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.)

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Colleagues, I’m well aware of the late hour, so I’ll ask for your attention for only a short period.

I rise to speak today on the principle of Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. As you know, this bill seeks to prohibit the practice of keeping in captivity over 800 species of wild animals, such as elephants and big cats, in Canada.

I’d like to draw your attention to a few points of interest that, in my opinion, should be thoroughly examined during the committee study.

[English]

Colleagues, I am aware that, in essence, S-241 is a good bill. In fact, most zoos, zoological institutions and animal welfare organizations generally agree with its objectives. In his speech at second reading, Senator Klyne eloquently presented Bill S-241 and its coalition of supporters as “a big tent that puts animals first.” I like this analogy and salute Senator Klyne’s openness to working hand in hand with zoological institutions for the benefit of animals.

I also take this opportunity to personally thank Senator Klyne for his compelling answers to the many questions I asked him further to my meetings with some stakeholders. I appreciate that you took the time, senator, to reassure me, which, in turn, will make for a shorter speech.

I’m reassured that the planned implementation of this bill is measured and balanced and doesn’t impose drastic action. For example, it proposes to phase out elephants in captivity, which will give zoos time to adapt while not forcing the 20 elephants currently in captivity in Canada to be taken out of what is sometimes the only habitat they have ever known. I know the Granby Zoo in Quebec has already begun this transition, and I salute them for their initiative.

However, after listening to the arguments made by senators in this chamber and being contacted by stakeholders, I can’t help but notice that some issues need to be addressed and clarified regarding this bill. Notably, I listened to Quebec stakeholders and heard their concerns. In Quebec, there are some major zoos and zoological institutions. As I have mentioned before, most of them support Bill S-241. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Zoo de Granby, the Montréal Biodôme, Parc Omega and the Zoo sauvage de Saint-Félicien.

There is also, however, one institution, Parc Safari, that has expressed some criticism and, I must say, some very valid concerns. Parc Safari is a unique institution in the sense that it has a very large area of land for the animals to roam in. In terms of land capacity, few can compare, either in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. Parc Safari defines its mission as a means of conservation of endangered species, offering spaces and habitats as close as possible to the natural habitats of those animals. It is also a place to develop knowledge about those species and their reproduction. Over the years, Parc Safari has used its knowledge and experience to help endangered species reproduce, and they have sent some animals back into the wild — both in Canada and abroad — where nature intended them to be. That is not what I would qualify as a roadside zoo. On the contrary, it is rather a respectable institution dedicated to animal conservation.

It is important that zoological institutions like the Parc Safari be given a special status — one that recognizes their contributions to science and animal welfare and differentiates them from a regular zoo.

I know that Bill S-241 provides some solutions to this issue. In section 10.1(1), the bill would establish a legal framework for animal care organizations, and this framework recognizes the purpose of those organizations. Those chosen organizations would be designated by the minister and would have to promote wild animal welfare, support conservation, provide rehabilitation to injured or distressed animals, offer sanctuary to animals in need, conduct non-harmful scientific research and engage in public education. As well, they would have to satisfy numerous other eligibility criteria listed in section 10.1(2) of the bill.

I urge the committee to carefully study this section of the bill so that deserving organizations will be able to obtain this animal care organization status, which will ultimately benefit those captive animals.

It was also brought to my attention that provincial norms for zoos and animals in captivity can be widely different from one province to another. During my interaction with stakeholders, I was told that the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, which is the department responsible for caring for zoos, had recently imposed strict and rigorous conditions for animals in captivity. Many Quebec zoos have invested or are in the process of investing large sums of money to comply with those rigorous norms of the Quebec government. It seems unfair for those zoos and zoological institutions, after having invested large sums of money to comply with provincial captivity regulations, to lose this investment due to federal legislation making it illegal for some species to be held in captivity. I would like the committee to look at this situation and maybe for the federal government to work with the provinces to make the situation right and reassure those institutions that those investments will not have been made to no avail.

Colleagues, I support the principle of this bill. I believe that wild animals belong in the wild. I also believe they are entitled to respect and to a decent quality of life. I think Bill S-241, which has been on our Order Paper since March 24, 2022, will be overwhelmingly positive for animal protection and Canada’s reputation worldwide. That being said, we need to work in collaboration with zoological institutions and zoos for the benefit of animals. Those institutions still have a role to play in educating the public on endangered animals and the issues they face all around the world. Colleagues, I trust that the committee will thoroughly study these concerns, and I’m looking forward to their report to the Senate.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).