Official Languages Committee on May 4th, 2016

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Chair, I get the feeling there are more plates in the air than in the cupboards.

I suggest that after the vote Mr. Boissonnault come to speak to us about the minister's position. I think he is in a good position to provide us with some direction.

We don't seem to know what is going to happen from week to week, and it would certainly be good to figure out where we are going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

In fact, Mr. Vandal's motion about the roadmap for official languages was supposed to be the next element on our agenda. However, we are going to have to interrupt our work to go and vote.

Consequently, I am suspending the meeting for the time it will take for us to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We are resuming the meeting until 5:30 p.m., or until the next vote, because I know that there is supposed to be another one.

So, in our discussion we were asking that the parliamentary secretary come and talk to us about the roadmap. Who had made that request?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

We were all more or less in agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, perhaps you could formulate the request for the members of the committee.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

It was Ms. Boucher who made that request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Fine.

Go ahead, Ms. Boucher.

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

As I said earlier, there are several motions on the floor. Personally, I would not like us to interfere with Ms. Joly's work. I know she said she was going to be meeting some groups.

Rather than scattering its energies in every direction, and in order to be consistent in its work, should the committee not study the roadmap first? We need to know what Ms. Joly wants to do for her part, so that we don't get in the way of her work. That was it, generally speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Boissonnault, you have the floor.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I am very happy to see that this committee is enthusiastic about the roadmap.

In order to avoid duplication, the committee must undoubtedly proceed in the way that has been outlined.

In my work as parliamentary secretary, I will certainly be working closely with Minister Joly in preparing the official consultations on the next roadmap and action plan. We are currently doing all the preliminary work to prepare those consultations. What needs to be pointed out about the consultations of the stakeholders in the field that will be conducted by the department is that they will focus on the next action plan and will in this regard align with the government's mandate. That is the first point.

With regard to this committee's work, I suggest, not as parliamentary secretary, but as a member, that you, the parliamentarians, study the last two roadmaps so as to determine what they contributed to official languages and how they fell short, both under the Liberals and the Conservatives. Let's examine the last two roadmaps, that cover a 10-year period, in order to identify the shortfalls and pitfalls that have meant that in 2016 we are still facing issues in connection with the vitality of official language minority communities throughout the country.

It is primordial that you do this work as parliamentarians. The work you will do with witnesses will be different from what we can and will do as a department. There will be some important things missing if you do not do this study. I must say that your work will really orient what we will do as a government when it comes to the roadmap. Moreover, your work may mean that some elements will be in the roadmap that would not be there otherwise.

And so I encourage you to look at what was done in the past so that you can determine, as parliamentarians, what you want to see in the next action plan.

For my part, I am the link between these two processes, given that I sit on this committee and will be heading the consultations on behalf of the department with Minister Joly.

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

Perfect.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Vandal.

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

Mr. Boissonnault, could you suggest some dates so that we know when it would be best to begin our consultations?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It is up to the committee to determine that. If you have finished the study on immigration and you begin before the end of the session in June, you could already have a list of witnesses. This will stimulate discussion in all of the francophonie and among English-speakers in Quebec, so as to determine what we want to see from parliamentarians and from the department. I think this will stimulate a rich array of ideas and will in the final analysis lead to a better plan.

And so, I think you should start that study in the near future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I now yield the floor to Mr. Généreux, and then it will be Mr. Samson's turn.

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

Before we left a while ago to go to vote, I was talking about the need to look at the broad outlines of the current roadmap. If the broad outlines of the current roadmap are the same as those of the previous one, we should determine what they are and invite witnesses according to those points in order to analyze them.

I have a much better understanding of what you want to do, and I have no problem with it. We need to analyze what was done over the past 10 years to find out where the two previous roadmaps fell short and see how we can improve the next one. That is what I understand from what you have been saying.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That includes the current roadmap.

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

Yes.

If I am not mistaken, the topic of immigration was a part of the two previous roadmaps.

Mr. Samson is asking the committee to analyze the current immigration situation, and the country has just received 50,000 refugees. I suppose that is not a coincidence.

Mr. Samson, in your motion on immigration, were you referring to the current situation or to the past 10 years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

I was referring to both at once, that is to say that I want our study on immigration to reflect today's reality. We need to determine what the current situation is in minority communities and what direction we should take over the next five years.

The document I have in hand, dated June 2015, should have served as a tool to ensure the vitality of communities. This report prepared by the Standing Committee on Official Languages sets out what was done, but also lists a number of existing problems. By comparing the situations, we could bring about some progress in these files.

Certain parts of the roadmap are essential. New testimony will enrich the study as a whole.

I will give you an example. The last roadmap does not refer to day care, to investment in day cares of approximately $4 million. So some things are missing. We could analyze those missing elements or the changes made to the roadmap from the beginning, and that would help us to build a plan for the new roadmap, and guide our actions over the next few years.

I suggest that we look at the current immigration situation so as to determine our direction and the means we will need to follow it over the next five years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You may speak, Mr. Généreux.

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

I hope I understood Mr. Boissonnault's wishes properly.

He would like us to examine what was done over the past 10 years so as to identify shortfalls and eliminate them, and also to figure out how to improve the situation for minority communities. That is what I understood.

Is that correct, Mr. Boissonnault?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I was mistaken if I referred to the Dion plan, since it was the Conservative government that produced the last two roadmaps, the 2008-2013 one and the one from 2013 to today.

Regarding immigration, I don't think there will be duplication. I don't know how many meetings you intend to hold on this topic, but if the committee conducts an in-depth study on what the future holds in that area, this will contribute immediately to the roadmap process. It is complementary work. You could begin with a study on immigration, followed by one on the roadmap. I think that your report could fit in to the next roadmap very well. That is my opinion.

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

I just want to make sure that if we do a study on immigration, we will be doing it in light of the two previous roadmaps. Other elements will be added to our report to the minister, but we have to make sure that this report hangs together and is not made up of a series of disparate elements. Things have to be logical for the report to be consistent, in order to allow the minister to make decisions with regard to the next action plan or the next roadmap. It is important to understand that.

I see no problem in beginning with the study on immigration, tomorrow morning if need be, but the report has to be accompanied by a complete analysis of the two previous action plans.