Information & Ethics Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

There is no problem. I'm ready to vote, and I'll be supporting the honourable member's motion.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

My apologies, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good, colleagues. We'll move to the vote, then.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Fortin, we'll turn back to you. I believe you have one final motion that you'd like to move.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The last motion pertains to substantive motions and amendments to substantive motions in writing in both official languages. It reads as follows:

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 begins debate on such a motion.

It's what common sense dictates. We all know that Parliament is bilingual and that parliamentary business is formally conducted in both official languages. All we are saying is that, when the committee is called upon to consider a motion, that motion must be provided in writing in both official languages before the committee can dispose of it. That helps to eliminate not only confusion, but also situations where members end up voting one way when they would have preferred to vote the other way all because they did not understand the meaning of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I am against the Bloc Québécois's motion because we have interpreters for a reason. They interpret the committee's discussions. We all saw them in action today when committee members were proposing amendments.

Part of our role is to have free-flowing discussions about committee business. I would remind members that speaking more slowly is what helps interpreters to do their jobs. We've all been guilty of speaking too quickly at some point. Unless members feel the measure will help the committee carry out its work, I do not think it's necessary to provide amendments and motions before the committee discusses them. Although well-intentioned, the motion is unnecessary because the interpreters do excellent work. They are more than capable of making sure every committee member understands what's going on during the meeting.

That does not prevent a member from requesting a break in order to better understand a motion, to read it over, or even to ask the clerk to rewrite it to make it acceptable. That was done when we were meeting in person, so it remains an option. The committee members are very open to that sort of thing.

However, I think imposing requirements on motions brought forward by members will impede the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I have a few people on the speakers list.

We'll turn to Mr. Angus, and then we'll go to Mr. Fergus and Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with what Mrs. Shanahan just said. Unbelievable.

I understand my colleague's preoccupation with this, but I've been in opposition for 17 years. When you're in the opposition, and when you are sometimes the only member, you have to protect the rights and privileges that you have at committee. Otherwise, your voice can easily be shut down.

One of the rights I have is to make amendments to try to find a solution or to put forth something that I think is really important. To say that we'd have to stop the committee meeting and committee business because it isn't in writing could be a way, I think, to shut down certain voices. It would certainly slow down the work of our committee, and it would make our ability to find our way through difficult situations impossible.

Even today we had a couple of amendments. Imagine having to stop and say, “We'll wait until Friday so we can get it all written down, and then we can agree to it.” It would be untenable, and it would interfere with our work.

I'm ready for a vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I applaud the honourable member's intentions in proposing this motion, but I land somewhere between Mr. Angus and Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Fortin said that his motion concerned substantive motions, not necessarily amendments, if I understood correctly. The problem I have is that it could impede a member's work and infringe on their privilege to put forward a motion after hearing a witness's account or a discussion, for instance.

I suggest that we do what we've done in the past when dealing with a complicated motion: take a quick break to review the motion and ask the clerk to email it out to the members. The clerk cannot send out anything that has not been translated, so the interpreters or available staff could help translate the motion. It's important that the committee continue to have that flexibility in its proceedings.

My hope, of course, is that motions will be put forward in writing and handed out 48 hours in advance, whenever possible, but we need to retain a certain degree of flexibility, so we can deal with matters immediately and be responsive to emerging concerns.

For those reasons, I cannot support the motion, as moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fortin, you're the last person who would like to speak on this.

Go ahead.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My friend Mr. Angus pointed out how shocked he was that he agreed with Mrs. Shanahan, so now, it is my turn to shock him. I, too, agree with him and Mrs. Shanahan, as well as Mr. Fergus.

I understand the concern that was raised. The motion is not meant to delay the committee's work. On the contrary, it's meant to ensure that the committee works diligently and effectively. With that in mind, I will go so far as to propose an amendment to my own motion.

Mr. Chair, if it pleases the committee, we could strike the part that reads “or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion”, so that the motion refers only to “the text of any substantive motion”. The idea is to encourage members to take the time to ensure substantive motions that are put on notice are written in both official languages.

Mr. Angus gave a good example of amendments being proposed in the course of committee discussions when he referred to the amendment put forward by the opposition earlier, an amendment on which everyone agreed. If I understand Mr. Fergus's comments correctly, he is suggesting that, when dealing with an overly tricky or complicated amendment, we suspend the meeting to take the time to draft the amendment properly. The interpreters can then translate it into the other language, so it can be sent out to all the committee members in writing. That's what Mr. Fergus just said. I think that's the right thing to do and I support it. We can't be perfect, but it is an effective way of doing things.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I would support removing the wording “or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion” from my motion. No one had anything negative to say about the rest of the motion, so if the committee members are amenable, we could vote on the amended version of my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I'm going to intervene and take the chair's prerogative, Mr. Fortin.

It's actually not possible for you to amend your own motion. Of course, if it was allowable, if your motion passed it would no longer be allowable. I think we probably should go to a vote. Then, if you would like to bring it back in an amended form, we could do that.

If you would like to withdraw it, we can get unanimous consent to do that, or we can simply go to the vote.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I understand, Mr. Chair.

In any case, that's the amendment I was proposing. I agree that it should come from someone else. Perhaps Mr. Angus or Mrs. Shanahan would like to propose the amendment. I'll leave that up to you. If not, we can vote on the motion as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Shanahan, you're still on the speaking list. I think you'll be the last before we go to the vote.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm afraid I think we should vote on the motion as is. To my mind, the principle is the same whether it pertains to the motion or the amendment. Members should be able to bring what they'd like to the table during a committee discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm getting a sense that there are concerns with this motion and there is no overwhelming support. I will simply ask if there are members who want to indicate their support for it.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I would like a recorded division, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That will be very helpful.

We'll turn to the clerk to do a roll call vote.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

On Mr. Fortin's motion—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have my hand up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Pardon me, Mr. Dong.

I do apologize. We'll go to you before the roll call.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.

I don't intend to have the last word on this, but since we're going to have a recorded vote, I want to make sure viewers understand where I'm coming from in making this decision. I won't be supporting this motion, for the reason that was stated before. In principle, I agree with Mr. Fortin, and I agree with the intention of the motion in respect of both official languages in our Parliament and all of those procedures, but I think in practice it makes it very difficult for members to quickly raise a point to perhaps amend a motion. For members who realize that their motion could be improved and are looking for a colleague to make an amendment, it would delay the process. For example, what we're dealing with right now will probably take another 10-minute suspension before everything is translated. I think it would just prolong the procedure.

For that reason, I cannot support this motion. I just want to make sure that's on record.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good.

You requested not to have the last word, so it looks like Ms. Lattanzio will have the last word.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you. I'm going to be brief.

Colleagues, I think it's quite apparent in terms of what has transpired in the last five to 10 minutes. Each of us in our own turn, and collectively, has made amendments here this morning, and we've seen how we've expressed that amendment in either French or English. It's almost ironic, to a certain degree, how this has gone. Each member brings to the table an amendment, and there is an understanding that it's done almost simultaneously, and then we vote quickly. To delay the process in terms of getting an official translation, as is suggested or as is my understanding of this motion.... I think we've worked well together, and I would like to continue in that vein.

For those reasons, I'm going to object to this motion.

Thank you.