Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

In keeping with the spirit of this recommendation, I will speak in French.

Honestly, I have nothing against the wording to the effect that the committee should encourage people to speak in French or in English. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is unconstitutional to encourage someone to speak in either English or French.

I would really like to hear Ms. Normandin's comments. I know that she is a lawyer, so she could give us her opinion on this issue. I think the message is simply that we want to encourage our witnesses to speak in the language of their choice, be that English or French. What is more, this does not concern only the interpreters. It is also tiring for us, the francophone members, who always have our earpiece in. It is sometimes taken for granted that bilingual members can listen to witnesses in both languages.

I think that this recommendation is very important. I am in favour of wording that encourages witnesses and francophone members to speak in the language of their choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Brassard is next, and then Madame Normandin.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not using my headset, because it's not working.

I was listening to some of the proceedings going on in the House today. I see that Mr. Nater is on the Zoom call here, and he was in the House. There was an interaction between, I believe, the leader of the Bloc and Mr. Rodriguez, the government House leader. In that interaction, Mr. Rodriguez was quite adamant in suggesting that we don't have a first official language and a second official language; we actually have two official languages.

I would urge members to keep that in mind. Mr. Rodriguez brought that up today in the House, and I think he made a very valid point. It's a point that I respect. I certainly respect both official languages. Being a person who was born in Quebec, I understand that, but we have to be mindful of this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

Madame Normandin, maybe you can help us get to a point where.... I think everyone wants to respect the languages, but also to respect choice. How can we get there, so that we can adopt this recommendation?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am not a constitutional expert, but I would lean towards believing that there is nothing coercive about the word “encourage”. The objective is to draw francophones' attention to the fact that speaking in their mother tongue can lighten the interpreters' burden, as it may be something they are unaware of. I want to remind everyone that, in general, about 75% of what is said is in English and 25% of it is in French. So there is already an imbalance between the two languages.

If we had to hold a debate on the quality of the two languages in Canada, I think we could do it on so many things other than simple encouragement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think maybe we could go back to the original word of “encourage” rather than “recommend”, to soften it a little bit.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madame Normandin, actually, in her remarks kind of gave me an idea.

Based on what you said, maybe we could just say, “increase awareness of the needs of interpreters”. That way we're moving away from anything that's constitutionally controversial and avoiding this, sort of sidestepping it, but also sticking with the spirit of what you're trying to achieve. That might be a way around this. It's just a thought.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's an interesting thought.

Is there any follow-up on that? How does everyone feel about “raising awareness”?

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If we only say that we want to bring the interpreters' well-being to the members' attention and that we are not talking specifically about the burden related to the fact that there are more comments in English to interpret toward French than the opposite, I think the proposal loses some of its meaning.

The question I put to the interpreter was very specific in that respect. Would this lighten the francophone interpreters' burden, as they are the most affected? That is what the interpreter also said. They are the ones with the most work to do and the biggest mental load. I think that we are taking away from the proposal's meaning if we simply say to pay attention to the interpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

I didn't mean to say that we would just end it there. I meant that we would preface it with that and then include the rest of the recommendation. We would raise awareness about this particular concern that the interpreters have: too much of a load interpreting from English to French. We could say, “members are encouraged to....” I don't know if we should even say that. We could just inform all members and witnesses, before they speak, that this is a concern. I guess they could make a choice at that point.

Is that something that would be okay?

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm still not comfortable. For me, any time you tell anyone that they should choose one language over another, I get a little concerned about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

How about eliminating that? They shouldn't choose anything. We're just going to make them aware of the fact that this is a concern and not recommend or ask them to do anything.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I would need to see the testimony again. I don't remember it being a concern. I just remember them talking about the need.... I would expect that, the way simultaneous interpretation happens in the House, they would hire accordingly.

Maybe it was there. I just honestly can't remember it. I think it's important to always encourage speaking both of the official languages. Of course, learning to speak French is something I'm slowly and painfully doing. Adult brains sometimes have a hard time.

It does concern me. I feel like it's a little bit beyond the scope of this committee to do that. I think it's a thoughtful conversation, but I'm not persuaded yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Maloney is next, and then Mr. Richards.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I know I'm new to Parliament, having only been here for four and half years. During that period, I've chaired one of the standing committees. I don't recall a single occasion where we've directed or recommended to a witness what language to speak, or to any member of a committee. In fact, my practice was always to tell them that interpretation services were available and to speak the language of their choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

We have Mr. Richards, then Mr. Duncan, and then maybe Madame Normandin can make a choice as to what amendment she's comfortable with. Then we could maybe put it to a vote or see how everybody feels at that point.

Mr. Alghabra, you have something to say as well. Okay.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Like Ms. Blaney, I continue to be concerned about us directing someone. You can call it whatever you want: encouraging them, recommending it, informing them. Call it whatever you want, but we're in some way going down a path where we are sort of directing someone as to what language they should choose to speak. I don't think that is appropriate. People should have the choice. We have two official languages. They're both equal. People should have the choice to speak whichever of those two languages they choose.

As for the suggestion that we remind people about this opportunity, I'm not even sure what that looks like. Before each person speaks, are we going to say, “By the way, did you know you can speak either English or French?” Then do we suggest that it might be better...? “It seems that you are a francophone, first of all, or an anglophone, first of all. May we suggest you speak in that language?”

I just don't see how this becomes anything besides awkward. People just have to make the choice about which language they speak, which language they're comfortable in. We have two official languages. They are both equal. People make that choice based on their preference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have Mr. Duncan, and then Mr. Alghabra.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

My only quick comment is that I sympathize with anything to help relieve the work of the interpreters. One of the things we haven't addressed here is the bidirectionality that they are having to do because of physical distancing in the interpretation booth. One thing that is not a recommendation in here officially but could be done is to expedite health and safety measures in the booth to get more staff there. That would probably be a major thing. If we could, we should get rid of the bidirectionality that interpreters are having to use to relieve the strain on them.

We're not addressing that. Again, I share the same feeling of being uncomfortable with the recommendations. I can just see a complaint, from one side or the other, coming from it.

Again, I certainly think there are other things we could do to help the interpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We'll hear from Mr. Alghabra, then Madam Normandin, and then we're going to have to try to figure out what we're going to do with this recommendation and move forward, seeing the time.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that our report has been focused on the idea of becoming virtual, and we'll be tackling issues that are a by-product of that. The point that Madame Normandin raises is much broader than that. I think it actually goes outside.... It's worthy of having a conversation on, about how we can pay attention to the distribution or the balance of language spoken, but I don't necessarily think the percentage changes because we're becoming more virtual or less virtual, so I'm not really sure about the relevance of that recommendation, at least to this report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Witnesses have told us that, owing to exceptional circumstances related to COVID-19, there is more pressure on interpreters from English to French. The impact on them is bigger.

Here is what I am wondering about. If witnesses talk about a specific situation in their opening remarks, and it cannot even be highlighted in a recommendation, what is the point of having them appear? If that situation cannot be brought to the attention of members and witnesses, what is the point of holding meetings or having those people testify?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, Madame Normandin, maybe you have a final proposal for what this recommendation could look like, and then we could put it to a vote or see if there's agreement to adopt it.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Barnes, do all the sentences have to start with “recommends”?