Evidence of meeting #17 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Yes, I could. I just wonder if we could see if the other parties and participants here were amenable to that before I suggest wording. Maybe other people have other wording to suggest. I'm fine with that. I'm not attached to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
We will go to Madame Normandin, then Ms. Blaney and then Mr. Richards.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I agree with merging the recommendations as much as possible.
I have something to point out regarding the LIB 15 recommendation.
If we get overly specific concerning the technological aspect, we should consider that we may be overtaken by the technology and that we will have to review the wording at some point. We should have something a bit more general, indicating that we will respect the interpreters' current recommendations. It may be simpler to operate in that way.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I agree so much with that point. I am agreeable to merging them. That's what I have in my notes as well. I think there should be language around “minimum standard”. I agree with you. I think that's pretty strong. I want to make sure that the language also talks about “in consultation with the Translation Bureau”. I really want to make sure that voice is heard, and it sounds like everybody else does as well.
The other thing, though, is that if you look at our recommendation, we mentioned "headset” or “microphone”. I think Mr. Gerretsen talked about having ear issues. If somebody uses a very good microphone...as long as the interpreters can hear clearly, I think their needs have to be the top priority here.
Then, in the final bullet of the Liberal recommendation, I want to add “where possible”, please. It says, “Written texts must be provided to the interpreters in advance.” I certainly do my best to do that when I can, but often I talk off the cuff. I don't plan what I'm going to say exactly, so I just wanted to add that.
Liberal
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I share a lot of the same thoughts as Ms. Blaney and Madam Normandin.
I have a number of other questions around LIB 15, but first I think it is far too prescriptive and gets into far too much detail.
Of the three, I think the favourable one would be NDP 6. I think it says it pretty well. It's “a minimum standard” for some equipment. It could be a headset or microphone. It meets the standard that is required but doesn't box us in for unique situations. It could be hearing aids that interfere with the headset or something like that, right?
I think NDP 6 is good as is. My preference would be to see us adopt that one of the three, rather than trying to combine them. The other ones are just too prescriptive.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I am leaning toward wanting to replace the portion of the LIB 15 recommendation about the headset with our recommendation, as it suggests that a headset be provided by the House.
We hope that the House will provide something of quality. Alternatively, it should provide something that makes it possible to meet the translation bureau's criteria. In my opinion, if we replace one with the other, the recommendation will be complete.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. Is there any proposed wording, then? I think there's not full agreement as to where to land, but there's agreement about the gist of what we want. We don't want to be too prescriptive, so the prescriptive language has to be taken out, I guess.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
On a point of order, Madam Chair—sorry to interrupt here—I'm getting word again that the ParlVU stream is down again.
The Clerk
I'm told that the technicians are aware of the problem and they're working on trying to resolve the issue. It appears to be an issue with ParlVU. They are on it, and they're trying to address it right now.
Liberal
The Clerk
Yes, Madam Chair, the meeting is being fully recorded for the purpose of Parliamentary Publications. In that sense, the meeting is still completely and properly in order.
There is the issue with the transmission from ParlVU, which, as I mentioned, they are trying to address right now.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm not trying to disagree with anything that's been said by the clerk, certainly. I'm sure that the meeting is completely in order. However, Madam Chair, given the uniqueness of the circumstance....
We're not in committee rooms and we all have support staff who are not able to see this unless they're able to view it on ParlVU. There are occasions when something comes up that we want to ask a support staff member a question about. If they're not able to view the proceedings, they won't be able to give us advice. That impinges upon our ability as members to function to the best of our ability.
I'm not trying to cause a problem here—
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
—in our way of doing things, but I think it's important that we have that, if it's at all feasible, before we continue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, and that's why I was kind of pausing. I had a feeling that some of the members would feel that way; or that a lot of the members would.
Clerk, do you have any further update?
The Clerk
Madam Chair, I don't have any additional information, other than they are continuing to work on it. I don't have a sense at this point of just what sort of issue it is or how long it may take to address it.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Can I propose that we invite staff to join in this Zoom room? They would at least be able to witness the proceedings directly through Zoom.