Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: 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.

[Translation]

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.