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

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

I just got these as we were considering the routine motions. I understand that we are considering them in most committees. Out of courtesy, I would hope that we would have a chance to consider the full ramifications of this and come back to the committee perhaps at our first meeting to address this. I would want to make sure the rights of all members are protected, even as we try to make sure we are operating within the guidelines.

There will be additional sensitivities, given that we'll be dealing with another country, which in this case is unilingual English. I want some time to consider these three motions together.

I would ask my colleague if we could table this until the next meeting so that we can come back with a more robust commentary on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, do you want to speak to that?

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

I'll see whether most committee members are prepared to vote on this. Let's discuss this and, at worst, if there really is an issue, I'll see. However, I don't understand why we can't discuss this motion when we were able to discuss the other routine motions within a fairly short time frame. I would still like to discuss the motion now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Next is Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I support Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion. Basically, it's saying that if the Translation Bureau of the House has not been the one to translate a document first, meaning that some third party has provided it to us, then the Translation Bureau will review it to make sure the translation is okay. We've had issues at other committees where the translation into French, when it's been done by a third party, has not been good.

I totally understand what Mark is saying, but in this case we cannot receive the documents anyway until they have been translated. All this is asking for is to make sure the quality of the translation is okay.

I support this motion. We just agreed to a motion moved by Mr. Strahl for which we hadn't even received notice. I don't see why we shouldn't vote on this motion. Several other committees have passed similar motions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. McKay.

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

Mr. Chair, the way I heard Mr. Strahl's argument was in effect a motion to defer for further consideration. That would take precedence over the presentation of the motions, but I would defer to the clerk's view on whether, in fact, that is a motion to defer.

[The Clerk]

I heard Mr. Strahl asking Mr. Savard-Tremblay if he wouldn't mind. I didn't hear an actual motion moved.

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

Then the question becomes whether Mr. Strahl wishes to make a motion.

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

If I don't make a motion to defer, then I will make a motion to amend, because I am concerned that the rights of members be protected.

We say that when something comes from a federal department, we don't require this notice. I would argue that we should add that if it comes from a member or a member's office, we also would take that as a document that can be submitted to this committee.

I think we need to be careful that we don't impact the rights of a member to operate in their official language in a timely manner. Again, recognizing the issue here and not wanting to be insensitive in any way, I simply want to make sure we're not going down a road that will impact the ability of members to conduct business at a future meeting.

Therefore, to Mr. McKay's point, I would formally ask that we table this discussion until the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, did you want to talk to that?

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

Perhaps I could speak about the substance of the motion. The motion simply addresses the concerns raised by the Board of Internal Economy. Most committees and their chairs are aware of the difficulties that have arisen in the committees. I think that my three motions make sense and that we can easily consider them right now.

At the start of the meeting, Mr. Strahl said that he wanted more time. In the end, I realize that his mind was already more or less made up, since he wants to move an amendment.

I stand by my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think maybe there's some broken telephone here.

If any of our offices put forward something to the clerk, it still needs to be translated before it can go to the committee. In my office we may do the translation ourselves, but in most offices it goes to the Translation Bureau anyway. I'm not really seeing where the delay is here. All this is saying is that the Translation Bureau needs to see the document before it goes out if it's already been translated by someone else. If it hasn't, the Translation Bureau is going to still need to translate it.

That being said, and having used my argument, Mr. Chair, I would say that Mr. Strahl's motion is a non-debatable motion. We are right now speaking to the substance of the motion. His motion was really supposed to go to a vote right away.

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

He's right about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay.

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is that the debate be now adjourned. It would be setting aside Monsieur Savard-Tremblay's motion for a later date.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

The motion has been defeated or is it the amendment has been defeated?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the motion to adjourn debate has been defeated.

Now you will return to the motion of Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

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

Are we voting, Mr. Chair? I just want to make sure.

I'm voting in favour of the motion, of course.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, can I move that we vote on Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, Ms. Alleslev has her hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Go ahead, Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I do think there should be an amendment. I'd like to move an amendment that if it does come from our own internal offices or our parliamentary resources, it doesn't need to go through the Translation Bureau in the interest of time. We have the capacity to translate, and we have done that on committees up until this point. We're able to bring motions in both official languages and that hasn't caused issues.

In the interest of time and effectiveness, if it comes from our internal office, the OLO or the Liberal side as well, we don't need to send it to the Translation Bureau. I appreciate the idea of this motion. It makes good sense, because we need a high quality of French.

We must have clear and accurate information. That's why we have translation services in Parliament. However, we can translate correspondence in both languages ourselves in our own offices.