Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I have a point of order, Your Honour. With the greatest of respect, I understood what you just said about the time running out when the debate was concluded — or when Senator Seidman’s speech was concluded — and that there was no time for any further questions. However, I do respectfully want to point out to you, Your Honour, that I rose on my feet on debate. I was on my feet before Senator Moodie, and you called her, and then I rose for the third time when you recognized Senator Boyer. That is why my honourable colleague pointed out that we seem to be invisible back here in this corner. I would respectfully draw that to your attention.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, when Senator Cormier introduced this amendment in committee, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, President Natan Obed’s testimony before committee was repeatedly invoked as a reason against it.

During clause-by-clause consideration, Senator Moodie said:

Equally concerning are some of the comments that we heard from ITK President Natan Obed, who expressed concerns to us right here in this committee that this amendment would harm language rights for Inuit peoples. . . .

With respect to Senator Moodie, that was a misinterpretation. I will explain.

I am not a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology anymore, so I was not at committee when President Obed gave his testimony, but I was very interested in hearing more about ITK’s position. So I, and my office, engaged with the president and his office to seek some clarity. What we learned is that there’s no reason — from ITK’s perspective — why these two provisions can’t coexist. The concern, colleagues, is linked to something that we missed the boat on during consideration of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act — allow me to explain.

I was the critic of that bill. Based on feedback from Inuit, I advanced several amendments — all aimed at ensuring there is adequate resourcing for Indigenous languages based on the size of the population in a given area — as well as tried to have the government commit to delivering essential services in areas where numbers warrant.

Those amendments all either failed in committee or were ripped out by the majority Liberal government once the bill was returned to the other place. If those provisions sound a bit familiar to you, even if you are not familiar with Bill C-91, it is because they are provisions already available to official language minority communities, or OLMCs. That, colleagues, is the crux of my argument.

We need to be talking about Indigenous languages and protections for OLMCs on an equal level. If we’re serious about everything that we have said in the preamble of the Indigenous Languages Act, including the following —

Whereas Indigenous languages are fundamental to the identities, cultures, spirituality, relationships to the land, world views and self-determination of Indigenous peoples . . . .

Whereas Indigenous peoples have played a significant role in the development of Canada and Indigenous languages contribute to the diversity and richness of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Canada . . . .

— then we need to become serious about treating Indigenous languages as if they are on par with English and French.

We cannot pit Indigenous languages against OLMCs. Having support for one should not be a threat to or detract, in any way, from the other.

I’m passionate about this, because there will come a day — likely in the very near future — when we will have this debate again, but in reverse. Some other senator may be arguing that we need to pass an amendment to ensure equal protections for Indigenous languages in some other bill.

I am in support of this amendment because the only way that we will reach the place where we are treating Indigenous languages as we treat English and French in this country is by making it a habit. We need to get to the point where every bill that has a language component to it has Indigenous languages and official language minority communities on equal footing. That is what this amendment does, plain and simple.

My hope is that, once that happens, we’ll finally be able to restore the dignity of Indigenous peoples by enabling them to access critical services in their own language, while Indigenous children can receive instruction in their own language, and Indigenous peoples can have renewed pride and connection through language. This is what happens when we treat Indigenous languages and OLMCs equally.

Senator Cormier has made a very strong and clear case for clarity and specificity in introducing his amendment. Why? Well, we have a weak provision about the federal obligation to fund a Canada-wide early learning and child care system in clause 7(1), which refers to mere guiding principles by which programs should — not “must” — be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality. I will say it again: The bill says the federal government must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible and affordable. Contrast this with Senator Cormier’s proposed amendment: The funding must be provided — not must be guided by principles.

Let me say that on behalf of the Inuit residents of Nunavut — and I’m sure those represented by President Obed across Inuit Nunangat — we are happy to see that in clause 8, as written, the Government of Canada will commit to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples.

It is a great provision. But, as Senator Cormier has outlined, the same commitment is not clearly made to official language minority communities. This amendment is simply adding parallel language for OLMCs. As Mr. Obed said in committee, as quoted by Senator Moodie, Indigenous language rights have been suppressed by the focus on Canada’s two official languages.

Now the same threat exists, unless this bill is clarified, to raise serious questions about whether official language minority communities will be given the same commitment to maintaining long-term funding.

Just as it is wrong to pit official languages — French and English — against Indigenous languages, it is wrong to do the same to official language minority communities. This bill does not take away anything from Indigenous peoples’ languages and child care. Let’s get it right, and let’s give official language minority communities the same recognition and the same language about funding in this bill. I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. Qujannamiik.