Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The other motion is the one that may well provoke some reaction or resistance from my good friend Mr. Harris, who has already had the opportunity to express his views on it in another committee. However, I have a proposal, which seems to have been agreed to by other committees and to have secured the consent of our colleagues of all political parties.

I will read the original motion and explain my proposal afterwards. The committee can then decide what it wants to do with it:

That the text of any substantive motion, amendment or subamendment be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the committee can begin debate on it.

I know that some members find that it would be very restrictive to demand distribution in that form before the committee can begin debate. Perhaps we could replace that part of the wording and ask that it be done before the committee makes a decision on the motion, the amendment or the subamendment in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

In another committee I objected to the wording that was in the original motion because we couldn't even have made the amendments that we made tonight to the previous motion without them being submitted in writing prior to the meeting.

This is a little different, but I guess it would be.... He's talking about substantive motions or substantive amendments, and I'm not sure what substantive means in that context. I gather that it would make it very difficult or take a long time in some cases for amendments to be moved, which happens quite often in committees—there are amendments and motions, or spontaneous motions in some cases.

If the suggestion is that what would have to happen in the committee before the motion is voted upon is that it would have to be distributed in writing in both official languages, I'm assuming that would take some time, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary to do that.

When we had this debate in other committees, it was suggested that for the purpose of translation, you could repeat the motion or have the clerk repeat the motion, several times if necessary, to ensure the full understanding of it. I'm of the view that this would normally be adequate. There may be situations where someone would be required to say, “Look, I want to be very sure that this motion is correct,” and ask for the committee's approval to have it put in writing before it's voted on, but I don't know if it's necessary. The translation that we have, the interpreters that we have for [Technical difficulty—Editor] are very good, and if there's a problem with the translation then that can be raised as a point of order or a point of privilege.

I'm not sure it's necessary, but I'll be interested in hearing what other members have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bergeron, for raising this.

I don't see this particular motion so much as an issue of language as it is an issue of the ability of the committee to be nimble. There are times when issues are raised and the committee wishes to respond to them with a substantive motion. For example, this adventure, as it were, that we're on with the Public Health Agency of Canada started when, in the context of the motion on the meeting itself with the officials, I moved a motion that received unanimous support to ask the officials to report back by that Friday. That was done unanimously, so there was clearly no issue with it, but it was a case of our responding to live events and therefore verbally crafting motions on the fly that respond to something we're hearing from a witness.

We have all learned that it's a good practice to provide written notice whenever possible, and of course that's required in certain situations, when a motion is not related to the subject matter being discussed.

I think the practice has to be equality of languages, so if it's being stated verbally in one language, it has to be available verbally in both languages, and if it's being submitted in writing in one language and sent around, it must then be sent around in writing in both languages.

I don't see the value. I see some big risks in putting this additional stricture on the committee, and I think the focus needs to be on nimbleness and also preserving the principle of equality of languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Paul-Hus, could Mr. Harris please turn off his “raise hand“ function?

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Basically, I will say the same thing as Mr. Genuis.

I always speak in French at committee meetings. In my opinion, this motion would make me somewhat less nimble. It would not let me make motions or amendments in reaction to a given situation. It's not a language issue at all; it's really a question of being nimble as we do the work of the opposition and the government. That is why I believe it is a bad idea.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Lightbound, the floor is yours.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It is very rare for me to agree with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, but I do in this case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see which way the debate is going. So, rather than seeing this motion defeated, which would send the wrong message about the respect we owe to both official languages, I would prefer to withdraw it for the moment. I will consult the Whip's office to see what has been done at other committees and what other proposal we could make that would accommodate the very appropriate arguments that my colleagues have put forward.

I therefore ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. The motion is withdrawn.

Mr. Dubourg, the floor is yours.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I am very glad that my colleague Mr. Bergeron is taking that approach.

I will wait my turn, because I submitted a notice of motion and I would like to introduce it. You tell me when I can do that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I was actually just about to ask members if they had any other matters to raise.

Please go ahead, Mr. Dubourg.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have already given notice of the motion I am about introduce. I feel that it is fits into the discussion we are having about official languages. As you know, I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Please allow me to read the motion to everyone on the committee:

That any reference document that members share with the clerk of the committee or with the analysts in order to facilitate the committee’s work be distributed to all members of the committee, in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Are there any comments on, or objections to, the motion?

Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have some questions about this motion. Is this designed to preclude discrete communications between members and the clerk or the chair—questions they might want to ask and those sorts of things? What kinds of documents would be referred to here? Occasionally I think members might ask a question.

What problem are we trying to solve? I'm trying to understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Dubourg, the floor is yours.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I can answer, Mr. Genuis.

Basically, it's documents that the analysts would use in the report. If we say we should take information from that document and include it in the report, those documents should be in both languages. If you have other kinds of discussions with the clerk or the analysts, that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I wonder if we could further clarify this. The idea is that if there are documents that are intended to be used as evidence as part of a committee study, those should then be distributed in both languages. I think that's eminently reasonable. In fact, I would be surprised if that wasn't already the requirement, but if it's not.... I wonder, if that's the objective, if we could clarify that explicitly in the motion. For instance, I might revise the motion to read as follows: “That any reference document that members share with the clerk of the committee or with the analysts, for the purpose of it being entered in evidence, be distributed to all members of the committee, in both official languages”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

If a member gave a document to the clerk, seeking to influence the writing without it being in evidence, that would be excluded. Is that right? Do I understand it correctly?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I wouldn't want to create a.... I can't imagine a situation where you would send a.... I mean, it's routine for us to communicate with the clerk. I can't imagine a case where we would.... It's possible that in the context of that communication we might send a reference document to the clerk that is part of that intended private communication, but I think the goal here is that anything that is part of evidence for a study should obviously [Technical difficulty—Editor] members, which I agree with.

I don't have a problem with the translation. The question is distribution. Are we creating an obligation for the clerk to...? In certain cases, she's having a conversation by email with a member, and then suddenly this is triggered and she has to send it around to everybody.

I think maybe that could be clarified in the way that I proposed, but in spirit, based on Mr. Dubourg's explanation, I'm in favour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Any further comments?

Mr. Harris, the floor is yours.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm trying to figure out what this is really about here. I don't know. Obviously, correspondence with the clerk, if someone wants to ask a question about something, is one thing. There was a situation a while ago where there was a document sent to the clerk for circulation that wasn't circulated. Is that what we're talking about: a document about meeting schedules? I'm wondering whether it's related to a particular incident, Mr. Dubourg, or whether it's something that is kind of at large.

You talk about some document that might facilitate the work of the committee but is not shared with the committee; I guess that's what you're aiming it at. I don't know what questioning the goals Mr. Genuis is talking about here, but I think all offices communicate with the clerk about what happened, what might happen or that sort of thing, or in trying to understand what happened at the last meeting or what decision was made, but I think we're talking about something different here. Maybe you could explain a bit more, Mr. Dubourg, what might be included in that.