Official Languages Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

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

In the new wording that I had this morning, there is final paragraph that I consider important and that follows logically from what Mr. Samson is proposing. That paragraph reads as follows:

The committee proposes that Air Canada be recalled at a suitable time so it may inform the committee of the steps it has undertaken to improve its compliance with the Official Languages Act within the company and in terms of customer service.

When the report was tabled last June, we brought in the Air Canada representatives in an urgent situation, as it were, which is to say that Air Canada did not have a lot of time to prepare its presentation to the committee. Our committee should give Air Canada the opportunity to explain to us all the actions it has taken to improve its compliance with official languages. Air Canada will thus have enough time to flesh out its presentation. It is up to the committee to determine, in light of the resolution and the commissioner's proposals, whether we should move forward with all the measures proposed by the commissioner.

I am essentially in favour of the resolution and of Mr. Samson's amendment. In this way we will be giving Air Canada the opportunity to present to us once again all the measures put in place to improve its compliance with official languages. The committee will be able to come to a more informed judgement as to whether the measures put in place by Air Canada are valid and appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

I am rarely in full agreement with Mr. Généreux. I entirely agree that you should invite Air Canada to make a new presentation to us, this time giving it more time to prepare. That is implicit in the proposal I submitted to the committee. The committee will set a date to discuss it and make its recommendations. Since the committee probably wishes to hear the Air Canada representatives once again, this second presentation will be understood as part of our strategy. I do not like to describe the committee's initiatives, but they are understood.

Since the committee suggested that it was going to invite Air Canada back, in my opinion, it cannot fail to do so. However, it must give Air Canada more notice so it can prepare well. I do not think it necessary to include that in the motion as it is implicitly understood that the committee will determine it at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have Mr. Samson's motion, but is it more of an amendment to Mr. Généreux' motion?

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

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

If it is an amendment, then what is the final motion? That is what I do not understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

That is a good question, Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

If that is the final motion, this is no longer an amendment, but rather another motion. So if this is an amendment, where does it stand?

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

It is being inserted.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Where is the amendment being inserted in Mr. Généreux's motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

In my opinion, it is the beginning of Mr. Généreux' motion that suggests it be done immediately. My motion proposes to do it at a later date. This is merely a change of process. We are the ones who will determine everything we are going to do in our study.

So we are replacing “The committee recommends that the government of Canada take immediate actions concerning Air Canada” with “that the committee continues to study at a date to be scheduled later, the commissioner's report on Air Canada, and present its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.” So we are merely changing the timeline. In short, it is the start of Mr. Généreux's motion that is being replaced.

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

What are we replacing it with?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

We will have to check because I do not understand what he means.

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

I do not really understand either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Just a moment, please. We are going to clarify matters.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

I just want to be sure my understanding is correct.

Mr. Samson, you say we are keeping the sentence that begins with “Whereas Air Canada has been subject…for close to 50 years.” As for the sentence beginning with “The committee recommends that the Government of Canada,” it would be replaced by the paragraph that begins with “Whereas serious concerns have been raised” and by the one beginning with “BE IT RESOLVED THAT.” So these two elements or paragraphs will replace the sentence beginning with “The committee recommends....” Consequently, the four solutions that follow that sentence will remain.

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

That is all right with me, unless you do not accept this motion and we accept mine instead. That is absolutely fine with me.

In fact, that can be part of our analysis. When we discuss Air Canada, we will review Mr. Fraser's report and four recommendations. We may invite the president of Air Canada back, but we could also do something else. The fact remains that the committee will conduct a study and overall analysis.

You have the choice. If you want to accept the way that others are proposing, that is fine with me. If you want to replace the motion with what I am proposing, that is all right too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Boucher, you have the floor.

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

This does not work. Is this a motion or an addition to an existing motion? We are confusing two things and this has become complicated. I understand Mr. Choquette. I am just as confused as he is, and yet I am used to sitting on committees.

Mr. Samson, you are trying to hoodwink us. Is this a motion or an addition to an existing motion? That is not the same thing.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

This is an amendment.

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

Yes, it is an amendment.

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

It is an amendment. So do not tell us it could be this or that. You have to be logical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Boucher.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor.