Hon. Percy Downe: Colleagues, as you may be aware, the Government of the United Kingdom is not indexing the U.K. State Pension for over 120,000 residents of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that they do index the U.K. State Pension for a host of other countries, including the United States, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Norway, Poland, Denmark and so on; however, for pensioners living in Canada, this is not the case.

The U.K. government policy stands in sharp contrast to Canada where pension payments are always indexed, regardless of where in the world the recipient lives. Not only is this unfair to those who face pensions of steadily declining value as a result of inflation, it also represents an estimated $450 million not entering the Canadian economy, along with all of the benefits that would bring. I have correspondence dating back to a dozen years from the Government of Canada, outlining their efforts to have the U.K. correct this problem. To date, the U.K. government has refused to change its policy.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join in supporting our fellow Canadian residents, as well as to add $450 million to the Canadian economy, by asking the U.K. government to fix this problem.

[Translation]

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Colleagues, as you may be aware, the Government of the United Kingdom is not indexing the U.K. State Pension for over 120,000 residents of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that they do index the U.K. State Pension for a host of other countries, including the United States, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Norway, Poland, Denmark and so on; however, for pensioners living in Canada, this is not the case.

The U.K. government policy stands in sharp contrast to Canada where pension payments are always indexed, regardless of where in the world the recipient lives. Not only is this unfair to those who face pensions of steadily declining value as a result of inflation, it also represents an estimated $450 million not entering the Canadian economy, along with all of the benefits that would bring. I have correspondence dating back to a dozen years from the Government of Canada, outlining their efforts to have the U.K. correct this problem. To date, the U.K. government has refused to change its policy.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join in supporting our fellow Canadian residents, as well as to add $450 million to the Canadian economy, by asking the U.K. government to fix this problem.

[Translation]

Senator Downe: When recipients of the U.K. State Pension retire in Canada, their incomes will be lower than those retiring in other countries, such as the United States, because their pensions are not indexed. If they happen to fall into poverty, the cost of supporting them will be borne by Canadian governments and Canadian taxpayers, whereas if the United Kingdom had treated them fairly, they might have been able to get by on their own.

Given the close historical relations between Canada and the United Kingdom, the recipients of the U.K. State Pension are wondering why if they lived in Iceland, Portugal, Germany, Turkey, Israel or the Philippines, their pensions would be indexed, but not here in Canada.

I’m wondering, Senator Gold, if you could urge the Government of Canada to increase the diplomatic efforts to fix this problem.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Gold, more than 120,000 people living in Canada receive a U.K. State Pension. These pensions are indexed to inflation for pensioners in the U.K. as well as those living in many other countries, including the United States. However, for pensioners living in Canada, this is not the case.

The U.K. government policy stands in sharp contrast to Canada, where pension payments are always indexed, regardless of where in the world the recipient lives. Not only is this unfair to those who face pensions of steadily declining value as a result of inflation, but it represents an estimated $450 million not entering the Canadian economy, with all the benefits that would bring.

I’m interested in finding out whether there’s currently any effort on the part of the Government of Canada to fix this long-standing problem.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Gold, more than 120,000 people living in Canada receive a U.K. State Pension. These pensions are indexed to inflation for pensioners in the U.K. as well as those living in many other countries, including the United States. However, for pensioners living in Canada, this is not the case.

The U.K. government policy stands in sharp contrast to Canada, where pension payments are always indexed, regardless of where in the world the recipient lives. Not only is this unfair to those who face pensions of steadily declining value as a result of inflation, but it represents an estimated $450 million not entering the Canadian economy, with all the benefits that would bring.

I’m interested in finding out whether there’s currently any effort on the part of the Government of Canada to fix this long‑standing problem.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, we have before us today Bill C-13, the first major change to the Official Languages Act since 1988, and it reflects a series of recommendations to update the legislation. The Official Languages Act was originally introduced in 1968 and passed in 1969 — almost 55 years ago — and 54 years ago, this was groundbreaking and important legislation that has served our country well over the years. Colleagues, times have changed, and the bill before us today is a missed opportunity to include Indigenous languages in our Official Languages Act.

The Official Languages Act of 54 years ago was the right thing to do in 1969, and now, in 2023, we have the opportunity to also do the right thing and give Indigenous languages equal status and the same legal protection as our two official founding languages.

Colleagues, we have to step back and ask ourselves if the policy of our two founding languages — French and English — is a carryover from our colonial past. Prior to francophones or anglophones arriving in this part of North America, there were many Indigenous languages already spoken here. Those are the true founding languages of the land on which we now live.

Colleagues, is it not better to reflect on the true history of Canada and recognize that we may have many Indigenous languages as founding languages? Can the Senate play a major role and also seize this historic opportunity to send Bill C-13 back to the House of Commons and tell them to do better, tell them to include protection of Indigenous languages in this bill and tell them to provide the same legally enforced protection to Indigenous languages that we provide to English and French in this country? Colleagues, let us embrace the new Canada. Let us embrace the future rather than resisting change and fighting for the status quo.

The beginnings of Bill C-13 that is before us lay in the 1963 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which provided the push for the legislation which followed. Speaking in support of the Official Languages Act in the House of Commons in 1968, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau said:

In all parts of the country, within both language groups, there are those who call for uniformity. It will be simpler and cheaper, they argue. In the case of the French minority, isolation is prescribed as necessary for survival. We must never underestimate the strength or the durability of these appeals to profound human emotions.

Surely these arguments are based on fear, on a narrow view of human nature, on a defeatist appraisal of our capacity to adapt our society and its institutions to the demands of its citizens. Those who argue for separation, in whatever form, are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future.

We have rejected this view of our country. . . .

That is what then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau concluded. These powerful words from 1968 would also apply to Canada today when we discuss Indigenous languages. But they were spoken over half a century ago, before there was a more complete understanding of the Indigenous culture of Canada.

But make no mistake: As early as 1963, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was explicit about the importance of language to culture, stating:

Language is also the key to cultural development. Language and culture are not synonymous, but the vitality of the language is a necessary condition for the complete preservation of a culture.

That same argument can — given our heightened awareness of Indigenous culture and history — be extended today to Indigenous languages.

More recently, in its June 2015 final report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the federal government to “. . . acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”

Colleagues, today the governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia are the only areas in Canada that have passed legislation aimed at protecting and promoting Indigenous languages. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed itself to implementing all its recommendations. In addition, Canada supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in which culture and language rights are central to 17 of the declaration’s 46 articles and its protection and promotion of Indigenous culture.

For example, Article 13 of the UN Declaration states that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

Article 8 specifically mentions that:

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or the destruction of their culture.

To that end, and in response to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

Unfortunately, the Indigenous Languages Act, unlike the Official Languages Act, does not provide legal protections for Indigenous languages in the same way that the Official Languages Act protects both official languages. The Indigenous Languages Act promotes Indigenous languages through positive measures, but the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages does not have the same enforcement powers as the Commissioner of Official Languages, powers which are being strengthened in Bill C-13 before us. More importantly, those who believe their Indigenous language rights are being violated have no recourse to courts for those perceived violations under the act, unlike Part X of the Official Languages Act, which allows for complaints to be remedied by a federal court.

Why are there no similar court remedies in Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act? Colleagues, it is an act of good intentions, an act of reassuring words and a paternalistic pat on the head, but no enforcement.

In the past, the Senate has shown leadership on language issues. Bill S-3 was introduced in 2005 by the late senator Jean‑Robert Gauthier, and was intended to give some teeth to the Official Languages Act by stressing the binding nature of the commitment set out in Part VII of the act. Second, it imposed obligations on federal institutions regarding the implementation of this commitment.

Third, the bill included a remedial power that allows the courts to monitor the implementation of the act by governments. This bill was passed by both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent in November 2005.

Colleagues, we owe it to the Indigenous community to embrace the new Canada we are building together. The old Canada thinking in this bill is partly the result of the distorted history we all studied when we were in school and the massive gaps in our knowledge of the Indigenous community, their customs and their society.

This absence of knowledge in Canadian society about our Indigenous history is slowly ending, and this bill should give legal protection to Indigenous language rights, thereby moving past the outdated view of only two official languages.

Once again, colleagues, the Senate, if it has the will — as it has done in the past — can improve language legislation and change the status quo.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]