Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: I am also rising on a point of order. Last Thursday, I had the same problem. I rose to ask a question. Obviously, we needed five more minutes, so leave was sought for that, but someone refused. The fact that they didn’t see me . . . It was as though I was ignored.

I don’t know if it’s the area where we are seated in this chamber, but we have been ignored for some time now. You were not in the chair. That was the Hon. the Speaker pro tempore, Senator Ringuette. I am not blaming her, but if the place where we are seated in the chamber is adversely affecting us, then we should change places.

On Thursday, I rose to speak, I was not seen and I was not allowed to ask my question. The same thing is now happening to Senator Patterson. I think that’s too bad. I mentioned it on Thursday, and now it’s happening again today.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you agree, I will seek leave of the Senate to give you an opportunity to ask questions, even if Senator Moodie’s time is up. Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Senator Moodie, you mentioned that Indigenous leaders were consulted on the bill and that they were in agreement with it. Were Indigenous leaders also consulted on the amendment in committee when it was proposed? If so, what did they say about it?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: We did have discussion in committee. At the time, the Indigenous leader who had the question addressed to him, President Natan Obed, did make a comment. I will quote it because I have it in front of me.

The question asked was, “Do you think such an amendment would have any impact for Indigenous peoples? If so, what would it be?”

Mr. Obed replied:

I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Moodie, thank you for your advocacy on this bill. This piece of legislation has been a national aspiration for decades. It is now tantalizingly within our reach, and I commend you and other colleagues for bringing it here. However, we also have to get it right. I think we all agree with that.

You talked about how the guiding principles in clause 7 give you sufficient comfort. Senator Cormier wants to ensure that there is no legal ambiguity in clauses 7 and 8. These are two different clauses, and there is some confusion surrounding them. I noticed that you invoked the Canada Health Act, which is likely the mother of all confusing acts, and the bickering around the Canada Health Act does not give me a great deal of comfort.

I think about Bill C-48 last week or the week before. We approved an amendment and it was sent over to the House of Commons. I understand it has now come back. They did that quite quickly. Let’s say this amendment passes. My question to you is this: Why should we worry that if we make this improvement, it will somehow sink the entire armada?

Hon. Percy E. Downe: I have a point of order, Your Honour. We seem to have a problem at this end of the chamber. I do not know if there is a hearing or sight problem from that end of the chamber, but for the last week to 10 days, our members have had trouble getting recognized on questions. Senator Patterson was up earlier today. Senator Wallin and Senator Dennis Patterson both had to yell for dispense because nobody at that end of the chamber could hear. I’m not sure if it is a technical or communication problem, but it is a problem, and we would like it addressed as soon as possible.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you for that comment. I want to mention that when Senator Dennis Patterson did stand, I had said in French that the time allowed for the debate had expired. Therefore, I did not recognize him.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you. I will try to keep an eye on this area. I am sorry if I did not recognize you — again, because time had expired, and I had seen Senator Boyer. I recognized Senator Boyer first.

[Translation]

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Senator Cormier’s amendment to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As the senator explained so well, the amendment to clause 8 of Bill C-35 would confirm the federal government’s commitment to maintain long-term funding for early learning and child care programs for official language minority communities.

Honourable colleagues, as a senator from an official language minority community — the community of Saint-Louis-de-Kent — and proud Acadian, I must join the debate and support my colleague, Senator Cormier.

Ever since the federal government signed bilateral agreements with the provinces, official language minority communities have been worried about the fact that the funding will accelerate the assimilation of future generations.

Parents have expressed their concern for the survival of their language, whether in the testimonies heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages or in the communications received by my office.

[English]

For some of you, this may be the first time or the rare occasion when you hear about the difficulties for francophones outside of Quebec in having access to an education in their first language. It has been and remains an important concern for many parents. During my speech on Bill C-13 at second reading, I shared the challenge for official language minority communities to effectively have access to education in the official language of their choice for their children from ages 5 to 17. It is where we are losing roughly 35% of the eligible children outside of Quebec who are not receiving their education in French despite their rights.

There is a similar issue for children aged 0 to 4. Currently, there are not enough spaces for francophone kids outside of Quebec. During the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director for La Commission nationale des parents francophones, confirmed the difficulty:

The situation is alarming. According to the latest census, in 2021, 141,635 children aged 0 to 4 are entitled to French-language education outside Quebec. However, the number of authorized spaces only allows us to serve 20% of these children. In 80% of cases, parents must turn to English-speaking daycare centres.

As all francophones know, it has been and continues to be a constant battle. Colleagues, this is how assimilation happens, and how it is accelerated. Too many francophone parents across the country face the anxiety of their child’s education: Will it begin in their culture, in their language, or will it begin as assimilation at the age of 2? Too often, we hear the story of parents having to put their name on a wait-list before the birth of their child. Imagine the anxiety, colleagues, of not knowing if your child will even have a chance to begin their daycare in their language and culture.

There was a concrete example given at the Social Affairs Committee during its study of Bill C-35 by the President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter:

Let me tell you about a personal experience I’ve had since I’ve been in St. John that shows just how important the educational continuum is. If we fail in this continuum, we contribute directly to assimilation to English. There aren’t enough daycare centres in French, and some parents have no choice but to enrol their children in English-language schools. As a result, their children end up losing their mother tongue.

A friend of mine from St. John’s, a French-speaking Acadian, had no choice but to enrol her children in an English-language school. She told me: ”Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”

The situation is similar in Ontario and in each province. The survival of official language minority communities across the country depends on long-term funding commitments from the federal government. We cannot take a chance that the federal government will fuel the assimilation process by not ensuring long-term funding commitments in bilateral agreements on daycares. It is irresponsible on the government’s part to refuse such a reasonable amendment.

Like the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, said in his brief submitted to the committee:

. . . investing in early childcare centres for linguistic minority communities ensures greater success of the language transmission process, which in turn contributes to the vitality of the community. As Commissioner Fraser stated in his 2016 report, ”Early childhood development is an area for positive, preventive and proactive intervention to revitalize the French language and Francophone communities.”

[Translation]

If this situation does not change, colleagues, the French fact in Canada will slowly but surely disappear. The federal government must be responsible when granting large sums of money, as it does for the child care program. There must be clear commitments to official language minority communities.

With Bill C-13, the government committed to restoring the demographic weight of francophones in Canada to 6.1%, as it was in 1971. This commitment requires a collective effort on the part of the federal government, and Bill C-35 is part of that. Thanks to the amendment proposed by Senator Cormier, official language minority communities are being given a helping hand to maintain their demographic weight. Not only are they being given a tool to ensure that the government honours its commitment in future negotiations, but they are also being given a tool to help them if ever they need to go to court. All too often, Canada’s francophones have to turn to the courts to ensure their rights are upheld.

Linguistic minorities in Canada are a reality. Too often, we have to ask the courts to affirm our rights.

[English]

Colleagues, I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but I am an example of this assimilation. Due to there being no French schools in the Miramichi region at the time, I had to attend English schools while living in a French household. The linguistic environment outside the house was English, and slowly but surely, English became more predominant than French. My writing and reading skills in French suffered, and to this day, when speaking with my siblings, I often still do so in English. Colleagues, in today’s environment, with the internet, social media, et cetera, francophone kids are even more prone to lose their French compared to our time growing up with radio and limited television.

Honourable senators, the amendment presented by Senator Cormier is for future agreements on daycare with the provinces. We are voting on helping future generations to maintain the vitality of their language, their culture and their identity. By amending Bill C-35 in clause 8, we are helping the government’s own commitment to official language communities like it said it would in the Bill C-13 debates.

I want to repeat three words from the 2016 report on early childhood development from Commissioner Graham Fraser: positive, preventive, proactive. That is the essence of Senator Cormier’s amendment: positive, preventive and proactive. Colleagues, we complain so often about the federal government’s reactive approach to issues. And in this case, they are reactive. Therefore, let’s be preventive and proactive with a positive amendment to Bill C-35 and ensuring long-term funding to official language minority communities.

I want to personally thank my colleague Senator Cormier for his tireless advocacy on behalf of Acadians and francophones across the country. Honourable senators, let’s send a strong message to all official language minority communities in this country by supporting this amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: We heard this afternoon, on three occasions, the mention of interpretation of laws. I would like to add to this versus “legally binding wording.” There is an important nuance that has to be brought into this context. So I start out of my text, but going into my speech.

[Translation]

I rise to speak to the amendment moved by Senator Cormier at third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The amendment seeks to explicitly include a guarantee of long-term funding for official language minority communities, or OLMCs, in clause 8 of Bill C-35. I thank Senator Cormier and his team for all their work on this matter. His office and mine have worked together on this. During my speech at second reading, I expressed concerns about the fact that a department could draft such a critical piece of legislation for the vitality and survival of OLMCs without even mentioning them.

My concerns grew during clause-by-clause study of the bill at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I observed that Employment and Social Development Canada officials showed a very poor understanding of the constitutional rights and guarantees of OLMCs, as well as a certain absence of curiosity and sensitivity towards these communities in terms of the realities they experience and the potential impact of this legislation on their vitality and growth.

In this speech, I will outline the risks associated with the fact that clause 8 lacks any such guarantee, as well as the impacts of the proposed amendment, while also taking into account the relevant jurisprudence. As part of my analysis, I will attempt to refute the government’s interpretation of the so-called potential problems that the amendment in question could create.

In my opinion, the interpretations put forward are erroneous and even worrisome. They could be of particular concern if the courts were to draw on the comments that certain officials made to the committee when analyzing the legislator’s intent regarding the interconnectedness between the rights of Indigenous peoples and those of official language minorities.

First, I will talk about the proven dangers of omitting official language minority communities. Why is this amendment so important? As I argued at second reading, access to child care services in the language of the minority is key to the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to minority language education.

The bill seeks to create a national early learning and child care system in order to make services accessible to all. Under current bilateral agreements, funds are spent specifically to guarantee services for the children of rights-holders and Indigenous peoples. The government and its officials have tried to reassure us by pointing out the terms of these agreements, but you will understand that the purpose of the study is Bill C-35, not the agreements.

In addition, as a francophone in a minority situation, I fully understand the legal hierarchy between a bilateral agreement and federal legislation. Accordingly, including OLMCs in these agreements does not reassure me in the long term. I’m also mindful of the fact that governments change while statutes endure, hence the importance of considering an amendment to clause 8, as suggested by Senator Cormier.

Moreover, when it comes to services funded as part of the exercise of the federal spending powers, we must expect services of equivalent quality to be offered to both francophones and anglophones in this country. It is also imperative that Indigenous peoples receive adequate funding, in keeping with the exercise of their rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With regard to OLMCs in particular, the facts, as documented over many years of jurisprudence and by the stakeholders who were heard at the committee, highlight the systemic and structural barriers these communities face when it comes to having their constitutional rights to access education in their language recognized and exercising those rights.

This jurisprudence also points to a history of tensions between OLMCs and provincial governments when it comes to upholding the rights of these minorities. These tensions are fuelled by omissions similar to those currently found in clause 8, which have allowed provinces and territories to justify infringing on the rights of OLMCs across the country for years. It is time to change this dynamic and grant these communities the means to assert their rights before the courts.

The bill, in its initial form, provided no specific guarantees for OLMCs. Although three mentions were added at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place, François Larocque, a professor, lawyer and language rights expert, and the Honourable Michel Bastarache, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, both highlighted, in their testimony to the Social Affairs Committee, the persistent inconsistencies and risks associated with omitting official language minority communities from clause 8 of the bill.

Clarification enshrined directly in the act is critically important. It plays a decisive role in the courts’ analysis of the legislator’s intent, taking into account the intrinsic evidence.

Indeed, Canadian jurisprudence on language rights is clear in this regard. François Larocque, in his brief to the committee, refers to the decision in Caron v. Alberta, in which the Supreme Court of Canada refused to acknowledge the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant legislative and constitutional documents.

Colleagues, the legal risks inherent in this omission are real and substantiated by the facts and by the relevant jurisprudence on language rights. The absence of any explicit reference in clause 8 is therefore deeply concerning to official language minority communities. In my opinion, the committee should have taken the opportunity to clarify the legislator’s intent directly in the wording of the bill in order to minimize, as much as possible, any risk of causing harm to official language minority communities.

[English]

However, the government was unequivocally against any amendment and misled the committee in several aspects of its arguments.

New funding mechanism: Initially, the government claimed that the suggested amendment would establish a new funding mechanism for the official language minority communities. Respectfully, this interpretation of the proposed amendment is inaccurate.

Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada, stated:

 . . . legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or role in delivering ELCC programs and services and in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system as the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners do. Adding a reference to that group, then, in clause 8 would create the expectation for dedicated and increased funding. . . .

While the official was correct in distinguishing roles in program delivery, the interpretation of the amendment is misleading. Nowhere in the amendment was there a suggestion to treat official language minority communities as a governing body entitled to direct funding from the federal government.

In response to a specific question posed by the bill’s sponsor at the Social Affairs Committee, Professor Larocque provided the following statement to assist the committee in their deliberations:

Clause 8, on the other hand, specifies that funding is passed on through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, and not directly to the communities, and that’s not what’s being asked for and reflected in the suggested amendments.

So it’s not a new mechanism that’s being proposed here, but quite simply, as my colleague suggests, taking into account the linguistic rights of official language minority communities in a firm long-term commitment.

Clause 8 currently reads:

The Government of Canada commits 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. . . .

We can observe that the scope of the commitment in clause 8 extends to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, while specifying a commitment for the long-term funding of programs and services for Indigenous peoples because of the word “including.” However, the inclusion or exclusion of official language minority communities from this commitment is unclear, and that is the problem. Following this, the clause states:

The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.

This enumeration establishes that funding must be granted through the appropriate mechanism. For official language minority communities, if they were to be included in clause 8, it would be done through the provinces. Official language minority communities do not have a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government, unlike Indigenous governing bodies. Adding a reference to official language minority communities will not substantially change the law of the land, and it would be absurd to pretend that it will.

Adding an explicit reference to official language minority communities regarding guaranteed long-term funding by the federal government does not, in any way, diminish the protection and guarantees afforded to Indigenous peoples under this bill and under our Constitution, nor does it grant official language minority communities any rights that they don’t already possess. It provides them with a legal tool if the services in their languages are fewer and of lower quality than those provided to the majority of a given province.

The second argument brought forward by the government was regarding competing rights. Officials stated that the amendment could be detrimental to Indigenous languages. Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Employment and Social Development Canada, said the following:

I’ll highlight that we officials were following the testimony of Indigenous representatives here last week. As Senator Moodie highlighted, President Obed was quite vocal about the absence of Indigenous Languages Act references and suggested the exclusive references to official languages came at the detriment of Indigenous languages.

First and foremost, this statement would be inconsistent with clause 3 of the bill which explicitly guarantees the rights of Indigenous peoples. It states:

This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

The statement of Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, was distorted both in committee and at third reading of the bill. In committee, when I asked Mr. Obed for his thoughts on this potential amendment to clause 8, he answered the following:

I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.

In this context, Mr. Obed addressed official languages while committee members were led to believe that his statement related to the amendment, which specifically concerns official language minority communities rather than official languages. The use of “official languages” and “official language minority communities” interchangeably by government officials and the bill’s sponsor created confusion when informing senators about the amendment’s impact on Indigenous peoples. Let me elaborate on the distinction between these two concepts.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

(At 11:15 p.m., pursuant to Rule 13-6(10), the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Appendix—Senators List

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.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Official language minority communities refer to groups who have historically faced discrimination, and continue to face discrimination through policies, legislation and funding of their institutions by provincial and territorial governments. These communities are afforded special constitutional guarantees to address historical and ongoing challenges.

Official languages, on the other hand, undeniably served as a tool of colonization, contributing to the eradication and weakening of numerous Indigenous languages — a regrettable legacy that we now seek to reverse. My hope is that Bill C-35, along with other legislation that this government brought forward, such as the Indigenous Languages Act, can facilitate the revitalization and reappropriation of these languages by Indigenous peoples.

We need to collaborate and stand united in an effort toward reconciliation. Polarizing politics should have no place in this chamber, and both the government and this chamber have a duty to protect minorities.

Both official language minority communities and Indigenous peoples benefit from specific constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is essential to give due consideration to these rights in our deliberation on Bill C-35. As is often the case in government bills, numerous constitutional rights and guarantees coexist within the same legal framework. It does not mean that they are the same, or that they need to be compared. Explicit references to the holders of some guaranteed rights do not, in any way, diminish those of other groups.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moncion, your time has expired.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): No.

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.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Moodie for so ably sponsoring this important bill and answering questions.

I want to stand briefly to support my colleague Senator Cormier’s amendment. I am going to stand every time there is an opportunity to ensure that Canada’s official languages and Indigenous languages are respected, given their due and properly protected.

I’ve spoken at length in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act about how important it is that space be made for Indigenous languages. I am so heartened and pleased to see Bill C-35 specifically allocate long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. I hope that this is an opportunity for the transmission of Indigenous languages at a crucial age for young people.

As a woman living with intersectionality, I speak often about the impacts of colonialism and how oppressed peoples are starved of the basics and told, over and over again, that there is not enough for everyone.

I do not believe that to be true. Everyone can and should get a healthy piece of the pie because there is more than enough for us all.

[Translation]

There is more than enough for us all.

[English]

Let language and culture not be another battleground where we fight amongst each other for recognition. Let us direct our efforts towards the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Let us send a strong message that we stand together in solidarity, in commitment, towards the health of our languages — all of our languages.

Senator Cormier’s amendment ensures long-term funding for official language minority communities, and I do hope that you will stand with us in supporting it.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]