Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

I fully understand the concerns, not only of your community, but also of Indigenous communities in Quebec and elsewhere.

The short answer is no. A government can say anything it likes, but that is absolutely not the case when it comes to legal facts.

The reference has no bearing on the process under way in Quebec and, more broadly, on the application of the Charter of the French language in Quebec. It is solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction and Bill C-13 respects that. I can add — and no doubt this issue will be addressed in committee — that there are a lot of measures in this case that seek to encourage and support Indigenous communities in their efforts to ensure they have the opportunity and the ability to work in their language, to be supervised in their language and to be protected by the changes brought about by Bill C-13, for example, within the context of their existing employment in the public service.

Thank you for the question. In my opinion, the answer is simple and straightforward.

Senator Seidman: I certainly would.

Senator Seidman: I suppose if my colleagues want me to, I will ask for five more minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: — protecting himself so that, without the proper basis, he could spin whatever tales that he would, unencumbered by any exposure to the evidence, which he has been invited to read.

Senator Plett: We all know, leader, that it is indeed inconvenient to have an opposition in this house — that is your problem. You are tired of answering questions; we are tired of asking questions that you either don’t know or refuse to answer. Why don’t you call the Prime Minister and get the answers if you don’t know them? The made-up Special Rapporteur asked a judge if he was in a conflict of interest due to his long-standing ties to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and the Trudeau family. Was anyone surprised that the judge is the Special Rapporteur’s close friend who has his very own links to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation? The made-up Special Rapporteur also hired a lawyer to assist in his work. Did it honestly surprise anyone to learn that the lawyer donated more than $7,500 to the federal Liberal Party since 2006?

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]

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 Seidman: Thank you. I appreciate your certainty as you stand here very definitively assuring us that there is no issue with the reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. I would like to assure the huge English-speaking community of Quebec, and many others, with such certainty. The way to do that is to have the legal testimony at a committee with those who are skilled enough to ask the right questions of constitutional experts. Would you not find that to be an appropriate way to deal with the uncertainty in the community?

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]