Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Especially for the new members, who weren't there, I think it would be good to recall what happened, particularly on September 22, 2022. We wanted to call a number of witnesses, including the Prime Minister. In its wisdom, the committee said that this would double the work. We wondered why we should call witnesses who, in any case, had to appear before the Rouleau commission and a House of Commons committee. So we decided to put forward a motion to have all the evidence presented to the Rouleau commission or the other committee tabled here, before us, so that we could take it into account.
It's important to say this because we can see that it's not possible to use all the evidence from the Rouleau commission. The spirit of the motion is therefore to call certain witnesses given that we can't use the Rouleau commission's evidence because we asked for it to be translated.
At one point, we realized that the documents had not been translated. When I say "not translated", it's not just the French speaker in me who's talking. The French evidence is not translated into English either.
Dear English-speaking colleagues: if you say that you don't understand French, but that you think you have all the evidence even though some of it is in French, I'd be a bit embarrassed if I were you. This applies to both French and English speakers. A large proportion of documents are not translated into French when filed in English and are not translated into English when filed in French.
We therefore wrote to the Privy Council Office to request that these translated documents be sent to us. After several months, the Privy Council Office replied that it would be complicated and time-consuming. Instead of telling us that from the outset, they waited until we finally pressed them several months later with a letter from the chairs asking them to tell us when they would send us the documents. It wasn't us who took a long time, but the Privy Council Office, only for us to learn just before the holidays that it would be a mammoth task.
We reached a compromise by asking them for an index so that we could at least tell them which documents we wanted translated. They told us that it would take over a year to provide us with the index alone and that it would cost millions of dollars. We were told that translating all the evidence would cost $300 million and take years.
So what should we do? Initially, our intention was to hear more witnesses.
We reduced the number of witnesses by saying that we would use the evidence from the Rouleau commission. However, this is impossible. I worked with my colleagues to create a list of witnesses and documents, a modus operandi, to be able to hear from witnesses we wouldn't have needed to invite if the Rouleau commission documents had been translated; to produce the documents we'd like to have; and to provide us with a framework in which we could feel comfortable.
What is written at the bottom of the motion violates my constitutional rights. I won't let it pass. I will certainly make it a question of privilege in the Senate. I refuse to allow us to do committee work without having access to witnesses and documents we are missing in both official languages. We need them.
I have a great deal of respect for our new colleague, but her motion does not address the issue of translation. All it does is say that we're going to call in the Privy Council Office and ask them to explain what's going on. They've told us. They are going to come and explain to us why it is costing $300 million, but then what are we going to do next?
How am I going to get my evidence? We have to bring in the witnesses and find a way to determine, at the very least, which documents we consider important so that they can be translated and so that we have them in both official languages. Without that, we'll only be able to do part of our work. Moreover, our constitutional rights will be violated.
I think the motion we have put forward suggests compromises and makes it possible to establish a modus operandi. It may need a bit of fine-tuning or tidying up, and perhaps some clarification, but we need it to complete the report and respect the spirit of the September 22, 2022 motion, in which we said that we would not hear witnesses. Now we have no choice but to hear them. They have to be heard and the documents have to be in both official languages. As we know, the work of all parliamentary committees must be done in both official languages.
As for the Rouleau commission not doing its job, I've already lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages, and that complaint is under investigation. I have lodged another complaint with the Privy Council Office, which is also being investigated by the Commissioner of Official Languages. This will ensure that this does not happen again in the future. I hope it won't happen again with the Hogue commission. To do the work required, we need evidence and documents in both official languages.
If a member of the committee who doesn't understand French tells me that he can read a French document that has not been translated and that he will take that into account in the report, it's really problematic.
Thank you.