Information & Ethics Committee on March 8th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're going to continue with our speaking order here. If anybody has additional questions after that, we can see if we can add some clarity to that.

Mr. Carrie, you're on the speakers list, and then we have Mrs. Shanahan.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague for moving this motion. I would like to add two words to the English version.

The motion in English would say “that all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department”. I'd like to add the words “members' offices”, just so that if something comes translated from a member's office, it doesn't get caught up in the process for translation.

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

I accept the amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. Very good. We're debating the amendment, I guess.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Shanahan, it's over to you.

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

I am trying to understand the process.

Do witnesses ever provide their own translation, or does the Translation Bureau always provide that service?

I know that we have certain standards in Parliament, and that it is important to respect them. I sometimes receive documents from a francophone and realize that things are not said in the same way in the two languages. Sometimes, the vocabulary is different.

So I understand the principle behind the motion, but we must ensure that the process is effective. The translation must be of a certain quality, but at the end of the day, that should not prevent the committee from hearing what comes directly from witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, colleagues.

Not seeing any additional speakers on this, I will move to a vote. Is there anyone who is opposed to the amendment to this motion? Not seeing anybody, we'll consider that passed.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there anybody who would like to speak on the motion as amended?

Not seeing anybody, we'll ask if there's anybody opposed to that. Not seeing anybody, we will consider that motion passed.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Mr. Fortin, we'll go back to you. I believe you've indicated that you have three motions you'd like to move.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will propose the second motion, which concerns documents translated by the Translation Bureau:

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.

Once again, the issue has not really been raised in all committees, but it has been brought up in some of them. The objective is to ensure that interpreters can hear testimony well, so that they can provide an accurate interpretation. This is just a formality.

Carrying out technical tests before the start of meetings will help us avoid meeting delays when witnesses don't have the right microphone or cannot be heard for whatever reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn to Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I understand the principle of this motion very well, but I think these rules already exist. I think the clerk and other employees are trying to implement this. This may be a matter of time. Sometimes, issues arise, and we lack time.

So I would like to get explanations on this issue to find out whether something is missing in the rules. Of course, we need to hear witnesses properly, but we also understand that technical difficulties sometimes arise. So I would like to hear from the clerk on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I can inform members that every effort is undertaken to do a technical test before committee meetings. We've had the experience, even in our own committee meeting here, of technical tests being undertaken, even days in advance, and partway through a particular meeting things changing technically. The challenges then persist from there on in.

While it is the usual practice, it has not been codified through a motion, and every effort has, up until this point, been to.... There is a protocol within the offices to ensure that every witness does have a technical test, but, of course, challenges do arise.

I hope that answers the question.

We'll go to Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where we just carried out a study on technical difficulties, the Zoom platform and anything to do with the work of members and witnesses appearing before the committee. We wanted to ensure they had the necessary tools to participate in meetings effectively and that their remarks were translated and interpreted appropriately. We are preparing to table a report soon on the comprehensive study we carried out. We heard from a number of witnesses.

Concerning this motion, unfortunately, I cannot support it, for the simple reason that a study has already been carried out on this, in my opinion.

I propose that we wait for the report concerning this study carried out by the Standing Committee on Official Languages to be tabled and that we give ourselves the time to review it. Then, if anything is missing, Mr. Fortin or Ms. Gaudreau could submit a new request to the committee. I think the issue has already been studied by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn to Mr. Angus now.

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

Thank you.

It is very important for the committee members to have access to interpretation of professional quality. It is also important for witnesses to be able to speak on Zoom without technical difficulties. It is very complicated.

I support the principle of the motion, because of course this is a fundamental right. My only concern, in making it a motion, would be whether or not we're suggesting that this is not already the case. We are dealing with very difficult circumstances, sometimes not just across the country but also internationally, to get witness testimony. I would want to believe that at every opportunity, every effort is made by the clerk and the team to make sure they work to a high level of professionalism.

I wouldn't want someone to say that their privileges were being undermined because the motion wasn't respected if there are technical problems. There will be technical problems in everything we do.

I'm interested in seeing the report from the official languages committee. I'm more than willing to support this motion, but I'm suggesting that maybe we want to see this report and see the best way for us to ensure that people have access and can hear the translations properly over Zoom or other forms. Maybe we want to hear from this committee report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Happy International Women's Day to all female colleagues.

Miriam and all the support staff, thank you very much for all your work.

I understand where the intent of this motion is coming from. I remember from time to time Madame Gaudreau or even members from my own caucus raised concerns over technical difficulties and not being able to hear the proper translation. I really understand the frustration there. I also recognize the attempt by the clerk and all support staff to make this work. Unfortunately, we're under COVID. I see Zoom as a temporary measure. We won't always be seeing each other over a screen. I really miss the days of seeing everyone in person at the committee.

My point is along the same line as Mr. Angus's. Respectfully, I understand that this is very frustrating at times. I also recognize that sometimes it's very difficult to make everything work. We are dealing with technology. I sometimes have a Wi-Fi problem as well. Everything can come into play when it comes to translation quality.

Respectfully, I would ask Monsieur Fortin if he would consider perhaps postponing the decision on this motion until the study from the language committee comes to a conclusion. Then it may enlighten us with some solutions that we can act on. The motion itself is great. It's a well-intended motion, but I don't know if the solution is there. I just want to see things moving along as smoothly as possible for the committee. I don't want this motion to be necessarily adding delays or more challenges to an already challenging situation for the support staff.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn to Mr. Fortin. He's the last member on the speaking list.

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to hear that everyone agrees conducting technical tests before committee meetings is a good idea. I gather it is common practice, and that's great. I think just about every committee does it, but unfortunately, the practice is still not set out in a routine motion, and it should be.

Nevertheless, I think everyone would agree with me that our interpreters, technical staff and clerks have been doing an outstanding job during the pandemic. We have all had to work differently, with Zoom and so forth. The honourable member said it was temporary. If so, even better. I, too, miss our in-person meetings in Parliament or, as we francophones have learned to say in recent months, réunions en présentiel. However, we don't know how long we will continue to need Zoom to see one another. We need to make sure we can work effectively and diligently, so we should put the necessary tools in place.

Earlier, Mr. Angus said that we mustn't delay or prevent the appearance of witnesses before the committee because hearing from them already has its challenges. I agree with him, but that's the point: we need to help them. The motion does not say that the committee will reject witness testimony. The idea is to adopt a routine motion requiring that technical tests be conducted with all witnesses prior to committee meetings. I did not hear anyone on the committee call this a bad idea. I think we all agree that it's a good idea.

The honourable member brought up the fact that the Standing Committee on Official Languages was conducting a study on this topic. That's great, but every committee is independent. Just because the official languages committee adopts certain measures, it does not mean that the members of every committee will agree with them. Even better if they do. However, I think we should all have the same routine motions. That's just my opinion.

The fact remains that, as we speak, every committee is independent. We should make our own decision on how we wish to do things here, on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. If everyone agrees with the substance of the motion, meaning that technical tests should be conducted with witnesses prior to committee meetings to make things easier for witnesses and interpreters—and to give us assurance that everything is running smoothly when it comes time for witnesses to appear before the committee—we should adopt this motion.

If a month, a year or two years down the road, the Standing Committee on Official Languages or some other committee submits a report stating that more can be done, we can always amend the rule and adopt a better approach. Nobody would argue with that. In the meantime, though, as we wait for another committee's report or decisions, I think our committee would do well to adopt a simple rule that is already consistent with the current practice—a rule stating that the committee will conduct technical tests before hearing from witnesses.

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

Put me down on your list, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I don't have anyone else on my speaking order, so now we'll move to a vote.

Is there anyone opposed to the motion?

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

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

Mr. Angus was trying to get in before you called the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Oh, pardon me.