Official Languages Committee on May 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Yes. They can suggest some also, but we are not forced to accept them.

Shall we ask them to propose some recommendations to us, or will we examine the report and make our recommendations after that?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I'm going to let you go on because I don't understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the study on the Translation Bureau, there were several points on which several people were agreed. When the vast majority of people are in agreement on some points, they can become a part of the recommendations suggested by the researchers. Afterwards, the committee can of course decide whether to adopt those recommendations or not, or to add some or remove some.

If the researchers prepared some recommendations, they could be a good starting point, especially those which were the object of the greatest consensus.

We should remember that the experts who came to testify know more than we do on their subjects. Our work is to prepare the best possible report for the citizens we represent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Does that suit you?

Mr. Vandal, you have the floor.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

That suits me, on condition that we all understand that these are only recommendations and it is up to us to make the final ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

They are suggestions.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

We may change them or reject them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

It is a draft.

[Lucie Lecomte]

They are always drafts.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I want to clarify the process. Concerning the researchers' report, if you decide to include recommendations, they will not be discussed at a public meeting.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

No, that is never discussed during a public meeting.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That is correct. You will be entitled to remove recommendations and they will never be a part of the public study. If you think that the researchers are able—and I know that they are—to sort things out and clean up all of the recommendations that were made during the testimony, this will save you a bit of time in formulating recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I want to mention that the two meetings slated for the study on the report on the Translation Bureau, on May 9 and May 11, will be held in camera.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to confirm certain things about my motion. I think that some people understood that the topic of that motion would be integrated into the roadmap, whereas that is not at all the intention I had. It is a separate study that will be based on the roadmap. The motion was not to be included into the roadmap.

In its current form, the motion has been twinned with the roadmap. Its purpose is to initiate the work on immigration. There is no doubt that the work that will be done will be used for the purposes of the roadmap, but for the moment, this is not a motion that is directly aligned on the roadmap.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

At the time when we passed your motion, we said that we would be looking at all of the priority dossiers included in the roadmap. Where are we going to situate this study? We will situate it within this broader study on the roadmap. We could always decide at that point to make it a priority topic and to begin with that point, or we may begin with another file. Earlier Mr. Généreux said that we could begin with that file and that would not be a problem.

Generally, your motion is related to the study on the roadmap. It was passed but we have yet to decide at what point we will make its topic a priority.

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

After the round table, I had understood that this would be the first thing we would be working on.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am in favour of that. When the researchers have provided us with a calendar and a draft of the topics to be studied, we can indicate that immigration will be one of the first topics to be studied. This is in line with what we want to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

That's perfect, we will do that on Wednesday. We will then have the list and we will situate ourselves according to that, Mr. Samson.

Go ahead, Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I apologize, I could not be here while you were discussing Mr. Samson's motion. I wonder if you could give me some information, and put things in context for me.

Immigration is a file that is of concern to Minister Joly and Minister McCallum. It is a priority issue for francophones, as it has an impact on the vitality of minority communities. It is really a timely matter. This issue concerns us, and concerns the two ministers and their departments. If your committee decides to study that matter first, you will have the participation of both departments.

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

In conclusion, I would add this. Every day where we do not try to find solutions to problems regarding immigration, we are maintaining or reinforcing issues for minorities. Immigrants and refugees are entering Canada every day. We are placing ourselves in very difficult situations in rural communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say that we have already adopted the motion on the roadmap. We made the roadmap a priority. I believe Mr. Vandal moved the motion on the roadmap. I have no objection to our also studying Mr. Samson's motion on immigration, but I think it should be a part of Mr. Vandal's motion, because that was the priority motion at that point.

Logic would dictate that we examine it with Mr. Vandal's motion, that is to say in connection with the roadmap. The researchers will list the priorities, and we could of course include immigration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

If I understood correctly, we'd like to begin with immigration.

Wednesday, we are going to decide which files will be our priorities, and determine the order in which we will study them, after consulting the list of priorities our researchers will have prepared for us.

Does that suit you?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.