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

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

[English]

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

Senator Loffreda: Yes.

Senator Seidman: Of course.

Senator Gold: Yes, Senator Seidman.

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

[English]

Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Gold.

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

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

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

Senator Cormier: Would Senator Loffreda take a question?

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

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

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for your presentation.

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

[English]

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

Senator Loffreda: Yes, of course.

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?