Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, every year on March 20, we celebrate the International Day of La Francophonie, and we remember that, according to the Observatoire de la langue française, there are more than 300 million French speakers living on five continents.

We remember that the French language is the fifth most spoken language in the world — or the sixth, according to some — as well as the fourth most used language on the internet, and that 59% of those who speak French on a daily basis live in Africa.

Every year, we reaffirm the importance of this language for Canada’s economic, diplomatic and cultural relations. We celebrate it in all its forms, not just to defend the language and cultural rights of a minority, but to recognize it for its true value, as one of our common languages in this country, one of our two official languages enshrined in Canada’s Constitution.

We celebrate its international significance and its universal, inclusive and unifying nature as a national treasure to be cherished. We remember also that the Francophonie is not just the French language. It is also an institution that Canada belongs to and that is dedicated to promoting political, educational, economic and cultural cooperation among the 88 member countries of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

The theme of the 2022 International Day of La Francophonie is “La Francophonie of the future,” and it seeks to highlight the Francophonie’s support for youth and their aspirations, because by 2060, dear colleagues, more than 700 million human beings will live in francophone countries, and three quarters of them will be under the age of 30 and live in Africa.

Where do things stand in Canada? Why is there still so much to do to ensure that all Canadians get a chance to learn French? Why is it still so difficult to work and receive services in French in Canada? Why do some Canadians still believe that protecting and promoting the French language takes away from other linguistic realities?

There is still a lot of work to be done to help the French language and the francophonie thrive in Canada.

When we study Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which would modernize the Official Languages Act, we will have the perfect opportunity to work on this and plan for the future.

On March 20, we also celebrate the International Day of Happiness, and, on March 21, we mark World Poetry Day.

Dear colleagues, I want to leave you with the beautiful, vivid words of Acadian poet Jonathan Roy:

I am a network of people

connected through blogs and community radio

together, minds open

my people, sharing

and down the road

at a fleeting feu de joie or tintamarre

we would chat to one another, about one another

in a language as passionate and majestic

as we are

I speak as one

French, Chiac, Acadian, Acadjonne

and a thousand other colourful languages

that we, together, have yet to name

but that, with a twinkle in the eye,

we understand all the same

Thank you.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, today I rise as an independent senator from New Brunswick to speak to Senator Dalphond’s Motion No. 15. I am mindful of the fact that I am speaking to you shortly after the International Day of La Francophonie, which took place on Sunday. Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, and I am sincerely grateful to them for welcoming us here.

First of all, Senator Dalphond’s motion reminds us that the Canadian Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land, is not fully bilingual, despite section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In fact, official versions of some of the constitutional texts that lay the foundation for our Canadian Confederation in the Constitution Act, 1867, exist only in English.

This motion calls on the federal government to consider adding to the Official Languages Act a requirement to submit periodic reports detailing efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 55 reads as follows:

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

[English]

Simply put, colleagues, Senator Dalphond’s motion seeks to give effect to constitutional commitments already enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. In a sense, this motion also highlights the need to implement the work undertaken by the French constitutional drafting committee in 1990, which drafted a French version of all the constitutional texts referred to in the schedule to the Constitution Act of 1982. At this point in time, the remaining step in implementing section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982 is to officially adopt these texts as alluded to in Senator Dalphond’s speech on this motion.

The Constitution could be considered the bedrock of our parliamentary system, colleagues. Therefore, with this motion we have an opportunity to collectively affirm our commitment to uphold and respect the Constitution. This is why, again as an independent senator representing New Brunswick, I support this motion.

[Translation]

On February 19, 2021, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages at the time, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, tabled a reform document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada, which contained a series of measures to strengthen the Official Languages Act.

In her introduction, the minister pointed out that the French language was in decline across the country and that concrete action was needed to achieve substantive equality between our two official languages.

It is important to remember that substantive equality means that, depending on the circumstances, a linguistic minority could be treated differently from a linguistic majority so that the former receives the same quality of services as the latter.

It should be noted that adopting a fully bilingual Constitution was not one of the concrete measures mentioned by the federal government in its reform document. This is confirmed by Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which was recently introduced in the House of Commons. In its current form, this bill does not contain any clauses related to the implementation of section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

François Larocque, an eminent professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, has already pointed out the following, and I quote:

The long road to achieving substantive equality begins first and foremost with minimal respect for formal equality, or parity. The enactment of the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts is a matter of formal equality and fundamental justice for French-speaking Canadians.

In other words, ensuring compliance with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is fundamental to achieving substantive equality of the two official languages, which will remain an unattainable ideal if the constitutional commitments set out in section 55 remain unfulfilled.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, during its exhaustive examination of Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act — including a short study on the official languages reform document — received input from stakeholders on how this act could be a vehicle to address the ongoing omission to adopt a fully bilingual constitution. Indeed, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has received briefs and heard testimony from La Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, La Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law, The Canadian Bar Association and eminent jurists — notably Professor Larocque — who all agreed on one central premise: the Official Languages Act must recognize the need to implement section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In the context of our current debate on the motion before us, their recommendations bear some consideration.

[Translation]

Although the committee did not officially recommend measures in connection with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in its final report on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it did make a good point regarding the non‑compliance with section 55, which I think is worth sharing:

 . . . the English version of these texts is still the only one that has the force of law. This has an impact on the interpretation of language rights by the courts, since judges cannot apply the shared meaning rule to both versions. The Senate Committee therefore calls on the federal government, in the context of modernizing the Act, to take the lead and follow up on implementing this constitutional obligation.

Professor Linda Cardinal, holder of the Research Chair in Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies at the University of Ottawa, and Professor Larocque concluded that the enactment of the French version of the Constitution is a matter of moral justice for Canada’s francophones.

That said, a fully bilingual Constitution would not only serve francophones in this country, but would also serve the interests of all Canadians, including us, as parliamentarians.

Knowing that constitutional texts are official in English only, how can we carry out our role as legislators correctly and thoroughly?

Explicitly making reference to the Constitution Act, 1867, our former colleague, the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal, eloquently said the following, and I quote:

 . . . when senators and members of Parliament need to refer to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, they can only use or refer to the English version, even though a Department of Justice translation is available. This is also true for anyone else who must refer to or quote from the 1867 Act.

If Canada wants to live up to its status as an officially bilingual country, it must respect the commitment in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. . .

How can Canada claim to defend the equal status of the two languages when its constitution is in English only?

Far from being a symbolic measure, Senator Dalphond’s motion embodies the idea that it is important to recognize and respect bilingualism and the linguistic duality of our country.

[English]

Colleagues, I support the overarching objectives of this motion, which simply asks the federal government to — at the very least — consider this important issue in the context of modernizing the Official Languages Act, an initiative that is currently underway in the other place. Although the Senate and its Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will presumably undertake this valuable independent work in the foreseeable future on the proposed Bill C-13, I nevertheless feel bound to give voice to this motion that raises a key constitutional issue for our bilingual country — one that has remained unresolved since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.