Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

Thanks, everyone, for being here. This is meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, December 7, the committee is meeting on its study on the subject matter of Bill C-10, or, as we sometimes like to call it, the prestudy to a potential bill.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25 of this year. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee, and will be available on the House of Commons website for those who are tuning in from around the world. To our guests, our members of Parliament and our staff members, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

I'll outline a few rules before we begin. At the bottom of your screen you have the choice of either English or French interpretation, or the floor. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Of course, the platform's “raise hand” feature is on the main toolbar should you wish to alert the chair in case of a point of order or anything of that nature. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you for the sake of our people recording this and for Hansard. Also, for those MPs asking questions, I remind them to please direct their question to a person they see on the screen. That makes life a lot easier, as we know.

That being said, I do....

We have a raised hand. Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to seek clarification from our clerk on a matter. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska, Monsieur Rayes, had asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage how the department came up with the calculation of $830 million, which he had raised as part of this bill. My understanding is that the department provided this information to the committee clerk on December 11, but in our last meeting it was posed that the information had not been received by that member. I wanted clarification about whether the department's answer to that question had been distributed to all members of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Monsieur Rayes, I believe I see your hand up as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last week we received a note from the analysts, if I am not mistaken, asking us to send our proposed amendments to Bill C-10 as soon as possible. I would like to check if this is a common practice. We are still at the preliminary study stage. We have not even begun to study Bill C-10. So I think this request is premature. Also, if we refuse to send our amendments, I would not want it to be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate.

Secondly, I find it a little premature to propose amendments before we have even heard from the various witnesses who will come to talk to us about their concerns and give us their recommendations.

I would therefore like to know whether there is any particular reason why they are asking us to send them our amendments so quickly. For us, it will be impossible. We want to take the time to hear from all the stakeholders from the different organizations and then compare that with the information we got from our consultations. Then we will present our amendments to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I get to the next question, I just heard two different issues.

I thought, perhaps, Mr. Rayes would weigh in on what Ms. Dabrusin said.

Ms. Dabrusin, I apologize, I don't know if you're looking for an answer on that. Do you want to leave your statement at that? Very well. That's done.

Mr. Rayes—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No, I'm not done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was hoping that the clerk would be able to provide that clarification as to whether the information had been shared with all of the members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Can I return to that? During the deliberations I will give you that answer, perhaps in between witnesses, if that's okay.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Rayes, turning to your point, to tell you the truth, the issue of providing possible amendments was brought to my attention.

You are absolutely right, in the sense that your amendments could be affected not only by the testimony you hear here, but if the bill arrives to us and succeeds second reading, you could also be in that same position. The reason we brought this forward was that we wanted to avoid a logjam, as it were. We wanted to avoid a backlog of amendments that come in, because I suspect there may be a lot of amendments.

I took this upon myself because I like to be in a position to remind members about the process of clause-by-clause examination, which can be a long process, and I would like to arm you with as much information as I can. It doesn't compel anybody to hand the amendments in right now. If they do, that's great. I just provided the information because I know some people are new and don't know the process, and they may want to do that. It also helps out our legislative branch to deal with this not all at once but in a timely fashion.

You are under no pressure to hand them in now. If you want to, you can, because the legislative branch is there for you for your assistance in doing your deliberations. Of course, as a critic, I understand you have a lot on your plate. That's why I wanted to do that in advance.

I now give the floor to Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was concerned about that as well. I’m glad you answered that question.

Last week, I tabled a notice of motion regarding the translation of documents. While I do not want to delay the meeting with witnesses, which is very important, I would like to make sure that there will be a time when I can formally introduce this motion.

The committee members all seemed to be relatively in agreement. I wondered, however, if there was any debate on the motion.

When do you think it should be tabled?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Given the fact that we're tight for time, I'm not sure what is appropriate, to be quite honest. I'm going to leave that up to you, Mr. Champoux. You are a valued member of this committee. Whenever you want to bring it up, you most certainly can. All the clearances are there. I'm just going to put it back to you: Do you want to do it now, or do you want to do it later?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I will do so now. Thank you very much.

As the motion is already in the digital binder, my colleagues were able to read it.

It goes as follows:

That all documents presented as part of the committee’s work be edited and proofread first by the Translation Bureau’s linguistic services to ensure that all committee members can work equally effectively in the official language of their choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Mr. Champoux.

Do you wish to comment any further?

I will leave it at that.

Does anyone else wish to comment on this?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We already discussed this fairly quickly last week.

However, I am, of course, willing to listen to members who would like to comment on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I agree in principle.

My question is more for the clerk or the people who work with her.

If this causes a delay, how will this affect the people working on these linguistic edits?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The floor is yours, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understood that the question was addressed to the clerk and I would not want to take away her opportunity to answer.

I would like to say that during our discussions, we agreed that if there were documents that needed to be consulted urgently, we could forward them. At the time of receipt, they would also be sent to the Translation Bureau, which would ensure that the translation was adequate. This would not slow us down that much. However, if adjustments were to be made along the way, they could be made and communicated to us on a piecemeal basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

I don't have a lot further to add, other than that there was some confusion at the beginning about the translation bureau. There is one that services the House of Commons and the department as well. There was some confusion as to different areas, whether one served the ministry and the other one served the House of Commons. That's not particularly the case.

That was the only type of confusion there was that I would like to clarify. Other than that, let's keep the issue rolling.

I am going to go to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like my colleague, Mr. Champoux, to clarify this.

I quite agree with the proposal.

Is my colleague saying that translations are sometimes done by consultants in addition to House of Commons translators? Is he also asking that documents translated by these consultants be revised by House translators?

Did I understand correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

For example, departments that provide us with documents are responsible for providing them in both official languages. It is also often the case that independent organizations provide documents in both official languages. Despite all the good will, it is impossible to ensure the accuracy of translation services.

Since we have had a few examples in recent weeks, that is why I am asking that people who also revise House of Commons documents review them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I see by some nodding that this is taken care of. Does anyone else want to speak on this particular motion?

Aimée wants to provide some clarification.