Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

That's the priority: ensuring that if we do this we do it right.

[Charles Robert]

Let me be more candid. We don't want another Phoenix.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Whoa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll go on to Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Robert for joining us this morning. It's always nice to have our clerk staff here to provide some feedback.

I want to very briefly follow up on Ms. Tassi's question about the capacity of members in the House to speak in an indigenous language. I know we have a fairly strong understanding of which members speak the two official languages. Am I to assume that we don't have a complete understanding of which members or how many members may speak indigenous languages at the current point in time?

[Charles Robert]

I suspect that the only real way we know this, because we don't ask the question, is when the members themselves insist on speaking that language.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Very good.

I want to go back a bit. We talked about remote translation. That's something our interpreters are not keen on, and certainly I think there would be some unique challenges with that as well. However, I want to go a step further and talk about parliamentary privilege as it might apply to a remote facility providing these interpretations. This is something Mr. Bosc, in the past, has spoken to this committee about. I was hoping you could provide some background or some insight on how you see parliamentary privilege applying in a case where you have a remote site, perhaps within the parliamentary precinct but more likely beyond, whether privilege would still apply in those cases.

[André Gagnon]

That's an interesting question.

You could probably argue that because of the fact the individual is performing duties directly related to House business, that would be directly protected by parliamentary privilege. In the same way, when this committee travels, if it is outside the Ottawa precinct and travelling anywhere in Canada, privilege applies.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Very good.

With the assumption by the Senate that you would interpret Inuktitut into English, but the challenge would be with the direct interpretation, English into French, within the House of Commons would it be acceptable under the Official Languages Act to have interpretation only to one or the other of the official languages?

[Charles Robert]

That's a determination for you to make. You would find out whether you're ranging outside your comfort zone from the discussions you have with the interpreters who would provide you the service and can tell you how much is lost, and whether you're comfortable with that threshold.

I'm not qualified, and I don't think André is either, so we should not venture into it. We've done our job in raising the matter and bringing it to your attention so that you're at least aware of it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I was on the official languages committee for about a year and a half. Hearing from the professionals in the interpretation industry, I know they do set themselves a very high standard.

[Charles Robert]

Yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

From the experience here, I am always remarkably impressed with how well they interpret the stream of consciousness that sometimes spouts from our mouths, so I really appreciate that.

[André Gagnon]

And the speed at which Mr. Graham speaks, as well.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That has to be a speed-reading record for our friends in the interpretation booth. I do appreciate that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're waiting for computer interpretation.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have two brief questions left.

First, in terms of any recommendations this committee might make, you mentioned that you would like to see an ability to implement them as best you can. Would it be something you'd be willing to come back to the committee for, towards the end of our study, perhaps to hear some of the suggestions we might have at that point and how they might be implemented in the—

[Charles Robert]

Certainly. In fact, we would work with the clerk and the analysts to make sure that we follow the deliberations. The more time we have to understand what direction you might want to explore, the better able we will be to assist in informing you about how we could successfully implement your proposals.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have one brief question. It's slightly off topic, so please stop me if I go too far. It's more of a request.

When we move to the new West Block, I understand there's currently a committee within the House administration looking at how to preserve some of the ceremonial functions when we end up in different buildings. The poor Black Rod might have to jump on his bicycle to come to the House of Commons. I understand there is a group looking at that and I just question whether at some point in the future we could have an update on how some of these ceremonial functions might be preserved when we move.

[Charles Robert]

That in fact is an initiative that also belongs to the government, not just the administration. The ceremony for the Speech from the Throne, the royal assent, and telling the House to find themselves a speaker are all ceremonies that really have some sort of control through the executive and the crown prerogative. Whatever we might propose should really be done in concert with the executive. I would suggest that you talking to them would probably be a useful exercise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Your testimony has been quite useful, particularly the point in your opening remarks that we haven't had both official languages, French and English, all along in the House of Commons either, that there was a transition period in 1959. Obviously you weren't around then, but have you read about or do you have information on that transition? The way we operate today, did that happen from the first day we started providing interpretation, or was there a learning curve? Was there a transition period where we improved?

[Charles Robert]

I can describe it to you because I have actually bumped into pages in the Debates before 1959, when it was only in English and only in French. If you didn't speak the other language or understand it, it was basically tough luck, because the way section 133 was interpreted, you can work in either language, but if there is no translation or interpretation, there's no principal violation of the guarantee that you can work in either language.

The period of friction that I was reading through was basically at the time around World War I when Canada was very keen on participating and doing its bit in the war effort, and bills were coming into the House and the Senate, and they were available only in one language. Well, the French senators, the French MPs, those of that language, were furious. They were actually being deprived of their capacity to function as parliamentarians because they could not see the draft legislation in their language.

That was an issue, and I assume that it would have been an issue from 1867 through to 1959. Everyone, I suspect, was really quite grateful that technology had advanced so far that we could actually allow for simultaneous translation in practice, and I think that was in some sense how, as a parliament, we actually fulfilled the intent of section 133 more completely.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But at that point, you stated that the federal government had provided funds for training for interpreters, because, I'm assuming, there probably weren't people qualified to the standard that we require of them to interpret in both languages.

[Charles Robert]

Yes, and I think it was the policy of the government to demonstrate support for official bilingualism that prompted it to recognize that if we are going to rely on interpreters, they have to be properly trained.