Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Welcome to the Senate, minister.

On March 29, the Senate adopted a motion reminding the government of its commitment to have a fully bilingual Constitution, as set out in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and noting that, of the 31 enactments that make up the Constitution, 22 are not officially bilingual in both official languages, including almost all of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The motion also calls upon the government to consider, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, the addition of a requirement to submit, every 12 months, a report detailing the efforts made by you or another minister to finally comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

How can we have a country that calls itself officially bilingual when our Constitution, our supreme law, is not bilingual?

Are you willing to amend Bill C-13 to add this obligation and the obligation to submit an annual report detailing the government’s efforts to finally make the Constitution bilingual?

Senator Dalphond: Bijuralism is a rather Quebec-specific concept. When I was in university, we did not have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms yet, but we had a lot of discussions about bijuralism and the need to harmonize federal laws with Quebec’s civil law. My professor, André Morel, wrote many articles on the subject.

When the federal harmonization policy was adopted in 1991 or 1993, but before bilingual drafting was introduced, a separate civil law unit was created at the Department of Justice. I believe that happened in 1991. It was a good sign. A deputy minister for civil law was appointed. I believe it was Justice Anne-Marie Trahan. When the bijuralism policy was announced in 1995, it was welcomed in Quebec. I attended many law faculty lectures, and I must confess that I own the three-volume collection published by the Department of Justice on lexicology, history and bijuralism.

Not enough people realize what Canada contributes. As a bijural federation, it is something of a rarity internationally. Our contribution, not only to common law in French and civil law in English, but to bijuralism at the same time, is entirely unique, in my opinion. In that sense, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, I think we can be proud. We are participating in two of the world’s great legal traditions, which is also fantastic. I hope that answers your question.

(1530)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. In 1982, the country’s francophones were promised that Canada would finally have a fully bilingual Constitution. In December 1990, the translation of the text was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Commons. Today, more than 30 years later, that text is still not officially part of the Constitution.

On March 29, 2022, this chamber unanimously adopted a motion calling on the government to amend Bill C-13 to add an obligation for the government to report annually on the efforts made to fulfill the promise that was made to francophones in 1982. Could you, as the Government Representative in the Senate, tell us what steps you have taken with the government to follow up on this motion? I would also like to know what results have been achieved so far.