Senator Moncion, your time has expired.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

No.

Honourable senators, when Senator Cormier introduced this amendment in committee, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, President Natan Obed’s testimony before committee was repeatedly invoked as a reason against it.

During clause-by-clause consideration, Senator Moodie said:

Equally concerning are some of the comments that we heard from ITK President Natan Obed, who expressed concerns to us right here in this committee that this amendment would harm language rights for Inuit peoples. . . .

With respect to Senator Moodie, that was a misinterpretation. I will explain.

I am not a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology anymore, so I was not at committee when President Obed gave his testimony, but I was very interested in hearing more about ITK’s position. So I, and my office, engaged with the president and his office to seek some clarity. What we learned is that there’s no reason — from ITK’s perspective — why these two provisions can’t coexist. The concern, colleagues, is linked to something that we missed the boat on during consideration of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act — allow me to explain.

I was the critic of that bill. Based on feedback from Inuit, I advanced several amendments — all aimed at ensuring there is adequate resourcing for Indigenous languages based on the size of the population in a given area — as well as tried to have the government commit to delivering essential services in areas where numbers warrant.

Those amendments all either failed in committee or were ripped out by the majority Liberal government once the bill was returned to the other place. If those provisions sound a bit familiar to you, even if you are not familiar with Bill C-91, it is because they are provisions already available to official language minority communities, or OLMCs. That, colleagues, is the crux of my argument.

We need to be talking about Indigenous languages and protections for OLMCs on an equal level. If we’re serious about everything that we have said in the preamble of the Indigenous Languages Act, including the following —

Whereas Indigenous languages are fundamental to the identities, cultures, spirituality, relationships to the land, world views and self-determination of Indigenous peoples . . . .

Whereas Indigenous peoples have played a significant role in the development of Canada and Indigenous languages contribute to the diversity and richness of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Canada . . . .

— then we need to become serious about treating Indigenous languages as if they are on par with English and French.

We cannot pit Indigenous languages against OLMCs. Having support for one should not be a threat to or detract, in any way, from the other.

I’m passionate about this, because there will come a day — likely in the very near future — when we will have this debate again, but in reverse. Some other senator may be arguing that we need to pass an amendment to ensure equal protections for Indigenous languages in some other bill.

I am in support of this amendment because the only way that we will reach the place where we are treating Indigenous languages as we treat English and French in this country is by making it a habit. We need to get to the point where every bill that has a language component to it has Indigenous languages and official language minority communities on equal footing. That is what this amendment does, plain and simple.

My hope is that, once that happens, we’ll finally be able to restore the dignity of Indigenous peoples by enabling them to access critical services in their own language, while Indigenous children can receive instruction in their own language, and Indigenous peoples can have renewed pride and connection through language. This is what happens when we treat Indigenous languages and OLMCs equally.

Senator Cormier has made a very strong and clear case for clarity and specificity in introducing his amendment. Why? Well, we have a weak provision about the federal obligation to fund a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in clause 7(1), which refers to mere guiding principles by which programs should — not “must” — be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality. I will say it again: The bill says the federal government must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible and affordable. Contrast this with Senator Cormier’s proposed amendment: The funding must be provided — not must be guided by principles.

Let me say that on behalf of the Inuit residents of Nunavut — and I’m sure those represented by President Obed across Inuit Nunangat — we are happy to see that in clause 8, as written, the Government of Canada will commit to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples.

It is a great provision. But, as Senator Cormier has outlined, the same commitment is not clearly made to official language minority communities. This amendment is simply adding parallel language for OLMCs. As Mr. Obed said in committee, as quoted by Senator Moodie, Indigenous language rights have been suppressed by the focus on Canada’s two official languages.

Now the same threat exists, unless this bill is clarified, to raise serious questions about whether official language minority communities will be given the same commitment to maintaining long-term funding.

Just as it is wrong to pit official languages — French and English — against Indigenous languages, it is wrong to do the same to official language minority communities. This bill does not take away anything from Indigenous peoples’ languages and child care. Let’s get it right, and let’s give official language minority communities the same recognition and the same language about funding in this bill. I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. Qujannamiik.

Honourable senators, I will speak in support of this amendment for several reasons — the first of which has to do with our responsibility to minorities.

In becoming a senator, one realizes that one of the essential aspects of our role, the protection of minorities, enables several under-represented groups to be heard and to be able to rely on the Senate when their rights are threatened or not soundly protected.

Allow me to begin by quoting our former colleague Senator Joyal, who said the following:

 . . . as these new categories of rights [were] added to the Constitution, the role of the Senate as the chamber for the expression of minority rights and human rights within Parliament has been confirmed, broadened and strengthened.

In its 2014 Reference re Senate Reform, the Supreme Court noted that the Senate repeatedly served as a forum for advancing the rights of under-represented groups, such as minority language communities.

My support for this amendment is based on what I have read and heard since the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began studying this bill.

Francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophone communities in Quebec know better than anyone just how complex the issues they have to deal with every day to help preserve our linguistic duality are. We need to listen to them when they ask us to help them slow the erosion of their rights.

Senator Cormier talked about that in his speech. During their testimony at the Social Affairs Committee, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, and Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, shared how distressed francophone parents feel when they’re forced to register their children in anglophone schools. Ultimately, as we’ve heard a few times this evening, those kids end up losing their mother tongue.

Senator Poirier mentioned this, but I want to repeat it because it is important. During her testimony before the Social Affairs Committee, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, told us that there were not enough French daycares in Saint John. Because of this lack of choice, some parents are being forced to enrol their children in anglophone schools and, as a result, those children end up losing their mother tongue.

As Senator Poirier said, and again I want to repeat it because it is important, one of her friends who is in that situation said, and I quote, “Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”

Clause 7 of Bill C-35 provides that the government must include official language minority communities in its future investments in early childhood education. However, this is a guiding principle, not a commitment. The composition of the national advisory council on early learning and child care set out in clause 11 must take these communities into account. Obviously, these provisions of the bill are insufficient to ensure that future generations will be properly protected.

In his brief, the Commissioner of Official Languages also invited us to amend clause 8 in the same way as proposed by Senator Cormier.

Furthermore, I agree with Commissioner Théberge that ongoing investment in child care centres for these communities is helping to strengthen language transmission and enhance the communities’ vitality.

Professor Michel Bastarache, former Supreme Court Justice, wrote to our committee to say, “. . . we need to avoid ambiguity and distinguish between political intentions and legal commitments.”

In his opinion, and I quote:

 . . . this refers to intergovernmental agreements in an area of provincial jurisdiction. We would therefore have to add the obligation to include in the agreement a requirement to provide funding for French-language training . . .

He is referring here to francophones.

Professor Larocque, who appeared as a witness, shared the same opinion. In his view, without an explicit reference to official language minority communities in clause 8, these communities risk being deprived of the federal funding they need to maintain their programs and services over the long term. Professor Larocque, as a legal practitioner, based his opinion on the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the general principles of statutory interpretation to say that, without Senator Cormier’s amendment:

 . . . a court could reasonably conclude that clause 8, as currently drafted, only commits the federal government to guaranteeing long-term funding for programs and services “intended for Indigenous peoples.”

The modification proposed by this amendment is not substantial. The amendment does not call for a new right, nor does the text of the amendment call for the creation of a new negotiating framework. The federal government is not being asked to enter into negotiations directly with official language minority communities. The framework set out in Bill C-35 calls for this funding to flow through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories. The amendment doesn’t change that. Communities would not replace provincial and territorial governments in assuming responsibility for program design and delivery. Furthermore, this amendment does not take away anyone’s funding. It does not put Indigenous languages in competition with official languages.

It is often said, and rightly so, that laws last longer than governments.

Honourable senators, in closing, I would like to remind you that official language minority communities all across the country are facing the reality of insecurity. Asserting their rights often requires legal battles that take time, energy and financial resources, despite the existence of support mechanisms like the Court Challenges Program.

These communities are often dependent on the government of the day and the importance it places on their priorities. Thanks to this amendment, which I see as a protection, we have the opportunity of not leaving these communities to fend for themselves and condemning them to being potentially forced, once again, to go before the courts to make the case that they are included in the funding commitment under clause 8 of this bill.

This amendment, therefore, represents an opportunity to support them and that is why I support it. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Moodie for so ably sponsoring this important bill and answering questions.

I want to stand briefly to support my esteemed colleague Senator Cormier’s amendment. I am going to stand every time there is an opportunity to ensure that Canada’s official languages and Indigenous languages are respected, given their due and properly protected.

I’ve spoken at length in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act about how important it is that space be made for Indigenous languages. I am so heartened and pleased to see Bill C-35 specifically allocate long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. I hope that this is an opportunity for the transmission of Indigenous languages at a crucial age for young people.

As a woman living with intersectionality, I speak often about the impacts of colonialism and how oppressed peoples are starved of the basics and told, over and over again, that there is not enough for everyone.

I do not believe that to be true. Everyone can and should get a healthy piece of the pie because there is more than enough for us all.

There is more than enough for us all.

Let language and culture not be another battleground where we fight amongst each other for recognition. Let us direct our efforts towards the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Let us send a strong message that we stand together in solidarity, in commitment, towards the health of our languages — all of our languages.

Senator Cormier’s amendment ensures long-term funding for official language minority communities, and I do hope that you will stand with us in supporting it.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock. Is it agreed to not see the clock?

I hear a “no.” So ordered.