The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[English]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, I must leave the chair until seven o’clock unless honourable senators agree not to see the clock. Is it agreed that we not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

And two honourable senators having risen:

[English]

Is there an agreement on a bell? I did not hear a “no.”

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages.

I support the vision and intention of this bill, but not in its current state.

[Translation]

Let’s not forget that I’m a proud Quebecer. I am proud to live in a province where French is the common language of the people as well as the official language.

As I explained when I spoke at second reading, I’m simply concerned that including a reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language is highly problematic from both a bureaucratic and legal point of view. Quebec’s English-speaking community also shares my concern.

[English]

Many believe that the inclusion of Quebec’s Charter of the French language, which was recently amended with the passage of Bill 96 last year is a serious flaw in the current bill we have before us. I will not repeat everything I said in my second reading speech. My views are on the record, and I stand by those comments.

What worries me is that once this bill receives Royal Assent, the French charter will now be included in the Official Languages Act. This troubles me, because we all know that the charter includes the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. I continue to believe that pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause is not the way for a government to govern.

I think our former senator colleague Joan Fraser summarized it elegantly when she appeared before our Official Languages Committee last week. She said:

As you know, the French-language charter was modified last year by Bill 96. It now pre-emptively invokes the “notwithstanding” clauses of both the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This has only been done once before — in Quebec’s Bill 21. The inclusion of references to the French-language charter in Bill C-13 thus tacitly accepts this pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause, and I submit that that should be of concern to all Canadians.

She goes on to say:

We know that arguments have been made, that including the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act will not diminish the rights of English-speaking Quebecers. I suggest that those arguments were perhaps conceived before Bill C-13 was amended to include a reference to the Quebec law in the purpose clause of the Official Languages Act. Our legal assessment has always been that to mention Quebec’s French-language charter within the Official Languages Act does pose a danger to our community’s rights.

As I have urged during my second reading speech, and as Senator Fraser offered in committee:

. . . withdrawing the references to the Charter of the French Language from Bill C-13 would in no way diminish or abrogate the rights of, or support to, French-speaking minority communities. There is, however, danger in retaining those references — danger to the English-speaking community of Quebec and also danger in setting up an official-language regime that creates a precedent for other provinces to impose restrictions on their own linguistic minorities, as Quebec has done.

In response to a question from Senator Cormier, Marion Sandilands, a lawyer and member of the Quebec Community Groups Network explained that to see the Charter of French Language:

. . . referenced in the federal Official Languages Act, whose purpose before Bill C-13 was to protect and uphold minority language rights, is a contradiction.

Ms. Sandilands asks:

How can a provincial act that infringes constitutional language rights be referenced and upheld in the federal Official Languages Act?

She argues that:

. . . citing a provincial law that pre-emptively and sweepingly uses the notwithstanding clause . . . will make it very difficult for a court to accept submissions from the Attorney General of Canada if the Attorney General of Canada ever gets up and opposes the use of the “notwithstanding” clause in that manner. It is contradictory to, on the one hand, disclaim it and, on the other hand, endorse it in this bill.

With all due respect to the Minister of Official Languages, the answer she provided to Senator Gold last week during her appearance before the Official Languages Committee was not reassuring at all, despite her many efforts.

[Translation]

The minister told us, and I quote:

The reference to the Charter of the French Language in the bill is simply a description of the Quebec law. At no time do we say that we are in favour or not of the Charter of the French Language.

That doesn’t inspire confidence.

In my opinion, by including the charter in the Official Languages Act, the federal government is saying that it agrees with the charter and its content, even though some argue that it doesn’t constitute incorporation by reference.

I don’t buy into the argument that it’s simply a description of Quebec’s reality. In fact, it is the reality in Quebec and the provincial government’s use of the notwithstanding clause that is so worrisome and that poses a problem for anglophones in Quebec.

The minister also said that there was a lot of confusion when this bill was debated. I agree, and including the charter in the bill is only making things worse.

To avoid any confusion, I think that the reference to the charter should be removed from the bill entirely. In fact, I haven’t heard any argument so far that would justify including it in the federal legislation. We’ve been told over and over that it doesn’t infringe on the rights of anglophones, but no one is saying how it will help or benefit francophones in Quebec.

Why is the federal government insisting on keeping the references to the charter? In response to a question from Senator Mégie, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, explained that he shared the concerns of Quebec’s anglophone community and that he could see how this might create problems down the line.

He stated that there was a great deal of speculation. He asked the following question:

If changes are made to the charter at some point, will changes have to be made to the Official Languages Act?

That’s a very legitimate question that continues to create confusion and uncertainty.

[English]

The commissioner acknowledges that English speakers in Quebec have a right to be worried. The community has genuine concerns regarding the impacts of the bill on the community and in no way do we want to harm the promotion or protection of the French language in Quebec.

As Eva Ludvig of the QCGN said before the Official Languages Committee, “English-speaking Quebecers understand the challenge of protecting and promoting French and support efforts that genuinely seek to do so.” Anglophones truly do support increasing the use of the French language in the province, of protecting it and ensuring its vitality, provided their rights are not infringed upon or reduced.

In general terms, allophones and anglophones have integrated well into Quebec society, and many work hard to improve their knowledge of the French language and have embraced the culture.

In another op-ed I read recently on a different topic, I was inspired by its co-authors who wrote about the responsibility we have as members of the Senate to do the right thing with the legislative powers we have. They wrote:

As legislators, we believe that any legislative, regulatory or policy approach should at all times aim to advance rights rather than limit them.

I definitely agree.

Yet, here we are today on the verge of adopting a federal bill that basically signs off on a provincial law that many believe is harmful to Quebec’s English-speaking minority and that has limited its rights. Why are we holding the allophone and anglophone minorities in Montreal and throughout Quebec to a different standard than other minorities?

Again, I want to be clear: I support what Bill C-13 seeks to achieve. Its overarching goals are worthy and deserve our support. I simply want to remove the references to the charter that have many within the English-speaking minority in Quebec worried.

If we know the references to the charter will not contribute to the protection of the French language in Quebec or provide francophones any additional rights, yet we know that the English-speaking community completely opposes them and feels their rights are being breached and diminished, why not remove the references altogether?

I am reminded of what Dean Robert Leckey of McGill University Law School told the committee when referring to the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” clause in the Quebec language charter. He explained that:

. . . the Charter of the French language in its current form . . . involves this sweeping override of all the Charter rights that are amenable to override in the Canadian Charter and all the rights in the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms that you can derogate from. That’s part of what the Charter of the French Language now means and represents.

Dean Leckey challenged all of us. If that’s not what we want to endorse with the passage of Bill C-13 and if we don’t feel right about it, then maybe we need to think about those references.

I, for one, do not feel right about it. I have given a lot of thought to those references. Including the references to the Quebec charter does not provide any additional protections to the French language in the federal law. Rather, if we adopt the bill as is, I feel Parliament will be putting its stamp of approval on a provincial law that is currently being challenged in the courts for its unconstitutionality and for its pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause. Personally, I cannot vote in favour of a bill with such an approach and endorsement, whether it be implicit or not.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Loffreda’s amendment. Thank you for introducing it, senator.

Colleagues, the words we use really do matter, and we should be especially mindful of the words that we include in our legislation. We can’t know now just what unintended consequences these three references to the Charter of the French Language may have, but we do know with greater certainty that there will be no harm done by removing them. After all, Bill C-13 makes no references to New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act nor to any other pieces of provincial or territorial legislation. It is my contention that the unique Charter of the French Language references are superfluous and potentially harmful. Therefore, colleagues, they should be removed.

Last week, I listened to Ezra Klein of The New York Times interview Jennifer Pahlka about the machinery of government. In 2013, Pahlka was the Deputy Chief Technology Officer in President Obama’s administration. In 2020, she helped California Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration fix its Unemployment Insurance program. She has great insights about, as Klein puts it, “why things go wrong [in government] even when the people involved are trying to make them go right.” She is focused on an area of policy that is too often ignored by policy-makers, which is implementation. Her insights are transferable to legislators in any country, including ours.

In the interview, Pahlka recounts the story of how a piece of technology that was included in a federal act merely as an example has, as translated through the hierarchy of government departments in the years since its adoption, become a requirement. That is because within bureaucracies, civil servants are most often held accountable based on whether or not they followed a process, and those processes are based on the words found in legislation.

Ms. Pahlka’s experiences working with American governments at the city, state and federal levels demonstrate that the words used in legislation are really important and consequential. As legislators, we must carefully consider whether the wording of legislation might have unintended consequences.

Last week, Eva Ludvig, the president of the Quebec Community Groups Network, expressed concern about how Bill C-13 might be interpreted by civil servants. She said:

Once something is in law, we don’t know how that will be interpreted, not only by the courts but also by civil servants who implement it.

However, when I asked about the words included in Bill C-13, Minister Petitpas Taylor disagreed. She said:

Yes, we made reference to the Charte de la langue française in our Bill, but it’s only for descriptive purposes, to say that that regime applies in Quebec.

Justice department lawyers, she told us, have assured her that there is minimum risk to the reference to the charter. Minimum risk — but risk, colleagues. Meanwhile, the committee heard from lawyers not currently employed by the government who suggested that the references do pose a significant risk.

Honourable senators, in the introduction to his interview with Jennifer Pahlka, Ezra Klein noted:

In our media . . . There’s a ton of focus on politics, on elections, on big policy questions and fights and theories. But then the bill passes and the nitty-gritty of how that policy actually shows up in people’s lives is left up to someone somewhere. And when it . . . makes people’s lives worse because of how it is implemented, there’s often no outcry because there’s no attention, and so there are no fixes.

Colleagues, Senator Loffreda’s amendment offers us the opportunity to reduce the risk written into this legislation now, when the spotlight is still on, so that we can avoid some of the unintended consequences that this legislation may have on people’s lives. I urge you to join me in supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Loffreda, you have very little time to respond.

[English]

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-13 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing lines 18 and 19 with the following:

“the National Assembly of Quebec has determined that French is Quebec’s official language;”;

(b) in clause 3, on page 4, by replacing lines 5 to 12 with the following:

“predominant use of English; and”;

(c) in clause 24, on page 21, by replacing lines 27 and 28 with the following:

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Loffreda, you have very little time to respond.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Would you take a question?

Hon. René Cormier: Thank you, Senator Seidman. You know how much I appreciate your advocacy for Quebec’s English-speaking communities.

I am looking at Senator Loffreda’s amendment, which would make three changes, two of which target the simple assertion that, quote, “Quebec’s Charter of the French language provides that French is the official language of Quebec.” I don’t see how anyone could oppose that.

Senator Seidman, do you agree that this amendment denies the existence of a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes? As an Acadian, as a francophone in Canada, I am very uncomfortable with the scope of this amendment. I’m sure you can see why I’ll be voting against it. I’d like to hear your comments on that. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: I honestly believed I wouldn’t have to speak to Bill C-13 again, but I find Senator Loffreda’s amendment completely unnecessary and unacceptable. Let me tell you why it should be summarily rejected.

Unfortunately, Senator Loffreda’s amendment indicates that he is playing the same game as the only member of the other place who voted against Bill C-13 to modernize the Official Languages Act.

Every member of every political party in the other place voted in favour of Bill C-13. All but one, who claims to be speaking for a few anglophone groups in Quebec. It’s a shame to see just how willing Senator Loffreda is to endorse that member’s small‑minded belief that the rights of anglophones in Quebec are threatened by the entirely justified reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the text of the bill.

Quebec’s Charter of the French Language exists. It was adopted by a duly elected government. It makes sense, then, that a bill like Bill C-13 should recognize and refer to it. Given that both levels of government are agreeing to work together for once to protect and revitalize the French language, it would be inconceivable for the Senate not to follow the example set by the members of the other place. After careful study and thoroughly negotiated amendments, MPs understood that this bill is an essential piece of legislation that protects the country’s two official languages when they are in a minority situation.

I have some concerns that I would like to share about the use of devious means or linguistic subtleties to try to remove references to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language from the federal bill. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it contempt for Quebec’s francophone community, but I would point out that within Quebec’s privileged anglophone community, there is a dangerously entrenched desire to resist any political initiative designed to ensure that francophones in Quebec have the right to live and work in their own language in that province.

How can Quebec’s anglophones claim that there’s a threat? There are three English-language universities, four English-language hospitals, English-language colleges and a constitutionally protected English-language school board. Are there that many services dedicated to francophones in the other provinces?

I grew up in the Rosemont area of Montreal and, before becoming a police officer, I worked briefly for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, CIBC. However, I didn’t work in Rosemont. Instead, I was exiled to the West Island to ensure that I learned English. Fortunately, things have changed, but we had to fight to protect our language, something that English-speaking Montrealers don’t have to do and won’t have to do, even when Bill C-13 is passed. It would be inconceivable for the Senate to jeopardize Bill C-13 because banks, airlines and a few other federally regulated companies are afraid of having to communicate with their employees in French.

Let us quickly revisit Senator Loffreda’s amendments. In his speech at second reading, he stated that he had heard no convincing argument as to why the references to the Charter of the French Language needed to be included in the bill. Maybe he should have contacted the Quebec government to ask for details of the discussions that led it to reach an agreement with Ottawa, rather than seeking to create an environment conducive to misunderstandings, as we have seen all too often. In his speech at second reading on Bill C-13, Senator Loffreda described himself as follows, and I quote:

I’m very proud to be a Quebecer, proud to speak French, proud to live in a province where French is the common language of the people . . . .

All the pride he spoke about is represented and enshrined in the charter to which he says no reference should be made.

Given the anemic pride he is expressing today, I doubt that he will get an invitation anytime soon from the Premier of Quebec to celebrate his contribution to the development of the French language.

To be honest, I would have expected a bit of restraint from our colleague and friend.

In closing, I will repeat what I said: Bill C-13 is not perfect, but it contains enough elements for us to allow the government to implement it with, of course, all the necessary oversight both for anglophones and francophones.

To get there quickly, we need to reject the amendments presented by Senator Loffreda.

Thank you.

Hon. René Cormier: Thank you, Senator Seidman. You know how much I appreciate your advocacy for Quebec’s English‑speaking communities.

I am looking at Senator Loffreda’s amendment, which would make three changes, two of which target the simple assertion that, quote, “Quebec’s Charter of the French language provides that French is the official language of Quebec.” I don’t see how anyone could oppose that.

Senator Seidman, do you agree that this amendment denies the existence of a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes? As an Acadian, as a francophone in Canada, I am very uncomfortable with the scope of this amendment. I’m sure you can see why I’ll be voting against it. I’d like to hear your comments on that. Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

(Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Loffreda negatived, on division.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading 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.

Well, here we are at third reading. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages heard five and a half hours of testimony on this version of the bill, which includes over 50 amendments passed in the other place. Clause-by-clause consideration at the Official Languages Committee took place immediately following what was perhaps the most complex testimony of all, that of the legal and constitutional experts.

The committee was left with no time to reflect on this testimony or draft potential amendments as a result of what we heard before clause-by-clause consideration. The committee consideration process was, to say the least, swift.

The committee heard from Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages. I asked him whether he still shares similar concerns to those of the Quebec English‑speaking community that the addition of asymmetrical components to the act will undermine the equal status of English and French in law and about the references to Quebec’s Charte de la langue française, and he told the committee:

There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what could happen in the future. I really can’t speculate. There will be some constitutional experts who will provide input on that. I’ll leave it up to them. It is new, I agree. We have other jurisdictions that are referenced, not necessarily in this way.

By that, he meant in the way of the Charte de la langue française.

We do have New Brunswick, which has its own Official Languages Act. We have my home province, Manitoba, with section 23 of the Manitoba Act.

Colleagues, let me reiterate that neither New Brunswick’s nor Manitoba’s language laws are referenced in Bill C-13 in the same way as Quebec’s language law. The commissioner said that he will implement whatever act is adopted by Parliament, and he reflected:

It is what we have now, and what we have to do, moving forward, is ensure that we evaluate its impacts.

I think it’s important to evaluate the impacts of the Official Languages Act on the communities going forward, and we have to do that from the get-go.

I asked the Minister of Official Languages, the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, about the references to the newly amended Quebec language law, the Charte de la langue française. In response to my question, she said:

Yes, we referred to la Charte de la langue française in our Bill, but, again, the purpose is to indicate that this is the regime applicable in Quebec. We are not saying whether we agree or do not agree, but that is the legislation in force in Quebec at this point. I am not a constitutionaliste, I’m not a lawyer, but to your point, I absolutely have consulted with lawyers at the Justice Department . . . and they have indicated to us that they don’t feel that there are any risks — or minimum risks — to this. . . . With respect to why we proceeded, it is in order of describing what is the law.

But many of the judges and lawyers who testified before the Official Languages Committee did not share the Department of Justice’s evaluation.

As the Honourable Michel Bastarache, former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, told our Official Languages Committee during the recent pre-study of Bill C-13, even before all the amendments were made by the House:

I am personally opposed to a reference to a provincial act in a federal act. I believe that the federal language regime is very different from the provincial regime.

In addition, Robert Leckey, Dean of the Faculty of Law at McGill University said:

Bill C-13 would add references to the Charter of the French Language to the Official Languages Act. These references would endorse the charter because they presuppose that the objectives and means promoted by the provincial legislation are consistent with those of the federal legislation and the constitutional responsibilities of the Government of Canada. However, this premise is not sound.

And in a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, or LANG, in the other place, as well as in her testimony to the Senate’s Official Languages Committee, Ms. Janice Naymark, who has practised corporate and commercial law in Quebec for over 25 years, was clear that:

. . . troubling are the references to the Quebec Charter of the French Language in a quasi-constitutional federal law. [...] By including references to this legislation in the [Official Languages Act], the federal government is supporting and implicitly legitimatizing [Quebec’s] Bill 96.

As you can see, colleagues, there is hardly consensus within the legal community regarding the references to the Charte de la langue française, so why are we complicating the legislation and creating even minimum risk for English-speaking Quebecers?

As an official language minority community, English speakers in Quebec have historically looked to the federal government for protection and support, but as Eva Ludvig, President of the Quebec Community Groups Network, remarked:

We live in a province where the English-speaking community, especially recently, has been under siege, I would say, from its own provincial government. We’ve always turned to the federal government and to the Canadian Parliament as supporters of the English-speaking community. We are now worried. We feel that this support is now tenuous.

Colleagues, as I pointed out in my second reading speech, while more than 600,000 of Quebec’s over 1 million English speakers live in Montreal, there are tens of thousands more in small communities across the province. I urge you to consider the official language minority communities in the rest of Quebec. Given the critical mass of English speakers in Montreal, services may well remain accessible there, but we cannot take for granted that those same services will remain accessible in the smaller communities.

The English-speaking communities in Quebec must now take solace in the Commissioner of Official Languages’ promise to monitor the impact of the implementation of Bill C-13. As he wrote in a letter to our committee on June 7:

It is crucial that the implementation of the Act be closely monitored in order to assess its impact and identify any problems encountered in its application. The government needs to have a monitoring mechanism, clear indicators and evidence-based data to be able to assess the effects of the Act on communities. This approach will help to realize the full potential of the periodic review and to make the changes needed to ensure the Act’s continued evolution.

Should the commissioner find that the fears of the English‑speaking communities in Quebec come to pass, I hope this chamber will be as swift to address them as it was to pass Bill C-13.

Honourable colleagues, as we are all mindful of, it is our responsibility here in the Senate to give voice to those who have no voice and to represent minorities in our regions. I fully understand how important modernization of the Official Languages Act is to francophone minority communities across Canada, and I fully support the protection and promotion of French minority language rights across the country.

I fully understand the importance of ensuring the survival and vitality of French for Quebec and Quebecers. However, inclusion of reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, with its latest legislative entrenchment of the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause, does nothing to help protect French; it only brings unnecessary risks to the other official language minority community, the more than 1 million English speakers in Quebec.

Thus, colleagues, I will be voting against this bill. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-13, an important piece of government legislation to protect and promote the French language in Canada.

I note as well that Bill C-13 fulfills a government election commitment. This is always an essential consideration in our appointed chamber, as Senators Harder and Dalphond and others have highlighted many times in the Senate’s independent era.

After a substantial pre-study, we received Bill C-13 in May. I will address some concerns I have with the bill around airports in Western Canada through my Saskatchewan lens, while fully supporting Bill C-13’s objective of protecting and promoting French and minority language rights in Canada.

I will start with the big picture. French is one of Canada’s official languages, a point of pride for our federation and for me personally, including through my lineage with my Quebec-born fifth-, fourth- and third-great-grandparents. Our international identity, our shared history and many Canadian cultural conditions reflect our place within the Francophonie. It is essential to protect French, a language at risk of erosion in mainly English-speaking North America and a language integral to Quebecers, Acadians and other French Canadians, not to mention Cajuns in Louisiana, whom the British drove from Acadia in the 18th century.

Métis and many First Nations learned to speak French and English in the years of equal dealings between nations. The Métis were proficient in French, English and Indigenous languages, making them sought after by the Hudson’s Bay Company trading system. They often acted as interpreters, trade negotiators, clerks and guides leading voyageurs and explorers. Europeans otherwise could not have navigated this vast country of complex water systems and the passes through the rugged mountain chains.

However, Canada’s two official languages don’t account for the many Indigenous languages spoken by peoples who have been here since time immemorial.

Samuel de Champlain’s success in establishing New France relied on cultivating alliances and respectful relationships with First Nations. In 1603, the Innu Chief Anadabijou welcomed Champlain at a celebratory feast to set the terms of the great alliance for a French presence in the country. Many scholars argue this nation-to-nation moment, taking place at Tadoussac, where the Saguenay River meets the St. Lawrence, was the true beginning of Quebec and even Canada.

Though damaged by later colonial policies, Indigenous languages are vital to our nation of nations. Section 22 of our Charter makes clear that official language rights do not abrogate or derogate from Indigenous language rights. With Canada’s linguistic future, we remain a long way from restoring Indigenous languages’ rightful roles in our society.

We need to do a better job of promoting and protecting these languages, many of which are seriously in danger of falling out of use. Parliament acted by passing Bill C-91 on Indigenous languages in 2019. Former senators Joyal and Sinclair worked together on language rights, helping set the table for Bill C-91 through Senator Joyal’s earlier efforts with Bill S-212 on Indigenous languages. This is an inspiring example of solidarity of minority linguistic communities in Canada.

In speaking to Bill S-212, Senator Sinclair asked:

“Who are you?” It’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a question which asks you to contemplate the fundamental question of your identity and character. To be able to answer that, you need to know where you and your ancestors came from, what you stood for, your personal and collective history, what your influences have been, what your ambitions have been and are, and what your purpose in life is. . . .

Language and culture are keys to personal identity. Personal identity is key to a sense of self-worth, and spiritual and mental wellness hinge on one’s sense of self-worth.

I want to see Indigenous youth fluent in their languages. One day, I want to see conversations happening with non-Indigenous Canadians in those languages. I note that Minister Miller has endeavoured to learn Mohawk.

Focusing on French, we know that the Official Languages Act was a landmark step when enacted in 1969. It recognized and protected Canada’s predominant linguistic duality in terms of population. We can contrast the Official Languages Act with the Durham Report of 1839, which proposed the assimilation of French speakers in Lower Canada.

Bill C-13 is the first time the Official Languages Act has been substantially updated in many years. I support this bill’s goals of protecting and promoting French and its efforts to support minority language communities.

If I have any caution or concern about this bill, it’s that, as we move towards a more fully bilingual country, we must do so with a clear understanding of where most Canadians are when it comes to speaking both official languages. In this regard, I wear my Saskatchewan hat, and my focus is on practicalities and obligations on airports in Western Canada.

In most Canadian cities, towns and communities, there is one predominant language spoken by most people who live there. Most citizens have only a limited knowledge of the other official language, whether that happens to be French or English. There are exceptions, of course, as we can see from communities in Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario and in other provinces. Yet, most Canadians are proficient in either English or French and not the other.

Bill C-13 hopes to change that reality, and I support that goal. At the same time, if we are going to ask businesses and federally regulated sectors to embrace enhanced bilingual requirements, then we need to do so with a realistic understanding of where most Canadians are when it comes to speaking an official language that is not their mother tongue.

Part 2 of the bill speaks to or defines what is considered a strong francophone presence and expectations of federally regulated businesses. How does the bill apply to communities and/or businesses’ workforce in regions that have minimal or minor francophone representation and are federally regulated?

Take, for example, my home province of Saskatchewan. In 2020, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages noted that French is the mother tongue of about 1.5% of the population. That’s a very minor representation among the people who live there. There is no question that francophone Saskatchewanians should have their language rights protected and supported, especially when they are engaging with federally regulated services. However, we need to be mindful that transitioning to a more fully bilingual country will take time and commitment, especially in places like Saskatchewan, where French speakers are a minority. That said, in Saskatchewan, a province of at least 1.2 million people, there are at least five francophone communities that I can think of. We also have French immersion schools and a growing and thriving representation of Fransaskois residing around the province’s largest cities.

Yet for many youth, particularly those facing poverty in their early years, learning a second language is a difficult hill to climb, even if they have the opportunity.

Parliament has heard many voices both for and against the legislation. Those in favour of the bill cite its support for the promotion of French and protection of minority language communities. Those who have expressed concerns about the bill have talked about its potential impact on English-speaking Quebecers and have raised questions on how the bill’s provisions will be implemented.

To discuss one concern I have, I will use an example that was highlighted in the annual report recently tabled by Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages.

In one part of his report, the commissioner noted that many Canadians still struggle to receive service in the official language of their choice when flying in major airports.

This is a concern for many Canadians who, as part of the travelling public, want to use their preferred — or perhaps only — language on a journey. I sympathize with that concern. Major airports already have obligation under Part IV of the Official Languages Act. When those obligations are not met, it can be frustrating, particularly for francophones.

In his report, the commissioner notes that he has been working with airports to ensure stronger compliance with the act, and that he believes the new powers Bill C-13 will give him will help achieve that goal.

At the same time, some organizations in the travel industry, such as airport authorities, have expressed concern about the additional powers that would be granted to the commissioner. This bill gives the commissioner added powers to enter compliance agreements, to issue orders and to impose administrative monetary penalties in the travel sector. This may be an important step in helping make Canada more bilingual. However, if organizations, such as airport authorities in places like Regina and Saskatoon, struggle to meet orders due to staffing challenges associated with finding staff who can speak French, then that’s a dynamic that must be navigated with a lot of care.

I note that the Senate Official Languages Committee added an observation in their report indicating confusion over the language rights regime for Canada’s travelling public, recommending that the federal government should:

. . . establish a coherent and clear language rights regime for the travelling public . . . .

That’s a good idea. I believe we need further clarity in this area so that airport authorities, airlines, the government and Canadians can move forward with a shared understanding.

Senators, we need to ensure that we do not accidentally burden businesses and organizations that operate in largely unilingual communities with bilingual language commitments that they will be unable to meet. It is difficult to find francophone speakers in Saskatchewan simply because they are under-represented.

In Saskatchewan, our unemployment rate is 4.4%, and we are looking for employees. We are building more houses and rental alternatives if bilingual professionals and skilled tradespeople are interested in living, working and playing in our great province.

Regional differences and francophone representation vary across Canada. With this bill, I believe there is no one-size-fits-all solution that will work. In places like Regina or Saskatoon, where French speakers are relatively few, increasing bilingual services is easier said than done. That’s a reality we need to be mindful of. At the same time, we wish to respect and embrace this point of unique international identity and ensure we’re not alienating Western Canadians from our federation’s linguistic values.

I expect that all senators in this chamber support helping more Canadians become bilingual and to receive services in the language of their choice, but we must work toward this goal in a way that acknowledges the realities of a country where most people currently only speak one language. For that reason, I expect the Senate will continue to play an oversight and accountability role in the application of Bill C-13, including providing critical evaluation and recommendations that might be necessary, while basing that role in respect of French, English and Indigenous languages.

I will vote for Bill C-13, and urge you to do the same. I similarly urge this chamber to oversee and safeguard the reasonable interests of airports in Western Canada, and ensure that we offer practical solutions as we move toward becoming a more bilingual country. Thank you, hiy kitatamihin.

[Translation]