Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before asking questions, I would like to make a few points relating to statements you made this morning.
Since we returned to the House in September, there have been proceedings that sometimes trouble me. When motions are introduced in committee, we're asked to sit in camera. Consequently, the debates are held in camera, the decisions are made in camera, and only the decision is made public. So no one knows what goes on. The House Standing Orders prohibit us from speaking in public about debates held in camera.
However, the House Standing Orders do permit me to do what I'm doing right now. You've seen the agenda: the second part concerns motions. Some of my motions are outstanding. I'm going to bring two forward, when we come to that part. One of those motions dates back to September 22. I gave notice of that motion, I believe, in June. It concerns the report that the committee prepared at a prior session on immigration.
We did a very important job. Moreover, Mr. Léger, you contributed to some of the recommendations in that report. The committee tabled an almost unanimous report. I believe the Bloc Québécois dissented. I asked that the committee take up the report again without making any changes and table it again with a view to getting a response from the government.
That work was in fact only half done. We wanted to get answers from the government to enable us to continue. Since we've started the mid-term review of the Roadmap, the immigration question has constantly resurfaced.
So this morning, when we get to it, I am going to move that we adopt that motion, which read as follows: That the third report entitled Recruitment, Intake and Integration: What Future for Immigration to Official Language Minority Communities? of the Standing Committee on Official Languages in the third Session of the 40th Parliament be adopted again as a report of this Committee, that the Chair do present it to the House, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request a comprehensive response from the government on the recommendations contained in that report.
The government will give any answers it wants, but that will enable us to take this up again.
The second concerns a motion for which I gave notice earlier this week, when people from Yukon testified before us. I want to thank the chairman for mentioning to me that I should perhaps delete a few words from it to make it acceptable. That motion reads as follows:That the Committee travel to Nunavut in winter 2012 to complete its tour of the territories begun in 2011 as part of the study undertaken in the 3rd Session of the 40th Parliament on the development of linguistic duality in the northern Canada, and table a follow-up report in the House of Commons before the summer recess in 2012.
These are motions that I intend to introduce later and that I naturally intend to support. If my NDP colleagues intend to support them, they may say so before we sit in camera because we may once again be asked to do so, something we cannot debate. It has happened in the past that members of the Conservative Party have voted in favour of proceeding in camera, while the members of the opposition parties disagreed. Since they are the majority, we have sat in camera and, as for the rest, we may not talk about it.
I'm taking advantage of the time allotted to me now to speak about this before we are asked to sit in camera if that is requested. With "ifs", you can put Paris in a bottle. I apologize to the interpreters because that's one more "if".
I also think it is important for our communities to know the intentions of their representatives here in committee. That is what I intend to do. If we had to sit in camera, I would not be able to talk about it, but since the Standing Orders of the House allow me to talk about that before the fact, I have done so this morning so that you know.
I had a third motion, but I will not be introducing it out of respect for one of my colleagues who is not here this morning. That was the motion requesting that the committee ask the headhunter, the individual who organized the competition for the Auditor General, to appear. On Tuesday, we heard the comments of one of our colleagues who said that he might perhaps support such a motion, but since he is not here, I will withhold it. I am going to wait until he is present.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?