Official Languages Committee on June 11th, 2018

[Katherine d'Entremont]

Apart from the legal remedies, students could increase the association's awareness of the serious nature of the issue. I think our report can provide background here because we've described the situation. The students, future nurses, and the universities, everyone should encourage the association to solve the problem.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. d'Entremont, I haven't read your report, but earlier you discussed the entire issue of assistance and support. According to testimony we heard this past winter, northern Ontario is also experiencing major problems. Mr. Lefebvre reported this entire situation to us. I think you've seen it. It's the same right across Canada, I imagine.

However, you said that support was the most important factor. How is this factor really more important than the rest.

[Katherine d'Entremont]

Because we know that some students train in French and then want to take the exam in French. In the meantime, however, they have to use preparatory material in English. So they take their university training in French, they have access to a range of resources that exist in English but not in French, and then they choose to take the exam in French.

In our investigation report, we published statistics on the number of students who have studied in French but chose to take the exam in English. As we said, this undermines the vitality of the French language, and that shouldn't happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clarke, you have four minutes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I wanted to introduce a motion, and I'm waiting for copies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Oh, I see.

Mr. Samson, you have four minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I was going to say it would be miserable and unacceptable for me to miss my four minutes of speaking time for a motion.

Good afternoon, Ms. d'Entremont and Mr. Wagg. It's always a pleasure to see you again. Thank you for your testimony. This subject is so important.

Sometimes I wonder about things. I'm going to launch a trial balloon here because sometimes I think about strategies that go beyond the norm. I'll always remember Judge Arthur J. LeBlanc, who today is the first Acadian Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Nova Scotia. At the time, he decided to retain jurisdiction in a case involving francophone schools. Everyone said he had no right to do so or to require the Government of Nova Scotia to appear before him on subsequent dates to report on its compliance with his order. The provincial government took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that Judge LeBlanc could indeed retain jurisdiction. Imagine the historic and very important precedent that set.

Sometimes I wonder whether commissioners shouldn't do the same thing. I don't really know whether it would work. However, it takes a bit of clout. We discussed this with our own commissioner.

I understand. You explained your work, your study, and your recommendations very clearly, and many of our questions don't really apply to you.

I dealt with professional associations when I was superintendent of schools in Nova Scotia's provincial Acadian school board. In my experience, only university professors have comparable autonomy and independence. From what I've observed, those associations are not very inclined to acknowledge the importance of linguistic duality.

Things used to work, but they aren't working now because something happened. I wonder what caused the change. Did you discover it in the course of your investigation?

[Katherine d'Entremont]

Are you talking about the association's decision to adopt this exam?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Yes.

[Katherine d'Entremont]

No. Our investigation didn't focus on that, Mr. Samson. Thank you for your question, but I invite you to direct it to the association.

I know that there has been some progress and that the association studied the matter four years before choosing that exam. Who was at the table when the decision was made? I don't know, but that wasn't part of our investigation. New Brunswick's Official Languages Act required us to determine whether francophones had been put at a disadvantage.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

The answer is clear and precise.

[Katherine d'Entremont]

Yes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Have we invited the association to appear on this matter? I think we have. Did its representatives mention the reason why they chose this exam?

Could the committee researcher clarify that point?

[Lucie Lecomte, Committee Researcher]

It was more or less because of the exam's electronic format.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

You see how easy it is to avoid official language obligations? In this case, the association wanted to do things electronically: that might cause a problem, but it wasn't serious.

Do you know whether the association asked the New Brunswick government or the federal government to help find a solution?

[Katherine d'Entremont]

We don't know what they did. We don't know whether the association has taken measures since we issued our report. It hasn't informed us of the situation.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

It's interesting to know it hasn't even answered you.

Ms. d'Entremont, thank you for doing your job while others were not necessarily doing theirs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Now will go to Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In spite of your important visit, I'm nevertheless going to introduce a motion. This is further to the fact that, in the past year, I've received many groups such as the SANB and the FCFA in my office. I see them constantly. I've also received individuals and representatives of many other community organizations and groups, such as the official language minority communities, the OLMCs. They have told me they're fed up and want us to start focusing on modernizing the Official Languages Act and other matters. Rather than start a broad-based effort like that, we can do something much more focused.

What's really made me want to introduce my motion today is the judgment that was rendered three weeks ago concerning services to francophones in British Columbia. I love the judgment, although I love the outcome less. It states clearly, objectively, and rationally that it's impossible to take positive measures given the way the act is drafted and that the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada plays nothing more or less than a symbolic role.

Here's the motion I am introducing, colleagues:

That the Committee study Parts IV, VII and IX of the Official Languages Act in light of the ruling by the Federal Court in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development).

If my motion is adopted, I will introduce an amendment. I would like the motion to be drafted as follows: "That the Committee study in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act..."

I would like to know what you think of that. I've met experts in the official languages field in Canada who have told me this would help us get directly to the heart of the problem the OLMCs are currently experiencing with respect to these parts of the act that prevent them, for example, from obtaining favourable judgments. It's on the basis of these issues that we can determine which direction to take in modernizing the act and know what we're doing about the commissioner's future powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I'd like to mention one thing because there aren't many days left before the House adjourns.

I imagine we can listen to your remarks if they are brief, but I want to reserve some time for what we've planned to do, which is to complete the report today. I wanted to mention that so we could table the report as soon as possible.

Three or four persons have raised their hands. I am going to ask them to be brief. In my view, this is a debate that can take more than the half hour we have left. We must proceed with adoption of the report because we don't know what may happen during the summer. We must table the report as soon as possible.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Pardon me, Ms. d'Entremont, thank you for being here, but I must be brief.

We've already discussed the fact that we were going to study the modernization of the Official Languages Act in September. We discussed that three or four months ago, and we even discussed it last year. It's something we have to do. I see no problem in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Going back to the remarks Mr. Lefebvre just made, it's true that we previously decided we would proceed with the review of the Official Languages Act, but we didn't determine how it would be done or what the priorities would be.

The decision rendered concerning the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique is extremely serious because it opens a hole, a door, a window, a garage door—you name it—to all kinds of problems. Any organization or department might say that, since it has made a small effort of will by proceeding with consultations—which doesn't even have any connection with obligations—it has done its job and no longer has any responsibility.

Consequently, I will support the motion and add, if Mr. Clarke is in agreement, that we will table our report before the end of 2018. Thus, starting in 2019, we can get answers from the government and begin discussions. The situation is urgent. Of course, we can subsequently conduct a more general analysis of the entire act, which is a job that will extend over several years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Clark, are you an agreement on the subject of this amendment?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes.

I would also like to add the first amendment that I moved at the start.