Science and Research Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Deveau, we note that the federal government is making efforts to recognize French as an official language. In fact, that was also mentioned by various witnesses during the study of Bill C‑13. Strangely, it is still not the case in 2022.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist when it comes to scientific research in French in Nova Scotia? Is the government doing enough? I'm trying to see how we could help you.

In Nova Scotia, for the last 20 years, there has been a decline in the number of speakers of French as a first language, so it is hard to be served in French or have French as the language ordinarily used, in Nova Scotia. So I am trying to understand how to ensure that French will be truly sustainable in science.

[Kenneth Deveau]

Bill C‑13 is a good first step. We worked with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and our elected representatives to put that bill together.

The bill is probably not perfect, but it is good, in my opinion. We would like it to be passed as soon as possible. I recognize that there are provisions in the bill that will avoid our having to wait as long as in the past, since the bill provides for a ten-year review of the new Official Languages Act.

In addition, regarding statistical data, there is starting to be a problem with the way that Acadians or francophones in Nova Scotia are counted, that we need to think about.

That gives me the opportunity to make a connection with a question you asked earlier.

In the past, special envelopes were given to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for research on the Canadian francophonie. I think it may be time to think again about whether we really want to support those communities. We have to be given ways to study ourselves and understand ourselves. Community organizations, like the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle‑Écosse and the organizations that belong to it, also have to be given an opportunity to hire researchers in our institutions.

That could be done through the future action plan for the official languages or by having an innovation fund. It could help people to understand our situation better and find innovative solutions, like immigration. Immigration could be a lifeline for the future of our community, but we must not just bring new people in, we also have to integrate them into our society.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Deveau.

Just now, you talked about structures. Obviously, we understand that francophones in minority communities in Nova Scotia feel isolated.

Should that isolation not be broken somewhat, by organizing conferences with francophone researchers and establishing relationships, in particular with Quebec and the various francophone communities in Canada?

[Kenneth Deveau]

I spoke about that briefly earlier, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to come back to it.

If you have a chance to read my brief, you will see that I talk precisely about the importance of recognizing the remoteness. We are remote for a reason. If you know the history of Nova Scotia, you know that we are a small, remote community for a reason. There are historical facts that explain our position in Nova Scotia. I won't offer a history course here, because we don't have the time, but in my brief I talk about collaboration, mobility and dialogue between researchers and students. It is very important that the federal government support that mobility.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I want to give Mr. Surette an opportunity to tell us his opinion about these issues, but I would inform you that I will have to interrupt him to introduce a motion.

[Allister Surette]

I would like to clarify something on the subject of isolation. With the technology that exists today, we don't feel so isolated. In any event, we are less so than in the past. Our institution's five campuses are to a large extent technology-driven. As well, we have close ties with the other universities in the Canadian francophonie outside and inside Quebec. In fact, I chaired the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne for five years, as well as the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada for a while.

So there are structures in place that enable us to dialogue and form partnerships...

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Surette. If you have other information to give us, we will be happy to receive it in writing. Thank you.

Madam Chair, colleagues, I want to share my thoughts and a rather striking observation concerning this study, which is extremely important to me. It was originally planned that we would hear a total of 34 witnesses in this study. However, I have observed that to date, almost 50% of those witnesses have been unable to testify. I have counted 14, apart from the Minister, who was to testify, and Mr. Quirion, who was to testify in the third hour of this meeting but will be replaced by another person from his organization.

Obviously, I am puzzled. I don't see how I could end this study without having the opportunity to hear almost 50% of the witnesses. I understand that when we make a witness list, we do not expect to hear 100% of them, but so far, almost every second witness has not yet had an opportunity to testify.

I have done a comparison with the other studies we have done, compiling the number of witnesses and the number of hours for each study. For our current study on research and scientific publication in French, only 16 witnesses have testified up to now. In our study on small modular nuclear reactors, we heard 27 witnesses; we heard 32 in the case of the study on attracting and retaining talent. For our first study, which was broader, we heard 37 witnesses.

My motion therefore asks the committee to hold one more meeting as part of this study to allow the witnesses to join us and tell us about their expertise and their varying views on this subject. I therefore move: That, as part of its study on scientific research and publication in French, the Committee allocates one more meeting, Monday, November 28th, in order to allow witnesses who did not get the opportunity to participate in the current study to be heard by the Committee.

I am giving my motion to the clerk, who will then be able to send it to you. It has already been translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

It's in order. Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Are there any comments from the floor?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Before we go to the motion, my question is out of respect for the witnesses on the screen. Are we finished with questioning them so that they are free to leave? We've done this before with other witnesses, and sometimes witnesses have stayed sitting there for an hour, and I quite frankly felt that it was not appropriate.

I want to put that on the table so that we decide out of decency and respect for the witnesses who are there. Are we finished with the questioning of our witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Ms. Diab. That's for the committee.

Mr. Tochor, go ahead.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I was going to offer that if the witnesses would like to stay on and hear the end of this, that would be fine, but I wouldn't be insulted if they tuned off.

They might have some insight on why witnesses weren't showing up at this committee; I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor.

Is there anybody else?

Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I believe my question slot is next. I'd be okay with thanking the witnesses and letting them go. I think we only have seven minutes left anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Are there further comments, colleagues?

Are you going to keep debating this motion? We do have witnesses who have come. Do you want to keep asking them questions, or are you going to debate this now?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The motion is moved. I think we have to deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

We do, Mr. McKinnon, yes. That's what we're doing. We're just trying—

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I wanted to speak to that. I would like to inquire of the clerk about why the witnesses who have been invited have been unable to attend before we ask for another meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon.

To our excellent clerk, are you able to address this, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Keelan Buck]

It is case by case in each one. Many emails and phone calls remain unanswered. Others provide a reason by saying that they have a conflict for all these dates. I follow up as much as I can, and at a certain point, we move on to the next ones, but each witness who declined would give a different reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. McKinnon, do you have your hand up again, or is that a legacy hand?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

No, it's a fresh one.

I'm not sure that having another meeting is really going to help us if the witnesses have been unable to make it for all the meetings up to now. I'm not sure that extending it one more time is going to do any better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Is there further discussion on this point?

Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to reply to my colleague's last comment.

One of the witnesses who was to be present this evening is not with us. Either he had a scheduling conflict or it was simply impossible for him to join us.

You will recall that a committee meeting was cancelled more than two weeks ago, at virtually the last minute, and this limited the possibility of certain witnesses appearing. Some of the witnesses who were invited to that meeting before it was cancelled whom I have been able to contact have just told me that it was not possible for them to attend another committee meeting despite receiving another invitation. That explains the present situation.

You will understand that I am disappointed. Almost 50% of the witnesses on the list have not yet testified, whether because of a scheduling conflict or they are not available. That is almost half of the witnesses, as compared to recent studies.