Senator Gold: Thank you for your important question. Immigration is an important vehicle through which our country grows and develops. Unfortunately, the recent census data shows that there is a very concerning decrease in the use of French outside of Quebec. In order to promote and support those francophone communities, especially outside of Quebec, it is imperative that they receive the benefit of the revitalization that francophone immigration would bring to them.

This has been a policy of the government, quite independent of Bill C-13, for some time. It’s a priority to increase francophone immigration so as to halt the decline of French in the country.

In 2022, the government reached its target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside of Quebec, and in that year, Canada welcomed a record number of more than 16,300 francophone immigrants outside of Quebec. In addition, with the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023–2028, the government is planning to invest large sums in new measures in order to promote francophone immigration to Canada.

If this bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it does soon, these plans will be put into place, measures will be introduced and indicators will be developed to guide the actions of the government. Indeed, these are actions, if I remember correctly, that our Senate committee studied, promoted and called for.

I should add, by the way, that the measures to increase francophone immigration across Canada were also enhanced and strengthened by several amendments in the other place.

That’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not sure I answered your question specifically because some of the measures will have to await the coming into force of this law, as well as the action plans that have been developed, but it’s a commitment of the government.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. All the provinces and territories welcome, want and need immigrants and a healthy immigration policy in order to flourish, develop and grow. In that regard, I have every confidence that the Government of Canada will work with interested governments and territorial and provincial governments to better understand their particular needs, whether it’s economic or other indicators that would best suit their needs. It will also take into account the needs of those French-speaking communities, for example, in your province and elsewhere, who will also play an important role in identifying their needs and identifying how they can assist in the integration of immigrants once they arrive.

This is not a question of enforcing. It’s a question of encouraging and using the government’s jurisdiction over immigration to make sure that its immigration policy reflects the needs of this country, and not only the economic needs of a particular region or province but also the demographic needs of the minority communities and the French-speaking communities that live outside of Quebec.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: No, I’d be happy if there were an opposition that was as independent as you claim to be. I wish there were an opposition that did not put partisanship upon the protection of Canadian national security. I wish we had an opposition or a Leader of the Opposition in the other place who had the courage to read the information as opposed to protecting himself —

Senator Gold: Yes, Senator Seidman.

Senator Gold: Absolutely.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I understand very well, in a diverse country like ours, how important it is for all the institutions that share similar objectives to communicate with each other and for collaboration to be established as needed and where appropriate.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize that the raison d’être of Bill C-13 is the two official languages and their legal status in Canada.

As I’ve already mentioned, there were consultations, but I don’t want to claim that this was done within the framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s a bill that deals with other matters, notwithstanding the fact that it respectfully recognizes the acquired and constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples.

The other component I talked about in my bill on Indigenous languages relates to the commissioners and all the resources that will be brought in — This is another vital and important bill that’s still in its early stages, meaning that it isn’t quite ready yet. Some projects do exist, and there have been some successes. There’s still a lot of work to be done. We hope all this will continue and even progress a little more quickly, but we have to distinguish between the two camps. A patchwork of measures will do neither Bill C-13 nor the Indigenous languages bill any good.

[English]

Senator Gold: — protecting himself so that, without the proper basis, he could spin whatever tales that he would, unencumbered by any exposure to the evidence, which he has been invited to read.

Senator Gold: Once again, I share your concern, esteemed colleague. I’ll add that to my questions to the minister.

[English]

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, thank you for your question. We should not, and I do not, presume what decisions the Prime Minister will make with regard to the two vacancies, but I shall take the opportunity, with great respect, to challenge some of the assertions and assumptions that you make, both with regard to the motivations of the Prime Minister and, indeed, the report that the Honourable David Johnston has provided just last week.

The report contains very important analysis and information for the benefit of Canadians with regard to the challenges that we face as a country, the many steps that the government has taken over many years to address the challenge of foreign interference as well as identifying gaps in the way in which security information is processed and transmitted upwards to the Prime Minister. It also sets out a next phase of public hearings, and, indeed, refers specifically to NSICOP and to NSIRA.

The Honourable David Johnston properly points out that these two institutions, with the security clearance that they enjoy, can have access to top secret, classified information, and that will include cabinet documents to which they have not had reference before, as well as an invitation to all opposition leaders who are willing to receive that top clearance for themselves to have access to all of the information that the Special Rapporteur reviewed in coming to his conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever that the Prime Minister knew of the allegations that were published in the reports.

I assume the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has read the report, but for those of you who have not yet read the report, I do commend it to you. It is an extraordinarily useful contribution to Canadians’ understanding of how we in Canada deal with intelligence information and how we can do better.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Environmental regulation and jurisdiction of the environment is a shared one. This government works with all willing provincial and territorial governments with the common objective of reducing emissions, promoting climate change and promoting a transition to a sustainable, greener economy. Nowhere is that more important than in the oil and gas sector, which is in many ways a leader in innovation in this area.

With regard to your question, Canada’s emissions reporting, as you would know, is prepared in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is based upon science.

With regard to the more specific aspects of your question, I’ll bring those to the attention of the minister.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

I fully understand the concerns, not only of your community, but also of Indigenous communities in Quebec and elsewhere.

The short answer is no. A government can say anything it likes, but that is absolutely not the case when it comes to legal facts.

The reference has no bearing on the process under way in Quebec and, more broadly, on the application of the Charter of the French language in Quebec. It is solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction and Bill C-13 respects that. I can add — and no doubt this issue will be addressed in committee — that there are a lot of measures in this case that seek to encourage and support Indigenous communities in their efforts to ensure they have the opportunity and the ability to work in their language, to be supervised in their language and to be protected by the changes brought about by Bill C-13, for example, within the context of their existing employment in the public service.

Thank you for the question. In my opinion, the answer is simple and straightforward.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I would be surprised if there weren’t examples of this in other federal statutes, but I don’t want to assert that’s the case because I haven’t done that kind of research.

The important point, Senator Omidvar, is that this is, as you correctly point out, simply a factual reference so as to provide the proper context. It has no legal force or effect. Therefore, it is not setting any kind of precedent that has legislative significance. It responds to the unique circumstances that gave rise to this bill, as well as the need to modernize the legislation.

As well, colleagues, it was also a product of a legislative process in the other place that involved not only the government, but also all of the opposition parties that participated, over many years, in the elaboration and drafting of this legislation.

I date myself by quoting Alfred E. Neuman from MAD magazine to say, “What, me worry?”

In my respectful opinion, there is nothing to be concerned about juridically, legally and legislatively here.

I understand; I come from the English-speaking community in Quebec. I have family members who are challenging me on this bill and, indeed, who are involved in public advocacy — taking a position different from the position of the government — and I feel it very well.

I understand what is triggered by the references, but, in fact, the law is clear — and as legislators, we have to be clear. The law preserves and protects English rights in Quebec to the fullest extent that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction to do so. The references are simply to provide the proper context for the linguistic regimes within which minorities have to live, whether it’s in provinces with no official recognition of constitutional bilingualism, as in New Brunswick, or in provinces like Quebec where there is an official language legislated in law through Quebec’s Charter of the French Language.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t believe that it would be necessary or appropriate — in this case — to send it to another committee in addition to the Official Languages Committee.

There are clearly committee members with expertise who have studied the issues. It is also the case that any senator can participate in those meetings, and, therefore, those with a legal background who have an interest in this can be present either as a senator or as a substitute for members in their group. Equally important, the committee will have the ability to bring those experts to testify.

I am not one to exaggerate; when I say with certainty that these are factual references and do not incorporate, in any respect, the provisions, I speak from a lifetime of experience in law and in legal texts — and that will be the testimony I fully expect to hear before the committee.

Senator Gold: Once again, the government wants to see Mr. Badawi reunited with his family. I’m sure that the restoration of diplomatic relations will result in increased advocacy on his behalf. That is certainly our hope.

[English]

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Gold: Thank you for raising the issue of the court because I think it will also give me an opportunity to correct what I think is a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of this bill as it applies to the court.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe that the issues that you have raised justify sending it to the Legal Committee, and I’ll explain why.

With respect to the judiciary, the provisions of this bill remove an exemption that existed for the Supreme Court of Canada that was placed in the original act and, at the time, was thought to be “temporary,” absolving the court as an institution from the same requirements that other superior courts had. That is, to give effect to the constitutionally protected rights of litigants to be heard and understood in the language of their choice without the aid of an interpreter. What is perhaps not understood — and I apologize, Senator Batters, if I’m putting words in your mouth, or others; I don’t mean to. But this does not mean that every judge appointed to the Supreme Court or any other Supreme Court must be bilingual, fluent or otherwise. That is not what the legislation requires. It is an institutional obligation on the court as an institution that when it hears cases, the litigants before the court must be ensured that they are able to address the court and be understood without the benefit of an interpreter.

I’ll give an example. It happens, happily, that the Supreme Court of Canada in today’s composition has nine judges — three from Quebec, three from Ontario, as is our practice, custom and law — who are all functionally bilingual, but it is not actually a requirement and wouldn’t be a requirement. It would be a requirement that the panel of judges who hears a case be a panel that is able to hear and understand testimony, whether in English or French, without the benefit of an interpreter. For example, the quorum for a case at the Supreme Court of Canada, as you know, is five. There is nothing in Bill C-13 that requires that every future judge, where it’s the Supreme Court or of any superior court — because those provisions have been in place for some long time — must be fluently bilingual. It is conceivable that a Supreme Court judge may be appointed if they only speak French and perhaps an Indigenous language. Although I don’t think there has been a unilingual French judge on the Supreme Court since Confederation, there have certainly been unilingual English judges. But that is not precluded by this so long as the court, as an institution, when it structures its panels — which is typically under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice — has the ability to satisfy the institutional obligation that is now imposed upon the Supreme Court from which it had been exempted temporarily under the Official Languages Act of 30 years ago.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I think Canadian citizens answered those questions in a series of elections.

The fact is, colleagues, that the investments that this government has made with the support of all parties in this place and in the other place through the pandemic and through our recovery have resulted in Canada emerging from that worldwide crisis with a strong economy and well positioned for the future. The investments that this government has made to help Canadians through the difficult economic times that we’re experiencing, whether in food prices or housing costs, have also helped Canadians escape or at least mitigate the worst impacts of that.

This is a question for which neither the government, nor I as the government’s representative, should be ashamed.

It is an appropriate exercise of good government to help Canadians through difficult times and to make sure that the economy is well positioned to withstand and flourish in the uncertain days, months and years ahead.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I do agree. First of all, consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. Unanimity should not be a threshold for change in the Senate — that would simply be a recipe for paralysis. However, as I just said, on the issue of our approach to other business, given the different proposals that have been circulated in the past, I think there needs to be a process of engagement that would yield a policy consensus, or at least to see where one might lie. Again, I would encourage the Rules Committee to take up this issue.

You mentioned Senator Murray Sinclair; he was an important voice in this chamber. His vision of the Senate as Canada’s council of elders is certainly one vision that could inform our debate as we continue our efforts to modernize the Senate, and for the Senate to better correspond to contemporary needs and reality.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: I’m sure this question will and can be both asked and answered at committee, but it is clearly in the law. Again, as I have noted, the provisions here that remove the exemption have been in place for federally appointed judges for decades and it is certainly not the case that all federally appointed judges have had to have been bilingual. It wasn’t like that in the past, nor will it be in the future, whether for the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario or Supreme Court of Canada.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: I will answer it. You are wrong, dead wrong. Once again, I wish that the opposition in this place was not —