Evidence of meeting #20 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
A point of order, did you say? Okay, fine. I thought you were raising your hand to say you wanted to be on the speakers' list.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
The Standing Orders state that documents must be translated in both languages, or you are not allowed to distribute them to anyone. It is crystal clear. Otherwise, show me the act that states you are allowed to do that. I am quite sure that you do not have the right to distribute them to anyone if they are not translated in both languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I will let the clerk explain why we are getting into this technical knot. Only the clerk is allowed to distribute documents. The documents he distributes have to be in both official languages. The documents that are not distributed do not have to be in both official languages. A document could be only in French or only in English. Anybody could go and access it in his office. He will not distribute those documents.
Has this clarified things? No?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
I can explain it in French, but in broad terms, I have nothing to add to what Madam Chair has said. This is governed neither by an act nor by the Standing Orders of the House. It is really a rule the committee made for itself at the beginning of the parliamentary session. First, the rule states that, when documents are distributed to the committee members, only the clerk can do that. Second, the documents have to be in English and in French. That's the rule.
But, in terms of documents received by the committee, the members of the committee can decide to consider them “exhibits”. This is a technical term meaning that the exhibits are kept in the clerk's office. They are not distributed to all members of the committee, but they can be accessed at the clerk's office. So it is the committee's decision. The committee could decide to take all the documents and label them exhibits. Then, as clerk, I would take all that to my office and the exhibits would be available to the members and their staff.
But let me mention that there is still a point that allows the committee to ask the analysts to go through the documents and determine which ones are relevant to the study. Then the documents are duly translated and distributed to the members according to the usual process and the rule.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I am going to take this a bit further. First, if what you are saying is in the rule, I want to see it in writing so that I can have it checked by the Bloc Québécois people who deal with rules and regulations just to be sure, since we are the ones opposing this.
Second, according to my logic and from the way it was brought up in the House of Commons, Mr. Clerk—since Madam Chair is not here—it is almost as if you are saying that it is your job to decide what is relevant and to shred the rest. That's it, that's all. That's how I see it. It is in French and in English, or not at all.
If, in fact, we have to translate 1,000 pages and that costs so many thousands of dollars, well, it is the price we must pay for a country that claims to be officially bilingual, especially in its fundamental institution, the government. I will not back down from that. I will not fall into the same trap again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Okay. I appreciate where you are coming from, Mr. Nadeau. We've had this cross-discussion.
I'm not trying to analyze it. It's a step one process. We've got documents. We can call it an exhibit. If we call it an exhibit, everyone will then have to go to the clerk's office and review it. If you say no documents can be distributed without being translated, yes, we are not distributing any documents without translation. This is a huge exhibit. All I am seeking from the committee is that instead of getting all of us to sit and decide what is the relevant document, at least let the analyst decide what the relevant documents are because that's their job. So if you can give that step one, can we let the analyst decide what the relevant documents are, yes or no? Oui ou non?
Yes, Monsieur Nadeau.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I repeat what I said earlier. It is simple. What the analysts consider relevant will have to be translated and what is not relevant will be destroyed. That's it. If it is not relevant, it won't be relevant for anyone. If it is relevant, it will be relevant for everyone.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Committee members, what instruction...?
Sorry, Mr. Watson. It's your turn to speak.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know I am not a regular at the committee, and I am a substitute today, but we did encounter a similar question at the transport committee with respect to the Toyota hearings. Every committee obviously can decide in terms of its own direction, but the transport committee made the decision that the committee would wait until documents were translated to make decisions about which documents would be relevant and what questions would subsequently be asked by the committee. So we do have a committee of the House that encountered this in this current session already, and that was the decision.
I think that's a respectable way to do it, but we'll wait and see what other members recommend. But in the spirit of what is typically done at committees, documents should be translated and then distributed to members. We're in the best position to judge what is relevant or not relevant about the use of particular documents. And to do that, we would have to have it in whatever official language we speak.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Madam Chair, it is quite clear that all documents that are submitted to the committee must be translated. I also think that the exhibits should be translated. Suppose we keep them, and another member of the committee asks to see them. If we destroy them, no one will be able to have access to them anymore. If we must refer to them, they should be translated anyway. Like Mr. Nadeau, I propose that they be translated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Can we at least get to step one, get the relevant documents?
Yes, Ms. Mendes.
Liberal
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Madam Chair, everything must be translated. If some documents are first translated according to our researchers and analysts' suggestions and then one of us decides to go to the office and check if it is worth translating other documents, it will be a violation of the rules since the documents consulted will not have been translated.
Let's just do it. Let's translate all the documents we have and then continue the study. It is the only plausible solution and I will stand my ground.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I would go back to Mr. Nadeau's first proposal and let the analysts decide what is relevant or not and destroy the rest, because it would save us a lot of money.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Madam Chair, I move that all documents be translated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I have a motion on the floor.... You had the first motion, and we started debating the motion. I think Monsieur Nadeau's motion first was that we take the relevant documents, we translate them, and destroy all of it. I did not ask for a vote on that one.
Yes, Mr. Nadeau?