Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, that may be the most expedient way to do it.

In my document I have two additional ones, but I've just been shown a document that has others on gifts, on televising, and on the subcommittee.

If it's okay with members, let's go through the ones that Dr. Fry has in front of her, which include the technical tests and a linguistic review. Then we can pick up the additional ones. Is that acceptable, colleagues?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

That's acceptable, Mr. Chair, but I won't be able to read those other ones because I don't have them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We may be able to tap somebody else on the shoulder to read them. If not, I'd be happy to do that. I've just been handed the document that has them included.

On the technical tests, colleagues, this is an important motion because we had some questions and issues in the previous Parliament on exactly that point, and I think this question aims to address them. The question to you is whether it does so sufficiently.

Mr. Bergeron, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also find this motion to be very important. However, it is my opinion that the last part of the motion does not ensure that we will avoid the kinds of problems we experienced in the previous Parliament.

I recall a truly memorable occasion when a representative from an agency of the United Nations, the UN, having been asked a question in French, told us that she did not understand the question because she had not heard the interpretation.

If the clerk tells us at the beginning of each meeting which witnesses have not gone through the required technical tests, it will in no way prevent the situations that happened in the previous Parliament. We would simply know about them in advance. In the case I have just mentioned, I would have known in advance that the lady in question possibly might not have access to the interpretation of my remarks. When that situation happened, I found out only once I had asked the question that the lady basically understood nothing of what I asked.

If a similar situation happened again, I would know for sure that the lady would not understand the questions that I was putting to her. However, I'm not sure that we would be any further ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We have two challenges: the interpretation and the sound quality.

We need to be mindful of both: access to interpretation, which may be a different technical issue, and also the quality of sound, which precludes interpretation from taking place in the first place if the headset is not—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, the same question arises.

If the clerk tells us in advance that technical tests were not able to be done with certain witnesses, we will not be any more confident that our interpreters will have an optimal quality of sound.

So apart from being told that nothing will be optimal, we really haven't fixed anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I understand, Mr. Bergeron.

Would you like to move any amendments on the matter?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I don't know.

Does our clerk have any comments on the issues I am raising?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Let's ask first what's possible. The ideal thing would be that we sound-check somebody two days ahead of time, send them the headset and make sure that everything is checked and activated. That may not be realistic in every circumstance.

Madam Clerk, what options do we have to address that issue ahead of the meeting that's scheduled?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I could do is also check on the kind of equipment they are using. My understanding is that the lack of interpretation had to do more with older equipment that was not able to properly run the Zoom interpretation. Specifically, older iPads had that issue. We're well aware of that issue now, so we can definitely inform witnesses that they would need to use specific equipment to have an optimal experience with the committee.

Then, in terms of informing the committee, it would be up to the committee members to decide what they would like to do at that point. Whether they would like to submit questions in writing or try it anyway and hope for the best would be up to the committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. That's helpful.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Chair, excuse me.

If I may be permitted, I recall one very embarrassing time in our last Parliament when we did not know that the person who said they were who they were was in fact who they were. You may recall our friend from the Russian radio station. We should be able to make sure that the witnesses are exactly who they say they are.

I don't know how we do that. Maybe the clerk can suggest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It's a very good point, Dr. Fry. Identity verification in addition to interpretation capacity and quality of sound are all fundamental to our being able to examine a witness on a scheduled day. Otherwise, it would be wasteful for us to learn that a person is not the person they say they are or that they are not able to connect with us.

I don't know if all those issues have to be put into a routine motion. We can certainly develop operational understandings among ourselves with the office of the clerk and technical support.

Let's hear from colleagues who have views.

Mr. Oliphant, you have your hand raised.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I just want to support what Mr. Bergeron said. I don't have a wording in my head and I don't have the technical things we need to do, but we've had officials from government come before us who were not prepared with the correct equipment, and that has caused problems not just with interpretation but generally.

I am wondering whether we could take the routine motion but then ask the clerk to come up with a working principle, as you just suggested, that she could bring to us at a future meeting, just so that we have it as a working principle, because life happens and things get messy. We want to work it out.

I want to support Mr. Bergeron and I want the clerk to listen to this and maybe come back with a reasoned approach to this so that.... Every committee is going to have the same problem, so maybe this is another discussion the House needs to have, because we simply can't have meetings where either officials or outside witnesses aren't prepared to deal with it.

I also know that sometimes we're dealing with international witnesses from places that don't have the equipment we have, and we're just going to have to figure this out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, thanks very much. I think that is constructive. I wonder if colleagues would agree that we should adopt the motion on technical tests as it's currently framed but then supplement it with an operational understanding, including perhaps the possibility of getting headsets into the hands of our witnesses ahead of time. It certainly should be possible within the parliamentary precinct. If we have a witness from a different continent who is calling from the field, we may or may not have that opportunity, but let's agree that we develop some sort of operational parameters in very short order with our clerk and technical support staff to address these issues.

Looking at the text of this motion, my sense was that there would be some concerns on the part of those of us who have worked virtually during the last Parliament and have experienced some of the issues.

Does that work? Would colleagues agree to proceed in that fashion—that we adopt a motion as currently framed, but then work on the supplementary understandings?

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Yes, that is fine, Mr. Chair. Mr. Oliphant's compromise proposal is perfectly appropriate. However, right at the very end, I heard him say that we have to understand that, in some areas of the world, they will not necessarily have the equipment needed to ensure a quality transmission.

I agree with him completely, but I just want us to remember that the incident I was alluding to involve the head of a UN agency, one of whose working languages is French. So it was astonishing, to say the least, to find ourselves in that absolutely improbable situation, not once but twice, with a senior official of a United Nations agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Bergeron.

We will go ahead, then, and adopt this motion as framed and work on the additional parameters that we need to set out with respect to the issues that colleagues have raised.

(Motion agreed to)

If that's okay, we'll pass the floor back to Dr. Fry for the final routine motion on her document, and then we'll go to the other ones that were just raised by colleagues.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

For the linguistic review, I propose:

That all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department, Member's offices, 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Dr. Fry.

Is there any debate? Are there any questions or comments?

Okay, seeing none, Dr. Fry, we've adopted that motion as well.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Before we go to the additional motions that were raised by colleagues, Dr. Fry, if I could take you back to routine motion number two, this is just a clarification with respect to the number of members.

Let me just reread that motion and make sure it corresponds to our collective understanding that we approved the right number. This is on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

The motion says, “That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of”—and then there's a bracket that says the number of members—“the Chair and one member from each recognized party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.”

My understanding, Dr. Fry, is that in your original reading of this motion, you said four members, not five.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I said I thought it was four, but I could be wrong. We just knew that there had to be the chair and a member from each party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay, so we are looking at a total number of five—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Yes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I just wanted to make sure that the wording corresponds with the understanding of colleagues, as we've passed that motion already.

Go ahead, Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I was going to say I don't know why we don't all have the same document. Mine doesn't have a bracketed portion without a number in it; mine says “composed of five members”.