Evidence of meeting #29 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
That's provided it doesn't impact any collective agreement work.
Here we go. We'll go back to you.
7:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you very much.
We'll move to Senator Carignan for five minutes.
7:05 p.m.
Claude Carignan Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
I'm listening to you, and I'm very impressed. I'm very impressed with Justice Rouleau. How did he manage to read all the evidence? He took two months under advisement to write his report. I have a great deal of admiration for him; he is an exceptional man. I think that needs to be pointed out.
I just want to talk about the list of documents. Mr. Shea of the Privy Council Office, you supported Commissioner Rouleau. A number of us here are lawyers, and we know that when a exhibit is filed, it is rated and we have the title of the exhibit.
Was anyone at the Rouleau commission doing that work?
That's one of my questions.
7:10 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
I'm not sure that I fully understand the question. They were responsible for managing the evidence and managing how it was archived. My understanding from legal experts—and I do not claim to be one—is that this information is not required to be translated, in keeping with the Evidence Act.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Regardless of whether it was translated or not, there must have been someone who made the list of exhibits.
How did they operate at the Rouleau commission?
7:10 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
Absolutely, and that evidence is actually on the website and available for public consumption. It is just not translated on the website.
Absolutely, somebody was managing that, and somebody managed all of the information that was transferred to us. However, it was not necessarily transferred to us in a format that can easily allow us to respond to questions, like an index, depending on the definition of an index. For example, if you want an index that has a short summary, that's not something that's available to us. We can give something—
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Let's talk about the testimony.
Can you explain to me how it is that the French testimony was translated into English, even though it took some time, but the English testimony was not translated into French?
We have people who translate for the committee. Tomorrow morning, we will receive the “blues”, the transcript of the testimony. We will review your testimony and our questions. We will have it in both official languages.
So how is it that this service was not offered to the Rouleau commission? Yet the Privy Council Office supported Commissioner Rouleau. And it was not your first commission, according to what you said.
7:10 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
I'll start by saying that our role is to provide an arm's-length service. We provide them with tools. We provide them with advice. Ultimately, they decide how to run each individual meeting. I am not aware—but I am not speaking definitively on this—that they translated any evidence from French to English, as I think I understood from your question. My understanding is that evidence came in the language it was submitted in and that it remained in that language. I also do not know that the entire report was drafted in one language or the other. What I do know is that the final report was in both official languages. It's entirely possible that there was a mix of the two in the document, based on the evidence and how it was presented. However, I would be speculating because I am not, and was not, part of the inner workings.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Yes, but you are there to advise those people. Think about that poor judge who gets appointed as a commissioner. When he takes office, he has to set up his office. We saw that with Commissioner Hogue. It took a long time for her to get set up. She was used to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Then she took up her position and had to set up her office. You are the one who advises her, since you know how it works.
Why was there no simultaneous interpretation or people who reproduced the testimony in writing every day in both official languages?
Didn't you advise the commission to have that done?
7:10 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
Absolutely. We do provide counsel in terms of the use of official languages. We would absolutely recommend, and are recommending for the current commission, that any public hearings have simultaneous interpretation as part of that. To your point, there was simultaneous interpretation, as I understand it. I believe you're going a step further to say not only that it should be translated, but that there should be the equivalent of the blues that come out from this committee. That is not a requirement of commissions, and it is not something they have chosen to do.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Why is it not mandatory? It should be.
This commission is an institution that was created by order in council and is subject to the Official Languages Act. It was your responsibility to support that commission and to ensure that the documents were translated, that the testimony was translated and that everything posted on the website was translated. That was not done. It was your responsibility to do so.
7:10 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
I take my responsibility very seriously in terms of supporting the commission, and all commissions.
I would echo what you said. I worked with Judge Rouleau. He is a fantastic human being, and he was wonderful to work with.
I would say that there's a limit to what we can do in terms of support. We don't dictate how they run their commission. We provide support to help them implement what they would like to do.
7:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Senator Carignan, your time is up.
We'll move to Senator Harder.
7:10 p.m.
Peter Harder Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you very much.
I would share the enthusiasm my colleague has for Justice Rouleau—only, I mean it.
I want to remind this committee that we've heard 63 witnesses over two years. We have all of their evidence in whatever language they gave it, plus the translation. We have all of their briefings, and more.
What we're talking about here is what we as a committee asked to be included in our deliberations, which was Justice Rouleau's commission, and we then went further to ask for all the documentation associated with Justice Rouleau. We then went further, saying that all of that documentation should be in both official languages.
If I'm correct, Mr. Shea, what I'm hearing from you is that Justice Rouleau's 2,000 pages, which are in both official languages, are consistent with the Official Languages Act and the practice of other commissions. Other matters are in the language they were provided in.
I'm a little worried that we're going down a rabbit hole in this committee by trying to determine what else we need translated, when we have a fair amount of evidence we've collected—all of Justice Rouleau's evidence—and we're now in our third year of deliberations.
I want you to confirm, Mr. Shea, that Justice Rouleau conducted his commission in accordance with the Official Languages Act. My question is this: Have you heard or been in receipt of any complaints from the official languages commissioner with respect to—
7:15 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I know, but I'm going to ask him, okay? He's the witness. It's just an idea.
7:15 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Could you discuss how those complaints are being handled?
7:15 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
As your colleague mentioned, I do know that we have received multiple complaints. I was told in my briefing that one of them was from a member of the committee, so I appreciate that disclosure.
We receive those complaints, and we answer them as best we can, appreciating the limitations of our knowledge of the interior workings of the commission. We have responded to indicate that there was a translated report, as you mentioned. There was simultaneous interpretation, as you mentioned. I do not believe we have a final ruling from the official languages commissioner as of yet, but we will certainly adhere to the recommendations that come from that.
I would say that, with every commission, we learn something. If there is an opportunity that comes from an official languages complaint that tells us a better way to conduct business, we are absolutely open to adjusting to the advice.
Similarly, if we had to do more translations, we would ask for additional funding when creating them, because that would increase the cost going in. This is certainly part of the consideration in terms of how much required translation there is. They're absolutely funded to do everything that's required. If they wish to do more, they have that option, but they would have to ask for money to do that.
7:15 p.m.
Larry W. Smith Senator, Quebec (Saurel), CSG
I'm a newbie on this particular committee, but I've been listening to all of the testimony.
I have what I don't think is a simple question. I've written down some of the facts about what's transpired here. I guess, in my mind, because I come from a business environment, there appears to be an opportunity to get together and make some decisions as to what exactly needs to be translated, if something is missing. I would think that, between both groups, you would have a flow chart. You would have the key issues on a flow chart, showing from start to finish what needs to be done. Has that taken place?
It's nice to have everybody giving testimony, but there's so much data that you've given to us that it seems to be flying up in the air. Have there been discussions in terms of taking the proper steps to have a solution that's going to benefit the whole group of people interested in trying to get a solution as opposed to going around in a circle?
I hate to be rude, but listening to this for the last period of time, it seems to be a bit of a revolving door. Let's get by who is guilty or who didn't do their job. Let's get on with getting the problem solved. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but, God, I spent 30 years of my life running businesses. I'd probably have had some of you in front of me in a private office asking these questions before we even got in here.
We've spent time. What have we accomplished?
7:20 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, Privy Council Office
I appreciate your question, Senator.