Finance Committee on March 25th, 2021

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Kelly's and Mr. Julian's points. However, I would like to remind them that, to date, the committee has operated in the manner the motion describes. When someone proposes an amendment, we stop for two minutes while it is written up and sent to us, and we make sure that it's translated at the same time so that we can discuss it properly. I understand and respect their concerns, even though, again, in my view, it could put unilingual French speakers at a disadvantage.

There go the bells, Mr. Chair. I will just finish what I was saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Clerk, where are we at in the time frame on the bells?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

The committee has to agree to continue by—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, I know that. How much time is left on the clock?

[The Clerk]

They're 30-minute bells, and they just started.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right.

Is there unanimous consent to continue?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Give me a signal when we're at 10 minutes, if you could, Mr. Clerk.

Go ahead, Gabriel.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

I understand the points that have been made, although to date we have done it this way. If that is okay and if all committee members agree, we could take out the part of the motion that deals with amendments. So it would read:

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

The words “or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion” are therefore removed entirely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is that a friendly amendment? Are people comfortable with that? Do I hear any opposition?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Could we read the amendment again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It says:

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

In other words, deleted is “or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion”.

Are we okay? That's accepted as a friendly amendment.

We have Mrs. Jensen, and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'm just trying to understand. Is that not what we already do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is what we do.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

No, but I mean if something happens and it comes up in the meeting, will this make it impossible for us to finish a meeting? If someone throws in a really big motion or something like that and it's going to take us 20 or 30 minutes to actually translate it, is that not going to gum up the wheels? I mean, since we've been doing such a good job, why are we fixing something that's not broken?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If I could, Mrs. Jansen, with the amendment that Gabriel proposed, I think that does solve that problem, because we're talking about a substantive motion in the first instance.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Even still, I have concerns. Gabriel will know that I'm more than happy to hear him out. I supported the first motion he introduced today without hesitation, as all Liberal members did.

I still have remaining concerns, so I will not be able to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

From a practical point of view, I almost want to ask the clerk for an opinion or perhaps to comment on the practicality here. I guess to Mrs. Jansen's point about how fast the turnaround is, I don't feel that this is necessarily how we have operated so far. I think the clerks do their best to quickly get out the translated written texts as soon as possible, but I feel as though we actually have debated motions on the basis of motions delivered orally at committee.

I don't know; maybe we should adopt this motion if we have assurance that there's enough infrastructure in place to do it quickly and not delay debate. Maybe we can ask the clerk about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Clerk, can you respond?

[The Clerk]

The reality is that the interpreters are not translators. Those are two different work types, if you will. Our translation service is an outside.... They can translate, but it depends on how big the motion is that's on the floor, and I don't know when we're going to be able to get it.

As well, I am not a translator. I can easily make mistakes. The interpreters can also make mistakes when they are translating a document. It's not really what we are meant to do. I would caution you that we could try, but there would be possible mistakes in the product we would deliver to the committee.

Second, if we get the motions in both official languages before we even start the debate, as has been the case with finance—since I've been here, anyway—of course there's no problem, but then the onus falls on the members. I don't know whether or not the committee is ready to accept that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It's never been a problem when they've been submitted ahead of time. It's when the motion is spontaneously table-dropped that I would see this as a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Falk to perhaps close this debate, and then Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I was going to make is the one that Mr. Kelly just made. It really ties our hands at committee from making spontaneous motions.

I don't think I'll be able to support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Dzerowicz.