Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is an excellent question, Senator Omidvar. I will answer in French, if you don’t mind, because the subject is rather technical.

I don’t think the federal government has the power to require that all those investments go toward public not-for-profit daycares. Even in Quebec, where significant amounts were spent and there was an overwhelming consensus between feminist ministers and all of civil society to implement this low-cost child care system, we were financially unable to absorb the costs and have only not-for-profit organizations, offer decent wages and, often, build child care centres.

That is why Quebec made use of private daycares. Had it not done so, the province would have been unable to meet the demand from the many women who were at home and wanted a space for their child. There were all sorts of systems. Now, there are just four or five remaining, including the non-profits and CPEs, subsidized and non-subsidized private daycares, and family daycares where a woman provides child care. Family daycares were extremely important in Quebec. Since the number of children changes from year to year, family daycares were a more flexible tool to accommodate that fluctuation. It is easier to open or close family daycares than CPEs or non-profits.

It’s remarkable that Quebec has managed to do this. The government had to keep its promises, but it didn’t have enough money to build the best not-for-profit daycares for everyone. Studies have shown that the best child care centres are not-for-profit CPEs, which have trained educators and decent budgets. These are the highest-quality child care centres.

Now, what can be done about this rather difficult situation? We need to set stricter standards for these private child care centres, whether they are subsidized or not, in order to keep our children safe.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The Journal de Montréal has just published a whole section that characterizes the federal government’s immigration goal as a trap for Quebec and an existential threat to the survival of French in America.

I personally reject this perspective, which fuels xenophobia and the fear of immigration in Quebec. That said, I don’t believe that the federal government can simply ignore these alarmist scenarios. Ottawa has the responsibility to rebut these arguments and explain its objectives to reassure people. Senator Gold, what does the federal government intend to do to explain its policies, demonstrate the benefits of immigration and reassure people?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Your amendment is set out in two parts. I want to begin with the second part. You want to get rid of the clause that says that original French-language shows have to be part of what platforms and broadcasters promote. You want to delete that part of the legislation. I imagine that means that you think original French-language shows aren’t important enough to be entitled to some protection. As you know, and you explained it in your presentation, French is still a minority language in Canada and in North America, even though it is the majority language in Quebec.

Generally, when I see you trying to weaken the scope of discoverability — a concept that still needs to be defined — I come back to the comparison that you always make between the private sector and the public sector, as though culture were just another commodity. I absolutely agree with you that private companies can do all sorts of extraordinary things in product development based on what consumers are looking for. However, for very obvious reasons, culture has never been perceived as a commodity to others. That’s why governments have taken it upon themselves to ensure a certain common good.

Are you dropping original French-language shows because they don’t interest you? Do your really believe that culture is just another commodity?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Carignan, first of all, I want to congratulate you for introducing this bill, and especially for having the idea when the appointment happened. Like you, I was disappointed and surprised by the new Governor General’s limited proficiency in French, although it in no way detracts from her other bilingualism or her culture. As Senator Lankin said, the symbolic significance of her appointment is, of course, extraordinary. I would say that, unfortunately, this is an extremely delicate debate for francophones who want to take a stand on this issue, because there seems to be a total lack of sympathy when we call for these kinds of official positions in Canada to be held by people who can speak our language. However, the reality shows that that is often not the case.

You talked about your efforts to learn English, but the reverse does not always happen. I know Senator Lankin talked about it too, but there are courses offered in the public service for anyone who wants to learn French. In the public service, we have all the tools at our disposal to learn French if we want to, so it’s a question of willingness.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if a person who spoke only French and an Indigenous language had been appointed to the position of Governor General, that would have caused quite an uproar in our primarily anglophone country. I would encourage my anglophone colleagues to ponder this: How would they have reacted if our new Governor General spoke only French and an Indigenous language? I think people would be a little upset about that.

Senator Carignan: Well, that is kind of the point of the bill. I would have felt just as uncomfortable, understandably, if it were the other way around, because the idea is to represent Canadian identity, which is bilingual. That is exactly the purpose of this bill. I’m sure you understand that, if the bill is adopted, it will prevent the future appointment of a Governor General who speaks only French and one other language, but not English. I understand your question, and I share your opinion.