Official Languages Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

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

We know that we have to address the Air Canada file at some point. The Senate will also be considering it. I am not sure it is a priority right now.

For our part, we have to meet certain deadlines and our priorities are immigration and the roadmap. I'm not saying it is not an important topic, I agree with you. To be honest, I'm not sure though that a single meeting would settle the matter. I think we have to be more strategic on this file. We will have to see what the Senate's intentions are and how it will deal with this file. It was very clear to me in June that immigration and the roadmap would be the priorities.

Our committee is working to provide input for the new roadmap. So we have to spend some time on this or else we will not have any influence on its contents. The roadmap is crucial, in my view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

No files have been set aside, on the contrary. We simply must determine the order of priority.

As to what Mr. Boissonnault said earlier, if we want to have an impact on future programs, we have a limited amount of time to address immigration and the roadmap.

Mrs. Boucher, please go ahead.

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

I fully agree that the roadmap is important. I will be a bit more direct that my colleague here, though. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for long enough and have heard the testimony of Air Canada officials often enough to know that it was the first time that I have ever seen a committee stand firm when someone was not interested in what we were saying. It was wonderful the way you worked together. Everyone recognized that.

I am a bit bothered that we would not take one day, Thursday for example, to close the loop on Air Canada. At some point, we have to fight for respect. We cannot simply dismiss it because we have other deadlines. We have deadlines now and we have always had them, in committees. If we do not set aside one day, a two-hour meeting, to close the loop, the work we did last year will just be hot air.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Boucher.

Mr. Lefebvre, please go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

In that case, why just one meeting for Air Canada? Why not more?

Of course we looked at the Translation Bureau file. We could give ourselves more time to discuss Air Canada. I agree with you, Mrs. Boucher: I do not think we can do it in just one meeting. As you said, I think we have to make sure that we submit our recommendations on the roadmap and then move on to Air Canada. We are not dismissing the matter at all. We will come back to it but, for my part, I would like us to focus on the roadmap.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Boissonnault, what is the deadline for our study of the roadmap to ensure that our recommendations carry a certain amount of weight?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If we are here until December 16—although we could break on December 9, you never know—, the committee's final report on the roadmap and immigration has to be completed by November 29 or December 1 at the very latest .

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

So the report would have to be completed and adopted on December 1?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes. Given all the back and forth on this report—I have seen you write reports before—, you will need at least two meetings. We need time to call witnesses and so forth. Combined with the immigration file, that will make up most our work for the session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Okay.

So in short, we are not putting anything aside.

Mr. Choquette, please go ahead.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

I am favourable to the proposals to allow the committee a maximum of four weeks to discuss the immigration issue, so that we can draft the plan as quickly as possible. That is now referred to as the roadmap and will probably become an action plan later on. I absolutely agree.

That said, we can still keep a very watchful eye on Air Canada. In that regard, the committee could draft a motion—my colleagues here may be in a better position than me to do so—that would ask the officials to consider the possibility of adopting the recommendations issued by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The commissioner's report contained three key recommendations, including imposing sanctions and conferring more powers on the commissioner.

Why wouldn't we ask the officials in question to assess those three recommendations? We would not be asking them for anything more than to assess the recommendations and see what the consequences might be.

Once we have finished our study on the action plan, the officials will have made their assessment and will be able to come see us. They could then tell us, if the commissioner's recommendations were to be implemented, which one would be the most important to adopt, which would not really be applicable, and so on.

I don't know whether this is seems like a sensible plan to you. I think it would give the government a straightforward signal, without imposing anything on it. It would just be an assessment of the recommendations. Afterwards, government officials could come see us with their assessment of the recommendations, but without any obligation on the part of the government.

It would show that the committee is really serious about the Air Canada file. I think this is a good compromise.

Of course, we would then come back to the Air Canada matter, as Mr. Généreux and Ms. Boucher said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Who would be the officials in question?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That's a good question from the government. Would they be Canadian Heritage officials? We would have to check that. We should ask the Commissioner of Official Languages. I am sure he knows. I think that Canadian Heritage is responsible for the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[An hon. member]

Or a legal counsel.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, we could also ask a legal counsel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

He is an independent officer of Parliament.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes. We can think about it.

We can draft a motion together and move it at a future meeting. I don't know whether my Conservative colleagues are interested. That is my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Who wants to take the floor?

Mr. Lefebvre, go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Do we have the authority to draft a motion to tell officials what to do? I don't think we have that authority.

Mr. Chair, I will let you decide on this issue, but I don't think we have that authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

What you want to ask for is some sort of a study—

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Can a committee ask officials to carry out a study? We have our own team.

[The Clerk]

We can invite them to appear before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Madam Clerk is telling me that we can still invite them to appear, if necessary.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We will look into this later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Once again, let us please come back to our agenda. I'm okay with this, but let's prioritize.

I understand what Mr. Choquette was saying. We don't want to waste time with Air Canada. Let's do something that will move this further, even if it means hearing from Air Canada representatives afterwards, once we have discussed immigration and the roadmap. Let's do something in the meantime. That's what I want in order to to move forward on this matter right now.

Are there any comments?

Ms. Boucher, you don't want to say anything?

Mr. Généreux, go ahead.