Official Languages Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

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

I don't want to be a spoilsport. I completely agree that we should deal with the immigration and the roadmap files, on which we absolutely must submit a report. There is no doubt that we will put in the efforts to do so, and we must meet the deadline.

I repeat what I said earlier. After what happened in the spring, we have to take action. I don't know exactly how, but I could consider the issue with my assistant. I don't know whether you remember, but we decided sort of suddenly to look into the Air Canada file after the Commissioner of Official Languages released his report. It is not insignificant that we invited the president of Air Canada to meet with us. I repeat that he came here reluctantly.

Our committee must be taken seriously. To an extent, Canadians are watching our work. They are telling themselves that we are working on something that we will eventually sweep under the rug and move on to something else, that we do not finish what we start. In a way, we have a reputation to protect. At the very least, let's finish the work we begin.

We have been talking about Air Canada for 30 years, and two months won't make a difference. I completely agree with you on this, but the process we began in the spring should not come back on the agenda only in January or after the holidays. I think that the folks at Air Canada will laugh at us if we decide to do that.

I believe that Mr. Choquette's proposal is somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure we can ask officials to do the work, even if we table a resolution in order to hear from witnesses. That's our job. However, one of the commissioner's recommendations has to do with potential fines for Air Canada. I am not a legal expert. Aside from Mr. Arseneault, who is a lawyer, I don't know of any others within our group. So it may be important to get the opinion of people who could tell us whether this is applicable, or at least to get advice from some witnesses.

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

Mr. Lefebvre is also a lawyer.

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

Oh yes, sorry. Mr. Lefebvre is also a lawyer.

And you too?

If there are any other lawyers, raise your hand.

I think it is important for us to resolve this issue and make recommendations to the government, which will decide whether or not to apply them. I agree that a single meeting may not suffice. I'm no longer sure whether Mr. Lefebvre or Mr. Samson said this earlier. If we want to receive a few witnesses who will help us make a decision on what we will propose to the government, one meeting may not be enough. Usually, one meeting is enough for us to discuss with only one or two witnesses, if we want to really cover all the issues with them.

Once again, if the government were to adopt legislation under which fines could be imposed on Air Canada, that company would clearly not take it lying down. This means we have to plan, so that our proposals to the government would be realistic.

Today is September 20. We definitely need two meetings by December to be able to cover the issue and be done with it. We need two half days—so two afternoons or mornings—to deal with the issue.

I think that it would be important for our committee's image to do that this fall instead of waiting until after the holidays.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I now give the floor to Mr. Vandal. He will be followed by Mr. Samson, and then Mr. Godin.

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

I think we are all talking about the same thing. We have to move forward on the Air Canada issue. It is important, but it's not as important for my constituents as the roadmap and the immigration file are. I think we should take a few days to consider our options.

It may be a good idea to move a motion so as to ask the officials to submit options to us. I suggest that we discuss this on Thursday and, in the meantime, that we move forward on the roadmap and the immigration file, while maintaining the intention to adopt a motion on Thursday that makes sense, so that we can take action with respect to Air Canada, as that is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Are you okay with that?

Yes, Mr. Samson?

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

I will skip my turn. It's rare, but it's not a problem.

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

Immigration and the roadmap are priorities for my constituents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Okay.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I would just like to add that this is a math issue. It's a matter of time.

Mathematically speaking, can we prioritize immigration and Air Canada while meeting the parliamentary secretary's deadline? That is the question we should ask ourselves. But if the answer is no, we are all wasting our time and, in addition, we are not questioning the Air Canada representatives. The issue is mathematical in nature.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Are there any further comments?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I completely agree with my colleague Dan Vandal. We could come back to this on Thursday and decide what direction to take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

If you agree, we will come back to the Air Canada issue at Thursday's meeting.

Is that okay with you?

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

We will probably move a motion to ask for very specific things. We will analyze the file again and will keep you informed. I will send you the motion. It won't be a surprise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Okay.

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

I am a bit worried. We have a list of individuals and organizations that can come talk to us about immigration. In reality, we should be making calls today in order to hear from those people next Thursday. It's complex.

If we move on to something else next Thursday, we should at least be ready to begin our work on immigration on Monday. That is what the committee's plan was last June.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

In other words, we would be ready next Tuesday?

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

Yes. Otherwise, we won't get the job done. It's a matter of math. As for Air Canada, no one wants to talk about it more than me. However, I want to talk about it in depth. I really want this committee to show wisdom by issuing solid recommendations. I don't know whether a single meeting, or even two meetings, will suffice, but it remains to be seen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

May I propose that we more or less establish our agenda up to December? On Thursday, we could discuss Air Canada, as proposed, and also talk about the list of witnesses, unless you would like to do that today. You have a full list of witnesses.

Yes, Mr. Lefebvre?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Chair, do we need two full hours do discuss Air Canada? We could already start inviting people who are on the list. We could have a witness during the first part and a discussion on that issue during the second part. I don't want to waste time either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

So we would discuss Air Canada during the first hour?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

No, we would have that discussion during the second hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Is that what you are proposing?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Yes, that is what I am proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

So the first hour of the Thursday meeting will be devoted to the witnesses and the second hour to Air Canada, if you are okay with that.

My understanding is that we will look at the list of witnesses today. We can start with that.

First, I would like to read to you a note submitted to me. The title given to the study is “immigration in minority francophone communities”. However, the list of witnesses includes anglophone groups from Quebec. Their testimony is included in the report. It is important to make a change, so that the title of the study would be “immigration in official language minority communities”.

Otherwise, if we invite witnesses from anglophone communities in Quebec, they will ask us how their testimony is relevant in a study on immigration in francophone communities.