would advance the second.

Colleagues, this bill was an electoral promise the government made in 2021, and it received near-unanimous support in the other place, with 301 MPs in a minority Parliament voting for the bill at third reading. It responds to Quebec’s concerns about protecting its linguistic distinctiveness; it responds to the challenges faced by francophone communities outside Quebec; it respects the historic and constitutional rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities; and it respects the rights of Indigenous peoples and the good work being done to protect Indigenous languages under the Indigenous Languages Act.

The purpose of this legislation is to preserve and promote the vitality and development of the two major official language communities in Canada.

[Translation]

We must support our official language minority communities, which include Quebec’s anglophones. However, we see the significant fragility of French in the country, and it is for that reason that Bill C-13 supports the substantive equality of English and French in order to protect these communities. All of this fulfills an important duty of the federal government, which is to promote and protect our linguistic duality, our history, our heritage, our culture and our legacy.

[English]

When both of Canada’s official language communities are strong and vibrant in minority and majority situations, we all reap the benefits. That’s why I urge senators to support this important bill, which will promote and protect French- and English‑speaking communities across this country.

I thank you for your attention, colleagues.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for that speech, because it helped bring some clarity for me with respect to why Bill 96 is referenced in the legislation. The explanation I thought was very helpful insofar as the distinction of French in the province of Quebec.

But as a New Brunswicker, I worry about other parts of the country that may not understand Bill 96 and its importance to underscore the importance of the French language in Quebec.

Why would we not stress the importance of English and French across Canada, specifically in a province like New Brunswick where it is the official position of the provincial government that French and English are the languages of New Brunswick? I’m just a little worried that there could be confusion in some parts of Canada that may not have a very noticeable French presence or in other areas of the country where, perhaps, English is more dominant than French.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I wish to ask Senator Gold a question, if he will take one.

Hon. Denise Batters: In the briefing note on Bill C-13 submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Barreau du Québec stated this:

It has been suggested that amendments to the Supreme Court Act or the Official Languages Act could affect the notion of “composition of the Court” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, further to Justice Nadon’s appointment. Thus, the addition of a bilingualism requirement to any of these statutes would, in their view, have to go through the constitutional amendment process (seven Canadian provinces with at least 50% of the population).

While we do not take a position on this constitutional issue, we would like to emphasize that it deserves particular attention to ensure that any amendments requiring bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are successful, not counterproductive.

I also note that in my home province of Saskatchewan, the last Supreme Court justice that was appointed from Saskatchewan was Emmett Hall in the 1960s, before I was born. He served until 1973. Given the low rate of bilingualism in Saskatchewan, we want to ensure that we have the best jurists on the Supreme Court of Canada. We need to assess that.

With those important issues to consider, why shouldn’t this bill be studied at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Audette, do you have a supplementary question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Audette, do you have a supplementary question?

Hon. Michèle Audette: Would Senator Gold take a question?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising the issue of the court because I think it will also give me an opportunity to correct what I think is a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of this bill as it applies to the court.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe that the issues that you have raised justify sending it to the Legal Committee, and I’ll explain why.

With respect to the judiciary, the provisions of this bill remove an exemption that existed for the Supreme Court of Canada that was placed in the original act and, at the time, was thought to be “temporary,” absolving the court as an institution from the same requirements that other superior courts had. That is, to give effect to the constitutionally protected rights of litigants to be heard and understood in the language of their choice without the aid of an interpreter. What is perhaps not understood — and I apologize, Senator Batters, if I’m putting words in your mouth, or others; I don’t mean to. But this does not mean that every judge appointed to the Supreme Court or any other Supreme Court must be bilingual, fluent or otherwise. That is not what the legislation requires. It is an institutional obligation on the court as an institution that when it hears cases, the litigants before the court must be ensured that they are able to address the court and be understood without the benefit of an interpreter.

I’ll give an example. It happens, happily, that the Supreme Court of Canada in today’s composition has nine judges — three from Quebec, three from Ontario, as is our practice, custom and law — who are all functionally bilingual, but it is not actually a requirement and wouldn’t be a requirement. It would be a requirement that the panel of judges who hears a case be a panel that is able to hear and understand testimony, whether in English or French, without the benefit of an interpreter. For example, the quorum for a case at the Supreme Court of Canada, as you know, is five. There is nothing in Bill C-13 that requires that every future judge, where it’s the Supreme Court or of any superior court — because those provisions have been in place for some long time — must be fluently bilingual. It is conceivable that a Supreme Court judge may be appointed if they only speak French and perhaps an Indigenous language. Although I don’t think there has been a unilingual French judge on the Supreme Court since Confederation, there have certainly been unilingual English judges. But that is not precluded by this so long as the court, as an institution, when it structures its panels — which is typically under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice — has the ability to satisfy the institutional obligation that is now imposed upon the Supreme Court from which it had been exempted temporarily under the Official Languages Act of 30 years ago.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support 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, at second reading.

My support of this bill does not mean that I think it is a comprehensive solution for protecting the French language in Canada. However, it contains enough positive elements that it should not be dismissed out of hand either. In my opinion, Bill C-13 is a step forward that should be taken today, particularly given the fact that it took eight years for this update to be introduced.

That being said, I am no fool. Bill C-13 will not fix the demographic decline of French in Canada in just a few months or years. Francophone communities across the country are not just going to start getting all the services that have been promised in the new law in their language with the snap of a finger.

Bill C-13, as we received it in the Senate, will be a worthwhile tool, as long as the government gives our politicians and institutions the funding they need to meet the many commitments that will come into effect.

I would remind honourable senators that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed doubts that the objectives set out in Bill C-13 will be achieved, given the rather modest amounts committed to that end in the most recent federal budget. Implementing and ensuring respect for the Official Languages Act in a country as big as Canada is a costly challenge.

Unfortunately, we must realize that the application of the provisions of Bill C-13 will become a significant economic issue in the years to come, and it will be our duty to remind the government of its commitments and obligations. As citizens and as politicians, we will have to ensure that the current government and those to follow will take concrete action to stop the demographic decline of francophones.

Canada’s Official Languages Act must not be a mere piece of paper to be bandied about only during an election campaign or even in regulatory or legal debates to demand that everyone’s rights be respected. Bill C-13 must be a way of life in Canada and must become, in time, a proud legislative achievement for a country that has become as multicultural as ours.

Although we have to be patient in some respects, at this point I am so pleased that Bill C-13 will grant a new right to work and be served in French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across the country. Working and living in one’s own language in a bilingual country should not be a battle, but a way of being.

I also want to say how happy I am with the new powers that will be given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to compel and punish federal institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. This is a major and, frankly, long‑awaited change. At last we will have new provisions that will greatly facilitate the application of the Official Languages Act.

Although I am satisfied with the new requirement for the government to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, I am nevertheless disappointed that this mandatory bilingualism will not apply to the Governor General of Canada or the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. In my opinion, these two office-holders simply must be able to communicate with citizens in both official languages. However, it would appear that the 1982 Constitution prevented adding such provisions to the new version of Canada’s Official Languages Act. I find that quite unfortunate.

We will have to continue to rely on the current government to ensure that the two official languages’ criterion is applied to these appointments. Unfortunately, the latest appointments have demonstrated that a prime minister has the political ability to say certain things but then do the opposite.

I want to come back to the political aspect of passing Bill C-13. I’m pleased to see that all the members in the other place — with the exception of one, whom I will talk about later — voted in favour of Bill C-13. That means that 300 elected representatives from across the country have passed this bill to modernize our country’s Official Languages Act. I want to stress that 300 MPs from across Canada voted in favour of the bill; it’s very important to remember that.

I think it’s important to note here that all political parties in the other place voted in favour of Bill C-13 after obtaining meaningful amendments from the government. Clearly, the last-minute compromises and additions yielded significant results, given that the Government of Quebec expressed its satisfaction and desire to see Bill C-13 passed by the Senate before we rise for the summer, which is fast approaching.

Historically, language issues between Ottawa and Quebec have been very controversial. However, with this series of 11 amendments negotiated in good faith and included in the bill, we are seeing the emergence of a new political dynamic that we were not accustomed to.

Obviously, no one could argue with the fact that the federal government needed to intervene to stop the decline of one of the country’s two official languages, French. This decline is not just happening in Quebec.

In this context, any law or initiative to protect and promote the use of French in Canada must be commended and supported, whether it be at the federal or provincial level.

It became a national and cultural emergency to do something to ensure that the historic bilingual character of our country lives on.

When I go back a bit, there are two points that seem important to me in Quebec’s support for Bill C-13.

First, there is the tacit recognition of Quebec’s power to legislate in order to protect and promote French within its territory, while maintaining the rights of the province’s anglophone community.

Second, Bill C-13 now includes certain aspects of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which target federally regulated businesses that hire employees not only in Quebec but in all areas of the country with a strong francophone presence. Airlines, railways and banks will be particularly affected by these new provisions.

Bill C-13 is not one-sided. It regulates and guarantees rights and services to minority communities in Quebec and across the country, whether those communities are anglophone or francophone.

I think it is a shame to have to say this again, but francophones were just as involved as anglophones in founding Canada, and their language needs to be respected and protected. I am talking not just about Quebecers, but also about the Acadian community and every francophone community in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout our great country.

Unfortunately, at the risk of repeating myself, there will always be fringe politicians who see efforts to protect the French language as a threat to their right to live in English. We saw a fine example of that in the other place.

What surprises me is that some of them live in Quebec, including the only MP who voted against Bill C-13 in the other place and who wanted to get rid of the references to the Charter of the French Language because he is convinced that the Quebec government is bent on taking away anglophones’ rights.

I just want to say that that member and those who support him, whether overtly or covertly, have an especially insulting attitude toward francophone Quebecers. Why? Because they don’t seem to realize that, as anglophone Quebecers, they have access to two anglophone universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. They also have access to an anglophone university in Sherbrooke, Bishop’s University. They also have access to anglophone colleges and anglophone schools, and they even have a constitutionally protected school board.

When these anglophone Quebecers go out, shop or deal with the government, they can do it in their own language. If they need to go to court, they can do it in English, without restrictions, without interpreters and without delays. Do francophones get as many rights and public services when they are the minority in other provinces? I believe that you know the answer.

To close this chapter, I just want to remind them of the striking revelation from Air Canada’s president and CEO, Michael Rousseau, who confessed that he had lived in Montreal for 14 years without ever having to speak French.

I think that the MP’s attempt to marshal a political uprising against Bill C-13 because he believed that his language is under threat in Quebec was an act of political naivety. I believed that period was over.

Quebec’s anglophone community has always been treated better than francophone and Acadian communities in other provinces.

I would add that that has always been the case and will continue to be the case even after the passage of the new Official Languages Act.

In closing, I want my colleagues to remember that a language can’t survive unless it’s taught properly and spoken every day. It should not be a struggle to live and speak in French in Canada. It is a right, a constitutional right that must now be strengthened.

I therefore ask you to vote in favour of Bill C-13 when the time comes, and then to join me in remaining vigilant in order to ensure that its content is implemented as set out in the bill.

Thank you for listening.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, in any country, language — or languages, plural, in Canada — is the essence of our cultural expression, identity and strength.

In rising today to speak to Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, I want to immediately recognize the important role that our two official languages, English and French, play in our country. I hope that this debate will continue to be constructive and calm, anchored in a sound understanding of the scope of the bill, the evolution of Canada’s demolinguistic situation and the need to act.

I won’t revisit the historical evolution of our language rights today, as Senator Cormier, the bill’s sponsor, skilfully walked us through that in his speech at second reading. He outlined the benefits this law brings to the country and, in particular, to its minority language communities. He also demonstrated the need for the reform proposed today in Bill C-13.

Let’s be clear about the scope of this bill. Bill C-13 seeks to promote and protect the French language, require bilingualism in federally regulated private businesses, support minority language communities and their institutions, both anglophone and francophone, all while recognizing the reality of Canada’s current linguistic dynamics.

Why is this reform necessary? The reality that can’t be ignored is that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. That is the unequivocal finding of the 2021 census. Across the country, French as the first official language spoken fell from 22.3% during the 2016 census to 21.4% in the 2021 census. The same trend can be observed in Quebec, the only majority francophone province, where French as the first language dropped from 83.7% in 2016 to 82.2% in 2021. By comparison, the use of English has increased steadily, rising from 74.8% to 75.5% of the total population of Canada between 2016 and today.

This is not a new phenomenon, but it confirms that the decline in the number of francophones in Canada is accelerating. This decline is hitting the Quebec nation and francophone communities outside Quebec particularly hard. Let’s face facts. Quebecers, but also Acadians and other francophones from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and everywhere else, in short, all francophone communities in our country are negatively affected by this linguistic and demographic dynamic.

What solutions does Bill C-13 offer? Bill C-13 acknowledges this reality and promotes substantive equality of the two official languages. To achieve that, it proposes a tailored approach that is described as asymmetrical on many levels to promote and protect our two official languages, English and French, and it also pays particular attention to official language minority communities.

It is very important to clarify the situation. Treating the two official languages asymmetrically does not create injustice. Treating them symmetrically does. Given the situation we are in today and the data on the decline of the French language, it would be unfair and even inconsistent to pretend otherwise.

The principle of linguistic vulnerability is deeply rooted in the jurisprudence of our highest court. In Ford and Nguyen, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, and I quote:

 . . . the general objective of protecting the French language is a legitimate one within the meaning of Oakes in view of the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the province of Quebec:

[T]he material amply establishes the importance of the legislative purpose reflected in the Charter of the French Language and that it is a response to a substantial and pressing need. . . . The vulnerable position of the French language in Quebec and Canada . . . .

The Supreme Court used a report from the Office québécois de la langue française on linguistic evolution to help justify its decision in Nguyen. That report states, and I quote:

In both the Canadian and North American contexts, French and English do not carry the same weight and are not subject to the same constraints in respect of the future. The durability of English in Canada and in North America is all but assured. That of French in Quebec, and particularly in the Montréal area, still depends to a large extent on its relationship with English and remains contingent upon various factors such as fecundity, the aging of the population, inter- and intraprovincial migration and language substitution.

The federal government’s decision to propose an asymmetrical approach to promoting and preserving our official languages in Bill C-13 is based on a solid factual and legal foundation.

[English]

It is also necessary to assert that an asymmetrical approach in favour of French is not synonymous with a loss of rights for English-speaking citizens, particularly minority anglophones in Quebec, whose situation is very dear to my heart. English‑speaking Quebecers will absolutely retain their rights under the Canadian and Quebec Charters. I could not tolerate my fellow English-speaking Quebecers having their rights endangered or infringed, but this is simply not the case.

Bill C-13 is, in fact, beneficial for the English-speaking minority in Quebec because it includes commitments to linguistic minorities such as advancing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that Quebec — which is the most bilingual province in Canada because actually 44.5% of Quebecers are bilingual in French and English — offers fundamental rights and protections to its English-speaking communities in its own legislation. Our colleague Senator Dagenais eloquently referred to these protections. Those rights and privileges relate to education, administrative services, health services and others. The community also counts on strong and healthy institutions such as bilingual municipalities, hospitals and universities.

I think it is important to be reminded that Bill C-13 has no impact on those rights provided for in the Quebec charter and by the Quebec government, and that a debate on our Official Languages Act is not the place to discuss topics pertaining to Quebec politics or Quebec’s concept of living together.

Why is Bill C-13 such a historic bill? Bill C-13 is truly a historic realization because it comes from true collaboration between numerous stakeholders, including the federal government, the Quebec government and the representatives of linguistic minorities all around the country. All these actors came together in recognition for the need to reform the Official Languages Act. This bill is eagerly awaited all around the country and was adopted with quasi unanimity in the other place, a great achievement in itself.

As a senator from Quebec, I am happy to have witnessed such a great collaboration between the federal government and the Quebec government. Agreements between the two have sometimes been difficult to reach, to say the least, particularly when it comes to linguistic issues, but I am glad to have seen the two working toward a common objective, the promotion and protection of French all around Canada, an ideal in which I’m happy to see the Quebec government being a proactive actor.

This agreement is reflected in the amendments proposed at committee to clauses 54, 57 to 59 and 71 of the bill, relating to federally regulated private businesses, which is the focus, the main scope of this bill.

Bill C-13 will bring a new standard for those federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in francophone areas, ensuring that those businesses respect both the rights of Quebecers to work in the official language of Quebec and the rights of French minorities to receive services in their native tongue, which is not actually the case. Today, the report tabled by the federal Commissioner of Official Languages is very probing with regard to this situation and this unfairness for francophones.

All of this is done without infringing on the rights of anglophones. Essentially, Bill C-13 recognizes that the federally regulated private sector has a role to play in order to promote and protect French.

Bill C-13 is far from being Quebec-centric but focuses, and rightly so, on French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. It will ensure that consumers can communicate with federally regulated private businesses in French and provide language‑of‑work rights for francophone employees all around Canada.

The bill, as I have said, specifically includes a commitment to support the vitality of official language minority communities, that is, francophone communities outside of Quebec and English‑speaking communities in Quebec.

What about Indigenous languages? Obviously, I recognize the need for protection and promotion of Indigenous languages and the rights of the Indigenous peoples who speak them. Having said that, I don’t believe the reform of the Official Languages Act proposed in Bill C-13 is the right avenue to address this issue. Promoting French doesn’t impede on the application of Indigenous languages or the rights of Indigenous communities to use them. Both can be done simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive.

In 2019, we at the Senate passed the Indigenous Languages Act. This is what I believe to be the efficient and appropriate legal instrument to consider in regard to Indigenous languages. If reform is needed, and improvements are requested, the solution would be to work through this law again to further protect and promote Indigenous languages. As such, you will find in me an ally in the Senate.

Why is a bilingual country worth fighting for? I began my intervention by saying that bilingualism was fundamental for Canada’s culture and its identity. I believe it unequivocally. It is not only important within Canada; it’s also one of our main attributes on the international level. Our languages open doors for us everywhere we go. Thanks to the English language and our historical ties to Britain, we are members of the Commonwealth, where we exchange and promote our interests with 55 other countries and nations. Thanks to our French heritage, we are also members of the Francophonie with its 54 members, 7 associate members and 27 observers.

Those ties are essential for Canada. Each one of our two official languages allows us to exchange, trade, connect, share our culture and develop strong diplomatic ties. It also helps to attract immigrants, workers and students. It truly distinguishes us worldwide.

[Translation]

In conclusion, as you can see, I fully support the principle of Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, and I urge you to refer it to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as soon as possible. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of that committee for their excellent and intensive work on the pre‑study of the bill and the report they produced.

I will also answer a question a senator asked earlier about a committee chair sponsoring a bill. I can confirm that the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, with his trademark ethical sensitivity, has asked to step down from chairing that committee and has ensured that another senator will assume that position. The senator who asked that question also asked whether we knew of a situation where the sponsor of a bill was also the chair of the committee. I will reply by citing a recent event. The Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and sponsor of Bill C-11 chaired the meetings where that committee studied that bill.

I am sure that when the members of the Official Languages Committee analyze this bill, they will put in the same high‑quality work on all the important aspects of the bill. Honourable colleagues, in conclusion, the changing demographics of our country point to an unequivocal decline in French. Bill C-13 is the fruit of a delicate collaboration, and it is necessary to ensure the equitable development of both of our official languages. It seeks to achieve equality and equity in the linguistic dynamic of our official languages. In this case, equality means that Canadians can be served by the federal government in the official language of their choice, regardless of what province they live in.

Francophones need this bill, but ultimately, Canada as a whole will benefit.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill with the following amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 and 2:

(a)on page 1, add the following after line 16:

qu’il s’engage à adopter le principe de précaution, si bien qu’en cas de risques de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement;”;

(b)on page 2, add the following after line 36:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;”;

(c)on page 2, add the following after line 41:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing a risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances;”.

2.Clause 3, page 3:

(a)replace line 3, in the English version, with the following:

“not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective”;

(b)add the following after line 13:

3.Clause 4, page 3:

(a)add the following after line 28:

(b)add the following after line 28:

4.Clause 5, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, add the following after line 42:

(b)on page 4, replace line 9 with the following:

“intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;”;

(c)on page 4, replace lines 13 and 14 with the following:

5.Clause 5.1, pages 4 and 5:

(a)replace line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:

(b)on page 5, replace lines 8 and 9 with the following:

“registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.”.

6.Clause 10, pages 6 and 7:

(a)replace line 26 on page 6 to line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b)on page 7, replace lines 28 to 35 with the following:

7.Clause 10.1, pages 7 and 8: delete clause 10.1.

8.Clause 11.1, page 8: delete clause 11.1.

9.Clause 14, page 9:

(a)replace lines 9 to 15 with the following:

“81, add a substance to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 18 to 27 with the following:

10.Clause 15, page 10:

(a)replace line 23 with the following:

“conditions, test procedures and laboratory practices to be followed for replacing, reducing or re-”;

(b)replace lines 26 to 28 with the following:

“classification of a substance as a substance that poses the highest risk.”.

11.Clause 16.1, page 12: replace lines 3 to 21 with the following:

12.Clause 19, pages 15 and 16:

(a)on page 15, replace line 25 with the following:

“and publish a plan with timelines”;

(b)on page 15, replace line 29 with the following:

(c)on page 15, replace lines 37 to 41 with the following:

“the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.”;

(d)on page 16, delete lines 1 and 2;

(e)on page 16, replace line 16 with the following:

“paragraph 68(a), including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”;

(f)on page 16, add the following after line 30:

(g)renumber the subsections of section 73 and amend all references accordingly.

13.Clause 20, pages 17 and 18:

(a)on page 17, replace line 21 with the following:

(b)on page 17, replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:

“specified on the List, if

(c)on page 18, replace lines 1 to 4 with the following:

14.Clause 21, page 20: add the following after line 34:

15.Clause 22, page 21:

(a)replace line 26 with the following:

“amended and the reasons for the amendment in the Environmental Registry and in any other”;

(b)add the following after line 27:

16.Clause 29, page 24: replace line 37 with the following:

“respecting preventive or control actions, including actions that lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives for the environment or human health, in relation to a”.

17.Clause 39, page 31:

(a)replace lines 2 to 17 with the following:

“106, add a living organism to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

“tion 105(1), 105.1(1) or 112(1) is not being manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada the Minister may delete the living”.

18.New clause 39.01, page 31: add the following after line 34:

19. Clause 39.1, pages 31 and 32: replace line 35 on page 31 to line 15 on page 32 with the following:

20.Clause 44.1, page 35: replace lines 21 to 25 with the following:

21.Clause 50, page 39: replace lines 14 to 16 with the following:

22.Clause 53, pages 40 and 41:

(a)on page 40, replace line 1 with the following:

(b)on page 40, replace line 14 with the following:

(c)on page 40, replace line 27 with the following:

(d)on page 41, add the following after line 29:

23.Clause 55, pages 41 and 42:

(a)on page 41, replace line 32 with the following:

(b)on page 42, delete lines 15 to 35.

24.Clause 57, pages 43 and 44: replace line 14 on page 43 to line 4 on page 44 with the following:

25.Clause 67.1, page 51: delete clause 67.1.

26.Schedule 1, page 53: delete the reference to “section 68.1” in the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1”.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

He said: Honourable senators, on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, I’m honoured to rise as sponsor of Bill C-45. This legislation amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act of 2006, helping support economic reconciliation and greater prosperity for First Nations.

Bill C-45 contains important measures to enhance the statute’s opt-in fiscal frameworks for the 348 scheduled and participating First Nations and any new entrants. Most importantly, this bill will also create the First Nations infrastructure institute.

I will start today by situating this bill in the bigger picture of economic reconciliation. Then, in the second part of my speech, I will explain Bill C-45’s improvements in relation to tax authorities, financial management, economic information, borrowing and infrastructure development and maintenance. All of this sets the table for greater access to capital and mainstream funding and investments, as well as First Nations’ meaningful realization of social and economic rights and equity. In turn, this shift can help First Nations prosper, supporting the revitalization of languages, cultures and ceremonies.

In the big picture, the statute that this bill would amend is an alternative to the Indian Act framework and one that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Indeed, as the preamble notes, the bill will help implement multiple articles of UNDRIP. Essentially, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act provides participating First Nations with a legislative and institutional framework through which they can assert their jurisdiction in financial management, taxation and access to capital markets.

By enhancing this framework, also noted in the preamble, Bill C-45 responds to Call to Action 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in relation to self-determination and economic reconciliation. The preamble also acknowledges traditional Indigenous models of taxation and sharing, including the word taksis in the Chinook trading language.

It is of fundamental importance to me, as sponsor, to highlight that First Nations-led institutions led the co-development of Bill C-45 through six years of hard work and consultations, including engagement with the 348 participating First Nations.

On today’s commencement of Senate debate, congratulations to Ernie Daniels, President and CEO of the First Nations Finance Authority; Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board; Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission and Allan Claxton and Jason Calla of the First Nations Infrastructure Institute Development Board and their teams. Three of those organizations already exist under the act and will receive important modernization measures via this bill.

The legislation will also establish a fourth organization in relation to infrastructure. Along with the participating First Nations, this is their bill.

Thank you as well to Minister Miller and his team for advancing Bill C-45 on behalf of the government and to the other place for their unanimous support. I hope senators will join me in honouring these shared efforts and the consensus reflected in this bill by passing Bill C-45 before the summer.

This legislation is cause for optimism as our country works toward economic reconciliation. In 2021, with Bill C-15, Parliament upheld legal protection for Indigenous rights through UNDRIP. That historic change was a pivotal response to a long-term injustice. It restored Indigenous nations’ legal rights to self‑government, social and economic rights and equity regarding their lands, waters and resources, including for responsible development.

Again, that all aims toward prosperous communities and supporting flourishing languages, cultures and ceremonies.

The UNDRIP action plan is due to be released this June. Senators should expect an economic component further to the Indigenous Peoples Committee’s observations from two years ago. For example, I hope to see the action plan engaging with the National Indigenous Economic Strategy unveiled last year by a coalition of 25 Indigenous organizations and their 107 calls to economic prosperity.

Complementing the breakthrough of UNDRIP, Bill C-45 supports financial pathways to greater self-determination, prosperity and well-being for many First Nations. For example, this bill can help communities build and grow their tax base, raise revenue for services, regulate services, start or purchase businesses and invest in infrastructure to improve quality of life and support commercial opportunities. All such changes toward greater prosperity can go hand in hand with traditional knowledge, values and culture. Moreover, the changes in this bill can fully complement the realization of self-government via section 35 constitutional rights and UNDRIP.

Of note, Bill C-45 responds directly to issues raised by Senator Tannas on May 16 in our Senate inquiry celebrating success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. Senator Tannas noted that First Nations businesses often don’t have access to capital to finance on-reserve assets. Bill C-45 enhances one avenue of financing by continuing to develop and support the First Nations Finance Authority, a lender to qualifying nations.

Before I get into the bill’s details in the second part of my speech, I will share two concrete examples of how the First Nations Fiscal Management Act can be a game changer.

My first example comes via Member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria Jaime Battiste, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is the first Mi’kmaw member of Parliament. On debate in the other place, Mr. Battiste shared the following experience of Membertou First Nation in Cape Breton. About 10 years ago, Membertou received the First Nations Financial Management Board’s first-ever financial systems certification. That certification provided the community with access to long-term, affordable capital, allowing Membertou to refinance and reinvest in business developments. The results have included an $8.2-million elementary school, a 90-lot housing development and a $9.5-million highway interchange opening access to further commercial developments on Membertou’s land.

Membertou went on to build one of the largest sporting venues on Cape Breton as well as a state-of-the-art bowling alley.

That said, perhaps Membertou’s greatest economic achievement was the acquisition of Clearwater Seafoods in 2021. That $1-billion acquisition was achieved with six other First Nations, all part of the First Nations Finance Authority under this act. Membertou Development Corporation is now home to 12 corporate entities.

My second example of success under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act is Siksika Nation, east of Calgary. In 2016, Siksika Nation opened the long-awaited new Chief Crowfoot School. The original school suffered damages from flooding, was overcrowded and had heating problems. Thanks to Siksika Nation’s commitment to obtain First Nations Financial Management Board certification, it was able to access financing through the First Nations Financial Authority to build the new school. Today, Chief Crowfoot School offers students various services, including speech and language, a dental therapist, a family liaison, a parent-student support worker and weekly visits from an elder to share traditional and cultural teachings. Siksika language and culture are also offered for each grade to promote pride and respect for Siksika heritage.

This example is a social success, but it’s also an economic one, considering the brighter future these students will be able to access. Early in life, an excellent community-led education instills identity, pride and hope in these students in the Siksika Nation. First Nations in Canada need more stories like that across the country.

In addition, First Nations under this act have realized billions of dollars in investment and the assessed value of their reserve lands now exceeds $15 billion. Thousands of laws have been passed under the act, and 150 First Nations administrators have graduated from the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics in Kamloops, B.C.

Loans to First Nations from the First Nations Finance Authority have resulted in the creation of over 20,000 jobs and an economic output of $4 billion through nine provinces and the Northwest Territories. On that point, I remind senators that, in 2021, Senator Harder’s Senate Prosperity Action Group noted a performance target of Indigenous businesses contributing $100 billion to the Canadian economy compared to the current estimated $32 billion. Let’s help reach that goal with Bill C-45.

At the House committee, Manny Jules of the First Nations Tax Commission quoted his father, Chief Clarence Jules, from 1965. His advice for First Nations was, “We must be able to move at the speed of business.” I can personally attest to this need for nimbleness in seizing economic opportunities from my experience in mainstream business as a corporate banker, commercial lender and as a developmental lender in Indigenous economic development.

However, colleagues, it is not only First Nations who can benefit from the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the amendments in Bill C-45. This legislation can lead to shared opportunities and benefits for the entire country. For example, the act can support First Nations’ co-ownership of ventures developing critical minerals needed for the green transition, along with other net-zero capital located on First Nations’ territory. Bill C-45 will support more First Nations in being able to enjoy better interest rates when borrowing through the First Nations Finance Authority.

The journey toward economic reconciliation now offers Canadians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, generational opportunities for employment, partnerships, investments and environmental progress. To illustrate that, last year, RBC reported that Indigenous territories hold at least 56% of advanced critical minerals projects, 35% of top solar sites and 44% of better wind sites. Business leaders and investors should run, not walk, to consult Indigenous nations on those opportunities.

Colleagues, let’s turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla of the First Nations Financial Management Board at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where he gave a good summary of the act and the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.