Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We need to get wording to that effect, Monsieur Champoux. That's what we're seeking—to clarify the first part.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, just so everybody understands.... I'm a bit confused again. Maybe I'm wrong, but Mr. Champoux said he believes the translation bureau translates all the documents that come from the ministries. Is that the case?

If it is not the case, then we need to clarify that because, first of all, everybody should get the documents in correct English and French. I'm in total agreement with that.

I fully agree that external documents submitted by third parties should be first revised by the translation service. I thought that this was the case, but it may not be in departments where translators work for the federal government, but are not part of the House of Commons translation service.

I think that we should accept these documents, and then the House of Commons translators can verify whether they were properly translated by the various departments. I may be wrong. I thought that the departments have translators other than those who work for the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It is my understanding that, yes, it is all under one house. I don't mean the House of Commons. I mean it's all under one house as far as the translation is concerned.

This is why, Monsieur Champoux, I keep bringing it up, and I apologize.

You're talking about something that was not of good quality, which came from a department, that you took issue with and that went to the members of the committee. Since we have one shop that does the translation when it comes to all the documents, do you take issue with those documents as well as documents that we get coming in from the outside?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, and it's about having confidence, plain and simple. An incident has happened. It was inconsequential, because the text was very short, but I'm not convinced that the documents sent to us from witnesses, for example, are revised. I'm not necessarily convinced that all documents that come to us from the departments are translated to the same quality.

Therefore, adding this requirement to our procedures seems perfectly logical to me. Besides, it's not only about ensuring the quality of the French, but also of the English translation. We protect ourselves by doing this. If it turns out that departments already use the same translation service as the House of Commons, that is, the Translation Bureau, so much the better. It won't have a significant impact, but there will always be a guarantee that the work will be done thoroughly.

I would also like to point out that the proposed wording came from our clerk and was read and approved by the chief clerk. We can argue back and forth, but I'm wondering about the concerns that we might have about that.

In my view, it protects us all and guarantees that we will have quality documents. It seems to me that everyone should appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Trust me; don't get the feeling that we're questioning the intent of it. It's just a question around a clarification that was brought up at the beginning of the meeting.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was glad to hear your response to Mr. Champoux. All of these questions are very relevant. No one is trying to slow down the process, but at the same time, we live in a country that has two official languages under the law. That means every document we receive should be of equal quality in both languages. In this country, francophones, those who work primarily in French, are the minority. Of course, if it were the other way around, it wouldn't even be an issue. I think we should find the resources to make it happen.

What Mr. Champoux is saying is perfectly clear. The documents can be internal or external. If they're internal and have not been translated by our translators, in whom I have the utmost confidence, the documents would need to be reviewed by them. If that was already being done, great. As for external documents, the idea is to make sure they have been well translated so that we can work effectively in both official languages. That is the least we can ask for. It's the law. This is a bilingual country. Our predecessors made that decision. We should be proud, and we should make sure the law is respected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are, sir.

Since we are short on time, may I propose something?

Monsieur Champoux, may I work with you offline on the clarification of some of the things we've been talking about, and then we can come back and revisit this at our next meeting? I will allot time to do that. We may run into overtime, but trust me, as Mr. Rayes pointed out, if this were the other way around, how would it be handled? I have no idea, but I want to make sure that it's handled evenly across the board. That's why I'd like to take this under consideration, what you're saying, and we can clarify what we're talking about with this situation, especially when it comes to departmental versus House of Commons translation.

Monsieur Champoux, can I do that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, during the first half of the meeting, you asked whether anyone was opposed to the motion. Did you ask people to vote on the motion? I thought it had been adopted earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, it was approved, but I asked for unanimous consent to bring it back, which I received. The reason I brought it back is not because I am questioning its intent. It is just that I had a few questions from the table here about some of the other issues that were brought up by Ms. Dabrusin, and I believe Mr. Housefather may have mentioned something as well.

I just want to get what I guess you would call an “operational” definition as to what you want. An operational clarification is what I was looking for. That's why I brought it back. In other words, I'm not trying to push this aside for its content. I'm just trying to make it right to make sure that the instruction is there so our table here—our clerk, in particular—knows what the instructions are.

I apologize and maybe that's my own fault, but there is some confusion here about this. I'm hoping to clarify that with you so that we can get this done right. At the next meeting, we can have this discussion to see if we can vote to amend this, and if all are in agreement, we can vote on it then.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have to say I don't see what you would want to amend in the motion—a motion the clerk and chief clerk looked at, a motion all the committee members considered acceptable and quickly voted in favour of during the first hour.

Since you brought the motion back, I would ask that we proceed to the vote, please. I don't think we need to drag this on. As far as I'm concerned, it's a simple matter and the wording is clear as is.

It's up to you, but I would like to vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, so you're moving the motion as is once again.

Before I do that, though, I want go to....

Mr. Housefather, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I am confused also. I thought we adopted the motion and that Monsieur Champoux was being asked to clarify what exactly the intention was to see if there was anything in the motion that was different from the intention. I think now what I understand is that every document that was not translated by the House of Commons translation service before coming to the committee should go to the House of Commons translation service. If that's the case, okay, I just needed to understand that. I think we all needed to understand that.

I'm ready to vote on the motion if it needs amending, but I thought it had already been adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

As a point of clarification, Mr. Housefather, that's not what it says. It says “all documents”. What you just alluded to were all non-federal government documents. There is one institution to which the department sends off things for translation and to which someone from, say, this committee sends things off to translation as well. What you're voting on here now, what Mr. Champoux has put forward, is for all documents, including the governmental ones. What I heard earlier—and I'm sorry if I'm confusing the matter—was basically that the intent, what we all kind of agreed to, was that we would do this for non-federal government documents. That's why I brought it back to the committee. That's why I asked for unanimous consent to bring it back here.

Now I see I have two people speaking, but, Mr. Housefather, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I think we're perhaps talking past each other. That was exactly the question that I asked before. Were there other federal translators hired by the federal government outside of the translation bureau who were doing translations? If that was the case, then there would be an issue, perhaps, because then you would have the work of one federal translator having to go and be checked by another federal translator.

What I understood from you was that there is only one group of federal translators, which means they're already translating the documents before we receive them, so then there is no issue. The only documents that need to now go are the ones that are external. That's my understanding from the clarifications offered, so I think the initial motion was fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I answer that, Monsieur Champoux, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I think Mr. Housefather answered your question, Mr. Chair. I'd like to rewind to when you asked for unanimous consent to bring the motion back.

I don't know whether we have the blues. When you asked the question, Mr. Chair, I may have looked up, but I don't recall giving my consent. I thought the motion had already been adopted. If I was mistaken, I apologize, but I would still like to proceed to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The way that normally goes is that, as I mentioned, those of you who disagree should say so. If I ask for unanimous consent, I'm asking for those who don't agree.

I'm just going to ask Aimée one question here, which may give you some clarification. Could we suspend? It will be for less than a minute, I promise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm just going to ask Aimée to explain what she explained to me earlier. Maybe I'm not phrasing this right.

Aimée, do you want to just tell them what you just told me? I'm going to refer this to the clerk now, so she can give her explanation as to why we're having some confusion over all documents coming in.

[The Clerk]

I apologize sincerely for belabouring the point. I hear what you're saying, and what I'm hearing, if I'm understanding correctly, is that you're not looking to have documents relooked at by the translation bureau. Have I understood that point? If they've come from the translation bureau, whether it's from me sending it or from the government sending the committee material, what I've understood is that you're not looking to have it reverified. That's what I've heard. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, the wording as was adopted literally says that “all documents presented as part of the committee's work be edited and proofread”. It's just that part there—“all documents”. I am happy to do that. I am happy to send everything to the translation bureau for verification. There is a verification step. It's not retranslation; it's verification. I will do that. I will follow the committee's instructions to the letter. I just want to be clear.

The only concern I have about that is if, perhaps, 3,000 documents were requested and furnished by the department in both official languages, I, rather than distributing those documents to you, would then have to go to the translation bureau and have them verified, and then I would be able to distribute them to you. As long as that's understood, I'm happy to follow the instructions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Aimée.

It's not like we're trying to steer in a certain direction, Mr. Champoux. There were concerns brought up that go to Aimée's point that we want to clarify.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to reassure the clerk and say that I certainly would not ask for documents that had been translated by the translation bureau to be sent back to the translation bureau.

To my mind, there's no point in even amending the motion because it's obvious. If you think, though, that an amendment is needed to clarify that documents translated by the translation bureau do not need to be sent back to the bureau for verification, you can go ahead. I think everyone understands that documents coming out of the bureau do not need to go back for review.

I hope that gives you some reassurance as to my intent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Clerk, perhaps you could give that clarification. My understanding is if they have now come from the ministers' offices, their original translation was done by the same translation bureau. If that's the case, the way the motion reads is that any documents must be edited and proofread first by the House of Commons linguistic services. If they're the ones that did the initial work, it was already done by them. It doesn't say it has to return to them a second time.

My belief is, based on what you and the chair have each said, the motion is absolutely clear. It's only those that were not originally translated by the translation bureau that should be sent.

If that's okay, Madam Clerk and Mr. Chair, I think we're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If that's the will of the committee, then I have no.... We're running really late.

Monsieur Champoux, do you want to go ahead with the original motion you wanted to present?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes.