Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was roadmap.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was roadmap.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you.
I will continue to read my motion:
[...]; and WHEREAS the federal government is committed, pursuant to part VII of the Official Languages Act, to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Standing Committee on Official Languages conduct a study of immigration to francophone minority communities and report its conclusions and recommendations to the House no later than December 31, 2016.
I indicated December 31, 2016 as the date, but I would not want this to limit us. In order to ensure that this will be fully successful, I am ready to withdraw the date.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an extremely important motion. It is also a very timely topic. However, we are going to begin a study of the roadmap, which will take us to December 31. I had tabled a motion on access to justice in both official languages. I believe immigration, access to justice and health are important topics, as are others.
I suggest that after the study on the roadmap, depending on the results we obtain, we establish priorities and determine what we want to study at that point, rather than moving on immediately to immigration, even if I think that is an extremely important topic. That is my proposal.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Yes, thank you.
I quite like your motion, Mr. Samson.
We are planning to study the roadmap. We know that Ms. Joly is also going to study it, and meet with people. We should not impinge on the minister's work with our own. I'd like to know what you think.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
I think it would really be up to Mr. Boissonnault, given that he is the minister's parliamentary secretary, to reply to that question, but he is not here.
You asked a good question. I want to make sure that I understand correctly. You don't want two studies to go forward in parallel, is that it?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Yes. If we study the roadmap and if for her own study Minister Joly is meeting with the same groups as we are, our work is going to overlap. We don't want to do that. We don't want to be pulling the rug out from under the minister's feet. After all, she has the last word.
We need to know whether in her study she will be looking at the roadmap first. If that is the case, we could conduct other studies in the meantime. We need to ask Mr. Boissonnault to find out exactly what is planned.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Chair, we have talked about this several times, and I think we are getting confused. Would it be possible, using the existing roadmap, to define the broad issues, the broad points, and list the priorities in each case? We could prepare lists by subject, and put them later in an order that will suit everyone. In that way we could analyze the 2013-2018 roadmap in an orderly way.
Inevitably, it will take several months to do this work, given the speed at which committees generally operate, unfortunately, and ours in particular. It is not that our committee does not work well, on the contrary; it is that we are dealing with all sorts of topics at the same time. I think we should proceed by topic; infrastructure, health, and so on. Ms. Boucher mentioned health, Mr. Samson spoke about immigration. Let us separate things into blocks, and then put them in the order we want to study them in.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
I propose that we adopt this motion so as to record our intentions in the Minutes of Proceedings. It will all depend on where we are at when the time comes to study the roadmap. I don't want us to lose the opportunity to make progress while we wait for everything to be clear in that regard. We should record in the Minutes of Proceedings that we are going to study the matter of immigration. I offered to withdraw the date of December 31 in order to give us some flexibility. I would like us to vote on this today.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
I understand Mr. Généreux's point of view. Do we want to study other topics before we examine the roadmap? I think that is the question we are asking.
I believe Mr. Samson's intention is to indicate that before the end of the year we are going to study immigration. Is that correct? That does not mean that we will be doing this next week. Do you understand?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I understand that. However, we already have three different motions here that refer to three of the elements in the roadmap. So there will necessarily be an overlap.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
If we want to begin with immigration, that is not a problem, but let's do it in an orderly way, without submitting too many motions.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
We could ask the researchers to list topics for discussion in connection with the roadmap, including immigration, if we adopt the motion. As a group, we could decide on the order of priority for these points later. That is what I have understood.
Mr. Samson's motion remains valid. We could vote on it today and later determine a time frame, including other topics that will be put on the list by the researchers.
Does that work for you?
Ms. Boucher, you have the floor.
May 4th, 2016 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I would tend to agree. We work very well together, but it seems that we are coming at this from every imaginable angle. I have been the parliamentary secretary of the Minister responsible for Official Languages. The direction has to come from Minister Joly. She is going to be conducting a study, she will meet people, and this is what will guide us. Mr. Boissonnault is her parliamentary secretary. Before holding votes, we should know what Ms. Joly's plan is, and what she intends to do. If we go to meet the same groups as she does, there are going to be two teams doing the same work. We are here to support her, but we should not be duplicating each other's work.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
I have just been reminded that on April 13 we adopted a motion introduced by Mr. Vandal stating that the committee would be undertaking a study of the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018. That motion was passed on April 13.
Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
The researchers could list all of the elements of the roadmap and submit a list of priorities prepared in consultation with the parliamentary secretary to us. If Mr. Samson wants us to begin with immigration, I have no objection. I simply want our studies to align with all of the points in the roadmap. Ms. Boucher has moved motions, Mr. Choquette moved one, and Mr. Samson did so as well.