Senator Cormier: Thank you for the answer.

LGBTQ2+ organizations need to do long-term planning. Funding for just one year is rather problematic. I would like to know if this LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund can be accessed by new LGBTQ2+ organizations, such as the one recently created in my province. If not, what will the government do to support these organizations, and when will it do it?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Senator Cormier, I have a question related to the one posed by Senator Mockler.

Do you think that the study of this type of bill could be shared by more than one Senate committee, for example, the Committee on Official Languages and perhaps the Legal Affairs Committee? Do you think it would it be possible to split the study of this bill, as we have done on other occasions?

Senator Cormier: Thank you for your question, Senator Mockler.

Obviously, as I said in my speech, I believe that this issue must be debated in committee.

I would first turn to colleagues like Senator Dalphond, who is certainly better equipped to understand the constitutional complexity of this issue, but I strongly believe that there are constitutional issues that affect the feasibility of the bill. If we want to require the lieutenant-governors of New Brunswick to speak both official languages, we need to address some issues — I spoke about them briefly — so it would be a good idea to examine the bill in committee.

My simple answer to your question is yes, I think this deserves to be examined in committee by experts who can enlighten us about the constitutional issues with this bill.

Which committee? I am not sure at this point whether the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages would be best equipped to do it, but it would obviously be up to the chamber to decide where to send this bill. However, I believe that it should be examined in the context of the Constitution of Canada.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Thank you, Senator Cormier, for your support for Indigenous languages. You remind me, with your passion, of Senator Joyal.

Senator, you know I represent a region with the highest proportion of Indigenous people in the country; 85% or more of the people of Nunavut are Inuit, and they largely still speak Inuktitut. It’s a bilingual radio station, newspaper, and I mean French and Inuktitut. Yet the federal government refuses to provide services in the Inuktitut language for its federal services in Nunavut, in contravention of the Nunavut government’s own Official Languages Act and Inuit Language Protection Act.

Do you have any comments on that in relation to your bill? Thank you.

Senator Cormier: Thank you so much for your question. I will try to answer in English.

The answer, for me, maybe does not reside in the Official Languages Act. I think the answer is that the federal government must do more to implement the Indigenous Languages Act; that’s for sure. The federal government — and all citizens, by the way — should do more to ensure that citizens receive the services they deserve in their part of Canada.

I sincerely and honestly feel that this is not in opposition with the official languages. I think that taking care of the Indigenous languages, taking care — making sure that in Canada, those rich languages can be revitalized — is a responsibility of the federal government and it is a responsibility for all of us.

So concerning this bill, it is specifically on the Language Skills Act. I talked about the Official Languages Act, but mainly this bill is about the Language Skills Act. I say “may be,” but I’m not sure even if this actual bill — what I said in my speech — I’m not sure if it is the right vehicle for that. But what I can assure you, Senator Patterson, is that much more must be done for the different languages in Canada, and we must find the right tools, the right place and the right hour to do that.

I’m not sure I am answering your question, but I’m trying to express the importance of making sure that in Canada we do help and respect all cultures and that their languages can also be celebrated. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Last week, the Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, announced that funding would be extended for the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund and granted to two specific LGBTQ2 projects. Obviously, I applaud this announcement, which will help many LGBTQ2+ organizations in Canada continue their activities.

This fund is especially important for organizations working in rural regions. For example, Rendez-vous de la fierté Acadie Love, an organization on the Acadian Peninsula in New Brunswick, is doing outstanding work. Thanks to this fund, this organization recently contributed to the creation of a new francophone provincial group: Alter Acadie NB, the New Brunswick association of queer francophones, which focuses on LGBTQ2+ issues.

That being said, I am very concerned about the fact that the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund was extended for only one year for $7.5 million, which is approximately the same amount as in previous years.

How does the federal government assess the growing financial needs of the LGBTQ2+ organizations that are eligible for this fund? How does it plan to ensure that they receive ongoing financial assistance?

Hon. René Cormier: I thank Senator Moncion for so eloquently speaking to the challenges facing universities in francophone minority communities.

Esteemed colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick), which was introduced in this chamber by Senator Carignan on December 1, 2021.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Bill S-229 would guarantee that any person appointed to the office of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is able to understand and communicate clearly in the two official languages of our country, French and English.

In order to do so, Bill S-229 would amend section 2 of the Language Skills Act.

[English]

Section 2 of the Language Skills Act prescribes that a person must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages to be appointed to some key offices, namely the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the President of the Public Service Commission, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Unquestionably, these various offices play a fundamental role in the governance of our country and in our Canadian socio-political landscape. In addition, while the individuals fulfilling these offices could rightly be considered as officers of Parliament — also called agents of Parliament — nothing in the Language Skills Act explicitly prevents Parliament from adding other positions. So, with Bill S-229, the position of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick would simply be added to this illustrious list of important functions subject to the Language Skills Act.

[Translation]

As the critic for this bill, I looked at it from four different perspectives that I would like to share with you today: the historical context of the evolution of language rights in New Brunswick, the duties and responsibilities of the Lieutenant-Governor, the constitutional issues this bill raises, and the modernization and transparency of the appointment processes for the highest offices of this country.

In his speech at second reading on December 14, Senator Carignan gave various reasons why this bill should be passed. He talked about everything from the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that confer unique status on New Brunswick in terms of language rights to the importance of promoting and protecting the French language by describing the specific historical context in which French acquired its status as one of New Brunswick’s two official languages.

In so doing, he noted that the creation of language obligations specific to New Brunswick, namely those set out in the Charter, was a way of moving away from a situation of “advanced diglossia” in that province, which he explained as a situation in which French had a “lower sociopolitical status.”

As an Acadian senator from New Brunswick, I obviously agree with this historical perspective and I support the intent behind Senator Carignan’s remarks. I would like to sincerely thank him for introducing this bill, which raises the importance of ensuring and promoting bilingualism in high-level public positions. This is a necessary bill that is more than symbolic for our two official language communities in New Brunswick.

That being said, notwithstanding my unwavering support for the main principles of Bill S-229, I cannot help but notice that it raises some complex issues, of a constitutional nature in particular, with regard to the appointment process for this position. After carefully examining the bill, conducting research and consulting an eminent constitutional expert, I wish to express some concerns about the feasibility of the bill. However, before I talk about these important points to consider, I would like to talk about the main reasons I support this bill at second reading.

As a province, New Brunswick is home to a unique socio-cultural, political and constitutional reality when it comes to the protection and promotion of bilingualism and linguistic duality. Since it is the only officially bilingual province in the country, one need only look at sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to understand that New Brunswick holds a unique place in Canada’s constitutional space. The Charter contains clear language provisions specific to New Brunswick. Among other things, it provides for the following:

English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have . . . the right to distinct educational institutions and . . . distinct cultural institutions . . . .

Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with . . . any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.

New Brunswick actually recognized the principles stated in the Charter in its own Official Languages Act in 2002.

Esteemed colleagues, this recognition of New Brunswick’s special status in the Charter provisions did not happen by accident. It is the result of years of hard work and tenacity on the part of many New Brunswickers. I’d like to share two examples to illustrate that.

First, before 1981, the draft version of the Charter contained no paragraphs specific to New Brunswick. It was not until the Premier of Nova Scotia at the time, the Honourable Richard Hatfield, appeared before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada that the federal Justice Minister at the time, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, decided to put forward New-Brunswick-specific amendments on the linguistic issue.

[English]

In committee, then-Premier Hatfield stated the following:

. . . it is possible and it is to the betterment and the advancement of the people to acknowledge and to enjoy the benefits of two languages and all that comes from that.

Although New Brunswick initially led the foundation for institutional bilingualism in 1969 with the enactment of its first Official Languages Act — a legislative initiative spearheaded by then-premier Louis Robichaud or, as we call him in Acadie, “Petit Louis” — it was the enactment of the Charter in 1982 that consolidated New Brunswick’s place within Canada’s constitutional framework — a remarkable feat by no stretch of the imagination.

[Translation]

However, esteemed colleagues, despite this progress, in 1982, the Charter still did not recognize the principles set out in the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, which had been passed in the province the year before and recognized the right of the francophone and anglophone linguistic communities to “distinct institutions.” It took determination on the part of New Brunswick’s premier at the time, Frank McKenna, to get the principles of this provincial statute enshrined in the Charter in 1993 with the addition of section 16.1.

[English]

Mr. McKenna once affirmed in committee that section 16.1 of the Charter would essentially make New Brunswick a distinct society. In my opinion, this notion of a distinct society is not only rooted in the Charter provisions but also embedded in the very fabric of New Brunswick society, socially and culturally.

[Translation]

The current demographic reality in New Brunswick clearly demonstrates this situation. In 2016, more than 31.9% of the New Brunswick population reported French as their first language, while English was the first language of 64.8% of the population. Some regions, like the Acadian Peninsula in the northeast of the province, have a high concentration of francophones, accounting for about 96% of the population, while other regions, for instance in the southwest of the province, are predominantly anglophone, accounting for about 98% of their population. In this respect, two distinct linguistic communities co-exist in New Brunswick. This still poses significant challenges, particularly with respect to the substantive equality of these two communities.

A recent report by the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities found that, and I quote:

The language vitality indices signal that the gap between the two official languages continues to widen, at the expense of French.

The report later states, and I quote:

The use of the official languages at work varied between the three levels of government present in the province in 2016 . . . . The higher the level of government, the more employees spoke mainly English, to the detriment of French. The percentage of public servants who spoke English most often increased from 74.5% among municipal and regional governments to 76.0% in the provincial government, and 79.2% in the federal government in New Brunswick.

[English]

While New Brunswick citizens have indeed acquired language rights, I should still remind this chamber that a right is not in itself a guarantee that both linguistic communities in that province will flourish equally in the future. A right by itself is meaningless without associated actions protecting and defending it.

The social contract binding New Brunswick citizens in their collective appreciation and understanding of bilingualism and linguistic duality needs to be sustained by direct actions. Like a living tree — if I may — it cannot survive entirely on its own.

Ensuring that the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick speaks and comprehends both official languages is a critical step in maintaining and revitalizing the social cohesion among citizens of New Brunswick with respect to language rights.

Colleagues, it is with that reality in mind and through these very lenses that we should try to grasp the overarching objectives behind Senator Carignan’s proposed bill.

[Translation]

In this context, what role does the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick play? As elsewhere, the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is the provincial representative of Her Majesty the Queen and serves the two linguistic communities of this province by taking on a number of official duties or traditional activities. The Lieutenant-Governor opens, prorogues and dissolves the legislative assembly, grants Royal Assent to all bills, gives the Speech from the Throne, participates in official ceremonies honouring the achievements of New Brunswickers, and welcomes members of the Royal Family, heads of state, ambassadors and other representatives of foreign countries, to name just a few. In addition to these official duties, the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is also a unifying symbol of the province.

Former lieutenant-governors, such as the Honourable Jocelyne Roy Vienneau, Herménégilde Chiasson, Gilbert Finn and Hédard Robichaud, performed their official duties admirably and also fostered stronger ties between the province’s two linguistic communities. Because they were able to speak and understand both official languages with all New Brunswickers, they helped strengthen the public’s appreciation for this high office and built linguistic and cultural bridges between the province’s French and English linguistic communities.

Also, in light of this reality, we can say that maintaining and promoting bilingualism and linguistic duality in New Brunswick represent true vectors of integration and democratization, which promote better social cohesion between citizens. That’s why it is only natural for the people of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, to expect anyone who fills the position of lieutenant-governor to be able to clearly speak and understand both official languages, as set out in Bill S-229.

That being said, as I mentioned from the outset, this bill raises some complex questions, particularly of a constitutional nature, regarding the appointment process for this position, and they merit further study in committee.

[English]

Currently the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is appointed by the Governor General-in-Council according to section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and usually for a period of five years. The term “Governor-in-Council” simply refers to the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. Factually, the Privy Council’s advice is generally understood as made by the cabinet by means of an order-in-council; and yet, the appointment of a lieutenant-governor is specifically one made through an instrument of advice from the Prime Minister to the Governor General rather than through a cabinet process.

This power of recommendation reserved to the Prime Minister could be described as a special prerogative, as duly recognized in a 1935 order-in-council. In fact, the legal instrument also lists other special prerogatives of the Prime Minister, such as recommending the appointment of senators or the Speaker of the Senate.

[Translation]

Colleagues, in light of this information, can we establish a distinction between the Prime Minister’s power of recommendation, as stated in this order, and the Governor General’s power to make official appointments, as set out in section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867? At first glance, the answer could be yes.

Paul Daly, the University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa, has suggested, based on a United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling commonly referred to as Miller (No. 2), that it would be possible to make a distinction between the advice of a prime minister and the decision of a governor general, including when it comes to the process for appointing a lieutenant-governor.

In that case, how are we to interpret the scope of Bill S-229? Does it apply to the recommendation of the Canadian prime minister or the Governor General’s power to make official appointments?

In other words, does this bill act on the Constitution or on the so-called “special” prerogative of the Prime Minister? That is the question I have, and I would like to address it with you through two possible interpretations that seem to lead to different conclusions.

The first assumes that this bill would guide the process for appointing a Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, as set out in section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Formally, it is the Governor General, not the Prime Minister, who appoints a person to the position of lieutenant-governor, although it is true, as the 6th edition of Constitutional Law states, “that the governors essentially engage in solemn acts that authenticate certain government decisions.”

By making it a requirement that any person appointed to the office of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick be bilingual, we could be undermining the office of the Governor General.

In order to make such a change at that level, we must consider subsection 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states, and I quote:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

Benoît Pelletier, the eminent legal scholar, constitutional expert and professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said the following:

 . . . Her Majesty and her official representatives are an integral part of the composition of these institutions and have many powers associated with them. This status and these powers could only be assigned in accordance with subsection 41(a) of the 1982 Act.

On that basis, is it possible that Bill S-229 could affect the powers of one of the official representatives of Her Majesty the Queen, namely the Governor General? At first glance and from what we just heard, that could be the case.

In his speech at second reading, Senator Carignan explained that section 12 of the Constitution Act, 1867, “clearly gives Parliament the power to amend, through simple legislation, the powers to appoint the Governor General.”

In light of Professor Pelletier’s observations concerning paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, can we support Senator Carignan’s interpretation? I think we need to ask that question and examine it more closely.

The second possible interpretation of Bill S-229 that I would like to discuss with you assumes that it would regulate the recommendation process used by the Prime Minister within the meaning of the 1935 order-in-council.

As I mentioned earlier, it is actually the Prime Minister, not the Governor General, who recommends someone for the position of lieutenant-governor. If we look at it that way, the bill would likely force the Prime Minister to recommend someone who is proficient in both official languages.

Again according to Professor Pelletier, it would be possible to limit the Prime Minister’s discretion or prerogative because, while that discretion or prerogative is constitutional, it is still derived from conventions “which are not, strictly speaking, rules of law.”

What exactly is a “constitutional convention?”

Appearing before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, law professor Kate Glover reminded us that constitutional conventions are, and I quote:

 . . . political creatures that have three features. First, there has to be a precedent. Second, it has to be experienced as normative or obligatory by the political actors. Third, there has to be a reason justifying the rule or practice.

In the same vein, Chief Justice Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justices Estey and McIntyre stated the following in Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution:

 . . . a fundamental difference between the legal, that is the statutory and common law rules of the constitution, and the conventional rules is that, while a breach of the legal rules, whether of statutory or common law nature, has a legal consequence in that it will be restrained by the courts, no such sanction exists for breach or non-observance of the conventional rules. . . . The sanction for non-observance of a convention is political in that disregard of a convention may lead to political defeat, to loss of office, or to other political consequences, but it will not engage the attention of the courts which are limited to matters of law alone.

“If” — and I do mean “if” — the Prime Minister’s power to recommend arises from a constitutional convention as understood by Professor Pelletier, and “if” Bill S-229 truly does infringe on or limit the Prime Minister’s discretion, the drawbacks of this bill would be more political than anything else.

Honourable senators, without seeking to undermine the purpose of Bill S-229, which is particularly advantageous for New Brunswick’s two linguistic communities, I do have some questions that are worth going into and that should be studied in committee by subject-matter experts such as Professor Pelletier.

[English]

To put it mildly, I totally agree with the intention of Bill S-229, but we need clarity so as to avoid any unintended negative effects that would undermine its implementation. We must do it right, colleagues.

With that in mind, I’m now turning to the fourth and final point of my speech, which is that this bill raises the transparent nature of the appointment process of the lieutenant-governor. Again, colleagues, please indulge me for a few moments while I share my thoughts on the matter.

[Translation]

On December 15, 2021, while asking the Government Representative in the Senate a question about the upcoming Senate appointments, I reminded the chamber that an independent advisory board is mandated to “provide non-binding merit-based recommendations to the Prime Minister on Senate nominations.”

I also said that:

 . . . the board members seek to support the Government of Canada’s intent “to ensure representation of . . . linguistic, minority and ethnic communities in the Senate.”

What about the process of appointing a lieutenant-governor? Should an advisory committee be struck to ensure a transparent and open process?

In 2012, Prime Minister Harper created the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments, which would, and I quote:

 . . . provide non-binding recommendations to the Prime Minister on the selection of the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors and Territorial Commissioners.

One of the interesting features of this committee, which is similar to the process for appointing senators, was its composition. It was composed of individuals from outside of government, the idea being that when it came time to appoint a lieutenant-governor, there would be a selection of temporary members from the province in question, thereby adding a regional perspective.

However, that committee has not met since 2015. Instead, it is the Prime Minister’s Office, in collaboration with the Privy Council Office, that searches for candidates for such appointments.

Colleagues, public trust is one of the cornerstones of our system of parliamentary governance. We must ensure that our decisions are made within a framework of openness, accountability and transparency. The vitality of our democratic institutions depends greatly on this.

These major principles are at the heart of my parliamentary commitments as the second vice-president of the ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network.

Canada is an important member of this network, which promotes legislative openness through efforts to increase transparency and access to public information, strengthen the accountability of democratic institutions, promote the participation of citizens in legislative decision-making, and ensure a culture of ethical behaviour and probity in the national legislatures of the Americas and the Caribbean.

Following up on these comments, it may perhaps be appropriate to formalize, with a law for example, a mechanism such as that of the 2012 advisory committee, to make it permanent and stable. This tool would ensure that current and future prime ministers are accountable, and this mechanism could complement the objectives of Bill S-299.

[English]

In conclusion, honourable senators, I indicated at the beginning of the speech that I would approach the bill from four aspects. In fact, there is a fifth aspect underlying this analysis, which is more profound and central to our country’s identity. This dimension touches on our ability as a country to truly recognize the place of Indigenous peoples in the foundation of Canada.

Unfortunately, this matter goes beyond debating a piece of legislation about the official language requirements of a lieutenant-governor. This is a complex issue that needs to be examined in depth in a broader context.

In the spirit of truth and reconciliation, I recognize that, as parliamentarians, we must strive to support and promote the use of Indigenous languages, as indicated in the Indigenous Languages Act, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do better, to do more, and to engage actively in real dialogue, in a space free of prejudice and judgment of one another. Honourable senators, I sincerely look forward to participating in that conversation with you and with all Canadians.

[Translation]

I will conclude by quoting the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, who stated the following in an article published for the fiftieth anniversary of the Official Languages Act:

Both official languages, English and French, are at the heart of our Canadian identity. They are at the core of our history. Together with Indigenous languages, Canada’s true first languages, they are the foundation of the values of diversity and inclusion in our society. Indigenous languages are an important part of Canada’s cultural landscape. In the spirit of reconciliation and in accordance with the fundamental values that unite us, all Canadians can support their country’s first languages and their country’s official languages.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your comment and question, Senator Audette.

The answer to your question is both simple and complex, and it obviously lies in dialogue. I firmly believe, as I mentioned at the end of my speech, that this dialogue among all those who speak both Indigenous and official languages must occur in an atmosphere of joint reflection on our past and our future.

What I mean by that is that, as Canadians, we are currently living in a context where, thanks to our Constitution, we have two official languages and a law on Indigenous languages. I believe that we have tools that should not divide but rather serve to bring us closer together. It is obvious that this dialogue could continue in New Brunswick, senator.

My answer is both vague and specific. Why vague? I guess it is because I believe that this answer needs to come from both a francophone living in a minority community, like me, and from the Indigenous people who have been living on this land for millennia. It is my greatest wish that we can have an open and transparent dialogue while thinking about and showing respect for all of the languages of this country.

[English]

Hon. Percy Mockler: First, Senator Cormier, coming as you do from New Brunswick, you have given an excellent presentation of the challenges we face today, and I congratulate you on your fine speech.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge Senator Audette’s comments on another chapter for improving the lives of Canadians.

My question is about the bill in question, and I need your help here, Senator Cormier. What vehicle would be the best and most appropriate way to move forward on such an issue with greater clarity?

For instance, should we refer it to committee, or should we wait until the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is introduced and include it in another debate? This might allow us to more fully examine some of what Senator Audette raised as well as some of the things in your presentation.

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Francophone immigration to minority communities;

That, given that the federal government plans to develop an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy, the committee be authorized to:

a)review the progress on the target for French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec;

b)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of French-speaking immigrants to settle in Francophone minority communities;

c)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of Canada’s current immigration programs and measures to maintain the demographic weight of the French-speaking population;

d)study the measures and programs implemented by the Government of Canada to recruit, welcome and integrate French-speaking immigrants, refugees and foreign students;

e)study the impact of these measures and programs on the development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec; and

f)identify ways to increase support for this sector and to ensure that the Government of Canada’s objectives can be met; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Cormier: Thank you for the question, senator.

Possibly, and why not? I do not actually have a clear answer for you on this.

To be very honest with you, addressing these functions is an issue that is fundamental to our country. This is a matter that affects the Constitution of Canada and forces us to ask where the Constitution of Canada stands today and how it reflects current affairs and today’s Canada.

I do not have a specific answer for you, but I believe that this could be studied under different angles. I believe that the bill raises constitutional questions, as I was saying, but that may also be broader in scope and invite us to question ourselves about the state of Canada today and how that is reflected in the uppermost functions of the state.

Regarding New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, I sincerely believe that the people of New Brunswick want the person filling this position to be able to communicate in both official languages and to reach the entire population of New Brunswick

That is my answer to you, Senator Dupuis. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post‑pandemic economic and social policy to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality, when and if the committee is formed;

That, given recent calls for action from Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, the committee examine in particular potential national approaches to interjurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.