Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the senator take a question?

Thank you for your remarks, senator. My question is pretty simple, and that is that I think all of us, when we were appointed — certainly since 2016 — had a tremendous interaction with the Prime Minister who reminded us that he would like us to give serious consideration to his policies but to add value where we thought value was necessary and strengthen that process.

Clause 8, I think, is greater certainty, and if this chamber, in its wisdom, decides that, “Yes, we are going to accept the amendment,” would you agree that it’s not the government that we send it back to? We send it back to the elected chamber, which includes government members, of course, but it also includes the entire chamber. Shouldn’t that be our job, if we agree, to let the elected chamber vote and decide whether they agree or not?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you to my colleagues from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and thank you, Senator Aucoin, for sharing your story. It really underscored for me the importance of the amendment moved by our colleague, Senator René Cormier.

[English]

Thank you, Senator Kingston, for your remarks about the importance of what our previous leaders in New Brunswick did for our population.

Tonight, I would like to make a couple of final observations. I think that Senator Cormier did an excellent job of underscoring why clause 8 is so deserving of the amendment that he has proposed.

I would like to underline a couple of other things: The other place sent us this bill with amendments from their committee. It gave us the opportunity to look at a good bill, and the opportunity to have sober second thought about how we improve it. I believe that is what our job is. And I understand the pressures — at this time of year — of bringing legislation through the process. However, I also believe that the House, the other side, made amendments in clause 7. But as our colleagues have so frequently pointed out, it didn’t really ensure the long-term security of the programming aspect by ensuring that the finances were properly addressed in clause 8 of the legislation. I believe that is something that is so essential.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee for one of my colleagues who could not be there. Therefore, I was a voting member, if you will, and it was so impressive to hear the dialogue taking place in that committee. That particular evening, officials from the Province of New Brunswick, my own province, were there, and so I had the opportunity to speak with them before and after the session. I thought their presentation was a strong and good presentation. I thought they responded to questions in a fair, equitable and open manner.

One of the questions they were asked was whether the bill is adequate as is and whether it helps their province. The answer was yes. Debate was stopped because we ran out of time. The chair of the committee was so eloquent in recognizing that there were other questions. The question I had, which would have been my follow-up question and which I had the opportunity to put to them afterwards, was this: Yes, it helps strengthen our position, but would it be stronger for the province to ensure that clause 8 had the amendment that we were talking about tonight? They agreed that, yes, it would. I did not have the opportunity to ask that question in committee, so I am outlining that for tonight.

I am speaking as a senator not just from New Brunswick but from Canada, where we have linguistic minority rights across this country — as Senator Aucoin so eloquently described with the story he grew up with in the province next door to mine. Senators, there are other areas of Nova Scotia that had that same experience. The southwest part of Nova Scotia, as you all know, is also similarly challenged. I think it is our responsibility to do our sober second thought and strengthen this bill without doing it unjust harm, noting that the other side agreed unanimously with what they did. However, I think they made a small oversight by not doing exactly what Senator Cormier is trying to achieve in his amendment. We are duty bound to at least put that amendment back.

My colleague Senator Ravalia noted today that we just did something like this with another bill that went back with an amendment. It was accepted, and it is back over to the Senate — as I understand. Surely, the other house intended to bring a stronger document. I think the sober second thought has made it that much stronger again to ensure that it will be a little more difficult for future governments to change funding arrangements for linguistic minority groups in any part of our country.

Therefore, I am rising tonight to thank Senator Cormier for his foresight because it is forward-looking to ensure that our country really wraps its arms around official bilingualism. We must also keep in mind Indigenous rights in our country. This is something we are duty bound, quite frankly, to pass and send back to the other place so they can then agree or disagree. That is their privilege.

I think it is our duty to strengthen this bill in the manner that has so eloquently been outlined tonight.

Thank you.