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 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of students from the “Centre régional d’éducation des adultes Kitci Amik.” They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Audette.

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

Hon. Claude Carignan: Colleagues, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to one of Quebec’s greatest actors. Michel Côté passed away yesterday at the age of 72.

People are sometimes described as giants, and this description is especially true of Michel Côté. His career spanned nearly 50 years during which he played a variety of grandiose, touching, zany and inspiring roles.

On stage, on television and in film, this pillar of the performing arts embodied every possible version of a man from Quebec over the years, and he did so with authenticity, diligence and integrity. Michel Côté said he loved his characters as a mother loves her children. He cared for them with love and kindness, which is likely one reason why he was so adored by all Quebecers.

His impressive filmography, both in terms of volume and box‑office success, reveals the full extent of his talent. He has often been called a chameleon actor. As he did in the well-known film Cruising Bar, in which he played the four main characters, Michel Côté was easily able to take on a wide range of characters in just a moment’s time.

In the renowned play Broue, in which he portrayed five different customers of the famous Chez Willy tavern, Michel Côté changed clothes in front of more than three million Quebecers for over 38 years. He used to say, with a broad smile, that one day, while shooting the film Cruising Bar and performing Broue in the evening, he played seven different characters in one day. This anecdote perfectly illustrates why he truly was a chameleon actor.

United since the announcement of his passing, his former peers are praising his great skills as an actor, but also — and unanimously — his great skills as a human. On a sound stage, Michel Côté made sure to learn everyone’s first name, from the director to the sound mixer, the entire crew, and he tried to acknowledge each one individually every day.

Six years ago, this great Quebec artist chose to slow down a little so he could spend more time with his dear Véronique, his two sons and his grandchildren. In an unfortunate turn of events, illness was waiting for him and despite his determination and desire to fight it, Michel Côté succumbed this past Monday, May 29.

To Véronique Le Flaguais, his long-time partner, his sons Charles and Maxime, his grandchildren and extended family, including his many friends, I wish to express my compassion and offer my sincere condolences. I also wish to express my real sympathy to the many Quebecers who today are grieving a man they claimed as their own and who they cherished with tender affection.

Goodbye, Michel.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Harry Flaherty, President of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation in Nunavut. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut).

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of students from the “Centre régional d’éducation des adultes Kitci Amik.” They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Audette.

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