Evidence of meeting #19 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. Now you have me confused. You want to withdraw your motion to adjourn.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to adjourn? Okay.
(Motion withdrawn)
We no longer have a motion to adjourn. We want to keep going. Okay.
What do you want to talk about?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I think it was to give Ms. Pauzé the opportunity to present her motions, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just before we go to that, I do think it would be helpful just to have some idea on the timing of this meeting that is yet to be determined. Is that going to be at your call or are we going to be stencilling it in?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I intend to work with the clerk to figure this out.
You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I first want to thank everyone.
I moved some motions after a report was submitted to the Board of Internal Economy, the BOIE, indicating that interpreters were experiencing issues with health and safety since they started doing a lot of telework. They are having hearing problems because our equipment, especially the headsets, are often inadequate. Two proposals were submitted.
The first motion is about technical tests for witnesses. I will read it:
That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the committee that the House administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advise the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.
To summarize, these technical tests must be done with the witnesses well in advance of the 15-minute period before the committee meeting. They can be done 24 to 48 hours in advance. This ensures that our witnesses have the right headsets, which makes it easier for interpreters to do their job.
Should I move the other motion right away, Mr. Chair?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think we should vote on the first one. Do you wish to do that?
There seems to be a consensus. No one is opposed. If there are no objections, we will assume that—
Mr. Albas.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was simply going to say that we support this, so let's just move on. Maybe we can get unanimous consent.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Perfect.
Do we have unanimous consent?
(Motion agreed to)
I don't see any objections.
Ms. Pauzé, you had another motion.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes. Here it is:
That all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.
Of course, there's no problem when departments send documents that are already translated. This pertains more so to witnesses' documents, for example, which are sometimes translated by the authors. These documents should be checked by government translators.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose what will, hopefully, be a friendly amendment, just to speed up the process. If not, I can make it a formal one. Right after “from a federal department” add “, member's office,” and then “or that have not been translated”. I'm just adding that small bit after “federal department”. We just want to ensure that all documents coming from our MP offices are not delayed due to a mandatory linguistic revision.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé, do you agree to this friendly amendment? Yes? Okay.
There seems to be consensus on Ms. Pauzé's motion as amended by Mr. Albas.
Ms. Collins, please go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to reiterate the request—I know you folks are probably working on it—to get a visual. When there are amendments to amendments, as in this case, I just want to make sure that I'm voting on the right thing.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I would reiterate the request, if there is some way for our clerk's team or the audiovisual folks to get a visual when we're amending motions.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I've spoken to the clerk and analysts about that. It's doable.
In this case, I thought it was pretty simple. We could do it all verbally.
I think you're right. I brought it up and I agree that sometimes—especially when we were doing, for example, the ZEV study on recommendations—it can get very confusing. I agree.
Madame Pauzé's original motion was on paper, but this change is very simple. We could always reread the motion, if you'd like.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's okay.
I'm toggling between screens. I heard Mr. Albas add “, member's office,”. I'm just trying to make sure it's in the right spot, so that it would make sense in terms of exempting them.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If something comes from a government department, if something has been translated by the translation service, like a brief from a witness, and it's been distributed, it should be fine. Mr. Albas just said that we should include “, member's office,” so that their materials, if they're submitted in both official languages, do not need to be reviewed, because that could slow the process.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think there's agreement around this. If anyone objects, I ask that they manifest that objection. If not, I will consider both motions by Madame Pauzé adopted.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Does anyone have a motion to adjourn?
