Industry Committee on Feb. 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order, please. We are now live and on the public record.

I want to go right to Mr. Byrne. Mr. Byrne, you can read and move your motion, and everyone should have a copy of the motion.

Do you have a point of order?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, for the public record, we have been seized with a motion that I would like to raise with our parliamentary leader first. I think that is how the Liberals proceed, as well as the Bloc and the NDP.

This document should normally have been submitted with 48 hours' notice. You tabled it today because we were in camera. We are no longer in camera. The rules changed because our meeting is now public.

In fact, I would suggest that this motion... If it is in order, it is in order, but I see that the translation is not correct. I'm sorry. Just because I'm asking for the French version doesn't mean that I'm not bilingual. Don't take us for idiots.

The words "loi" and "statutaire" do not have the same meaning. Right? If you don't understand English or French, I would point out that the words "loi" and statutory and regulatory do not mean the same thing. I'm sorry, but this document should be submitted to our parliamentary leaders and should then be translated by the House translators.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that on the same point of order?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

It's the same point of order.

Mr. Petit, it would be preferable if Mr. Byrne presented the wording in his motion to the committee because the motion has not yet been discussed.

His point of order refers to a few words in the motion. I think that the motion should be debated and I don't think it's fair for our listeners to be debating something that has not yet been officially put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just let me respond to Monsieur Petit.

My understanding is that even though we've moved from the in camera session, I did rule the motion in order. If the motion were to be presented, the committee business is the same in camera as it is in public. Therefore, the 48 hours' notice is not needed. I'm not an expert on translation, but my clerk is very good, and he certainly advises me that this is close enough to a translated motion to be in order.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Van Kesteren?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

It is on the same motion.

I have a question for the clerk. Do we not need unanimity if we use this motion rather than going for the 48 hours? Doesn't it have to be unanimous?

[The Clerk]

The routine motion adopted by the committee stated that 48 hours' notice is required for any substantive motion, unless the motion is directly related to the business item under consideration.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Van Kesteren?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Yes, it answers my question. I don't know if I quite agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, those are the rules the committee adopted.

Go ahead, Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to continue on the point of order because I was interrupted, and I would like to point out to you that the clerk's decision is not your decision.

You need to rule on this: Is this a motion? It has to be tabled first. I think that it will be tabled soon. Second, you have to accept it. Third, we have the right to debate it before it is accepted, even if the text has been submitted, in order to determine whether or not this is a substantive motion.

If it is a substantive motion, then my apologies to the clerk but it has to be tabled for 48 hours' notice. If it is not, if it is simply a procedural motion, if it has been submitted merely for the sake of submitting a motion... We must decide this.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this document cannot be submitted as it stands because it has not been formally translated. It's all very well to say that it is a "reasonable translation", but I don't need a reasonable translation, I need a true translation. I'm sorry, but it cannot be accepted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have a point of order, Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

In my opinion, in order to debate a motion, the motion has to be moved. Let's move it and then everyone can use the parliamentary tools at their disposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On another point of order, Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

To the clerk, can you give me a definition again of what is standard procedure? You said that it's the business.... Can you give me that one more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I will answer your question, Mr. Van Kesteren.

This committee agreed, in May 2006, that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages. So my ruling as the chair is that because this committee business was to discuss deregulation of the telecommunications sector, this motion that is going to be presented is in order. That is my ruling.

I think we should let Mr. Byrne read the motion. If members have procedural points or if they want to debate the motion, we can do so after the motion is read into the record.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The presentation of the motion having been ruled in order, I move that the committee report to the House recommending that the Minister of Industry withdraw the order varying telecom decision CRTC 2006-15 and table in Parliament a comprehensive package of policy, statutory, and regulatory reforms to modernize the telecommunications services industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The seconder is Monsieur Crête.

Okay, we have debate. We have Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Given that the motion has been tabled and that we are no longer sitting in camera, I would like to point out to the mover of the motion that the translation of the words "réforme aux politiques, aux lois et aux règlements" is not acceptable. I do not need a reasonable translation; I need a true translation, unless Mr. Gerry Byrne can tell me that he understands the French that he has just written. I imagine he is the one who had to write the French version, because it was translated into English. That is my first major point.

I have a second important point to make and I'll tell you why it is important. If there's no agreement to support this proposal, then I want to know which of the two versions stands, under the interpretation rules.

If the English version stands, then I want to know exactly what it says. I will therefore consult my whip and my parliamentary leader who will tell me what this means in English, based on how it has been drafted. If, on the contrary, the French version stands, because the translation will have to be the version that is accepted... In fact, when we vote, the vote will be on the French version and the English version.

If there is a problem, how will you rule, Mr. Chairman? Will you rule in favour of the English version or the French version? You have a problem. We should therefore be consulting people who are much more knowledgeable than we are on this matter.

This is a substantive motion. It is very serious and very important. If it weren't, he would not be tabling the motion. It's very important. Therefore, those who wish to, have a right to understand exactly what this means, even if people say they understand, because if there's a problem, who will rule? Will you rule in favour of the French version or the English version? At some point you are going to have to rule. Therefore, the translation must be reliable and the text must be clear in both languages, which is not currently the case.

Therefore, we don't need a reasonable translation, a translation done by our interpreters who, in passing, are excellent. This is a legal text with implications. Therefore, if the two versions of this legal text are not consistent, then I regret to inform you that the motion, in fact, cannot be accepted, in its current form, that is. It has to be submitted to our whip or our parliamentary leader, who will then consider the issue and be able to advise us. We belong to the House. In fact, we have the authority of the House. That is why I am telling you that this is a substantive motion and not simply a procedural motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, merci, monsieur Petit.

I have Mr. Byrne, Monsieur Arthur, and Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the correct course of procedure here, if there is concern that the translation is incorrect in the motion I've put in both official languages, the only possible course of action by any honourable member at the table would be to table an amendment. So an amendment would be coming forward. Notwithstanding that, this is the motion I've tabled for consideration by this committee, in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why Mr. Byrne is suggesting that we can vote on two differing French and English texts. It is not up to the committee to make this kind of decision.

It's not up to the committee to decide if the translation is right or wrong, and a vote cannot make it right if the translation is wrong. The French translation is wrong. Some words are poorly chosen, and there is a contradiction in terms that does not reflect what you meant by your text, which is very clear. So I cannot understand why we would send text to the House that is so poorly written in French that it is laughable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

This is not about the English or French text. I guess we can go to the House for anything we want to do--regulatory or legislative--but we usually go to the House for legislative changes rather than regulatory changes.

This motion would basically direct the minister to forgo, avoid, and neglect his responsibilities and legislative obligations for April 6. Is that what it means?