Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2021

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement with many of the concerns that Mr. Blaikie raised. There are times in committee when there may be substantive motions outside of the flow of debate, a matter rising out of witness testimony or something that is heard at the table. There are already requirements to provide 48 hours' notice for those substantive motions.

What we're talking about here is limiting the ability of a member to respond to something that comes up at a committee and either delaying or preventing that member from engaging in the debate in real time. I would think, quite frankly, that this likely violates the privileges of members and their ability to conduct business as is laid out in the procedure manual that we all have.

I think we need to be very careful that, while we are trying to make sure that we are respecting one another, we also respect the rights of members that are laid out and the privileges we each have.

If we get further into this, I would hope that we can just operate in that spirit of co-operation where we're trying to work with one another. However, I don't think we can take away the ability of members to respond to something they hear—either a proposal from any party or in response to something that they hear at the table—and propose a motion. I think that would violate the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do very much respect the idea that everything should be bilingual, but I think in this case I agree with Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Strahl. There are a number of concerns I would have to not allow somebody to react immediately, even when we're doing bills on clause-by-clause. While you're supposed to bring amendments beforehand, you're still able, from the table, as a member of the committee, to propose an amendment at the last minute, even to a bill. That's why we have the service of interpreters who are able to interpret everything we say. When we propose a motion or an amendment, they then translate it into the other language.

I completely agree with Mr. Savard-Tremblay. If a committee member doesn't fully understand the intent of a motion or amendment, we could take a break and ask our colleagues to help the member better understand the proposal.

However, I think that we should leave the matter in the hands of the chair and the interpreters. I'm afraid that passing this motion will prevent us from carrying out the real work of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. McKay.

You're muted, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The great saying of 2021 will be “you are muted”.

I take the view that this is an unnecessary motion. I haven't seen any example of this being of any difficulty in any committee I've sat on in the last year.

Also, I do take the view as espoused by Mr. Strahl that this may actually impact negatively on the rights of unilingual members who may want to move a motion and can function only in one official language. I think there are plenty of opportunities to address those limitations in the context of a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay...?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'm sorry that it took me a long time to respond. The interpretation wasn't finished. What just happened is a good example of the difficulties involved in dealing with real-time interpretation. The system has its limitations. These types of issues have arisen quite often in live meetings.

There are also cases where we can't guarantee that people understand the discussion. Sometimes witnesses don't speak either official language perfectly. I think that, at the very least, we could provide a copy of the documents before we vote on a motion or an amendment. It isn't the end of the world. We can take the time to do this. It doesn't take long to put the proposal in writing and send it to everyone by email. This can be done almost immediately.

Of course, we agree that we must respond in real time. However, I think that we should always have a copy of the document before we vote, so that we can be 110% sure, especially in an era where we vote through Zoom. In several cases, technical difficulties have led to distorted messages. Some of my colleagues couldn't even speak, make themselves heard or get their message across.

For all these reasons, it's necessary to implement this type of measure. Of course, I'm thinking about how to adapt it to make it acceptable to all of you. That's why I would like to replace the words “begins debate” with the word “votes”. Motions or amendments should always be distributed to us in writing, in both official languages, before we vote on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, I just have one question for you.

Now, being a new chair, it's a little different, but whenever I have been on committee and a motion or an amendment has emerged, usually that person tells the clerk in whatever language. The clerk then will write the motion, the motion will be given to the chair, and the chair will repeat the motion or the amendment to the satisfaction of the member. Would you not agree?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

You have interpreters there already, and they're able to interpret the amendment or the motion in real time in front of the member who proposes that amendment or motion. Once that is done, it is read to the chair, and the chair reads it to the whole committee. Usually, at that time, the member will agree or disagree with the wording of the motion. I'm just saying this as a point of information.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a comment. Since the clerk of our committee is fully bilingual, we could always ask her to reread the amendment or motion, in English and French, before we vote.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay has just moved an amendment to ensure that the texts are distributed in both official languages before the committee members vote. However, the clerk could translate the text orally before the vote.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I still believe that, because of the technical issues that unfortunately plague our era, we aren't out of the woods yet. We were just joking that “you're on mute” was the phrase of 2020 and 2021.

The requirement to send an email isn't a major compromise. If it bothers you that much, don't open it and don't read it. It isn't the end of the world to ask for a written text before voting. I've already amended and watered down my motion, which struck me as common sense to begin with. The motion strikes me as simply a basic principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Seeing no further debate, we'll vote on the motion.

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm sorry again, Mr. Chair.

Did Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay amend the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

I don't think he amended it. He talked about amending it, but I didn't hear him amend it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay. He talked about it, but he didn't actually formally amend it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Do you want me to read it again with the amendments?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay, so that is an amendment.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I was thinking out loud during the debates. I move:

That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the Committee votes on such a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, is that your amended motion?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay.

Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm wondering if, as a dry run, we should get that in writing in English before proceeding to a vote.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Of course.

Madam Clerk, could you send it to the committee members?