Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. McTeague is in favour of maintaining the designated chair, the section in the old motions. Do other members want to maintain it?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
There was no provision to replace it, so I think it would stand.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That is moved by Mr. McTeague.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Next is “Distribution of Documents”. Mr. Carrie, perhaps you'd like to explain the rationale there.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Basically it was thought that this wording would be a little bit clearer.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Mr. McTeague has made his points on this. Would anyone else like to talk about the distribution of documents?
Madame Brunelle.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
With respect to the distribution of documents, the proposed amendment is rather interesting because it reads, "documents to be distributed must be in both official languages." This wording is much stronger than it was previously. We support the amendment.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
May I ask the Bloc Québécois to clarify something, Mr. Chairman? I understand that the motion reads, "documents to be distributed amongst the committee members must be in both languages". This is a given, and posses no problem whatsoever. However, what precedes this does pose a problem, because it includes all documents, and most notably, motions. The problem is that if a motion is tabled with the chair, we must wait for the clerk to issue a confirmation, and this could take longer than the 48 hours necessary to distribute documents. We have no problem with the section concerning official languages, but the sentence that precedes that part is problematic as it increases the responsibility for the distribution motions. This is a problem for us.
I'm not sure if Ms. Brunelle and the Bloc Québécois will accept all the amendments or only the part concerning bilingualism and official languages.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It seems to me that if the Bloc Québécois had not been here to constantly demand that documents be produced in French, there would be much less French on Parliament Hill. This is a principle we hold dear.
I understand the concern over motions, and that in some cases we could have them much more quickly if they were not translated in both official languages, but I would prefer building in the obligation to distribute documents in both official languages within our procedural rules, even if it means being flexible when it comes to bills. If this is the case, we can assure you of our full collaboration.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
I'd like to add a comment. We have always been rather flexible. When dealing with motions, my interpreters have always helped with the translation. I don't believe that we've ever had a problem with the motions tabled within committee.
Like my colleague, I believe that it is important to require our witnesses to table documents in French as well. In the past, documents have been tabled strictly in English, and we often had difficulty obtaining them in French. I think we should have a basic principle: when witnesses are invited to appear, and if they have documents to submit, these must be tabled in both official languages.
In addition, we would like to have them a few days before the meeting, because very often we only receive documents pertaining to the next day's meeting on the very same day of the meeting, or at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. the evening prior. Would it be possible to obtain the documents at least one or two days in advance, to cross check what witnesses will be tabling, and to determine what type of questions we want to ask them? It is much easier for us when we have documents the day before the committee meeting.
Thank you.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
For the benefit of Bloc Québécois members and other members, I would like to point out that it said in the previous motion, under the section "distribution of documents",the following words: "[...] to members of the Committee only when they exist in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly." It's already there.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Chairman, the problem is with the words "when they exist".They are under no obligation to provide documents in both French and English. We do not want these documents if they "happen to exist"! No, we want both versions, one in French, and one in English. We do not agree with the wording "when they exist".
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I don't think there is a real disagreement. It is a good point. You said the word "when they exist" is rather troubling, but no document can be distributed unless it is translated in both official languages. Regardless of a document existence, it can only be submitted to the committee if it is in both of the official languages. However, what I have issue with is that you are asking for a change in order to obtain something which already exists, and that you have accepted Mr. Carrie's other proposals. This is what I find troubling.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have Mr. Carrie and Mr. Stanton, then we'll go to Madam Brunelle.
Mr. Carrie.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
If we look back at our history in the committee, we did have instances where we were handed documents and they were in one language only. The idea here is to strengthen it. It mentions “including motions”, but it also clarifies that “The Clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before committee of this requirement.” In the old way it just said that witnesses be advised accordingly. This is trying to strengthen it so that the witnesses know, because we are quite aware there are two official languages in Canada. It's only fair that we have equity in the committee so that somebody who does require the French documents have them, or the English documents, as it would be, in a reasonable amount of time, too.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was just going to suggest that I think you might have sufficient support for this particular new proposal. I think we should probably move on. As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, it provides more clarity around the issue. I think there might be sufficient support for it. So could we call for a consensus and move to the next one?
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Perhaps it is the presence of motions in the government amendment that is causing the problem. Personally, insofar as we ensure that we will be flexible, I would prefer for the proposal to remain as it is. The difference between the two procedural rules, it seems to me, is that the new proposed rule indicates to members of the committee that documents to be distributed must be in both official languages. There is therefore an element of obligation, which seems important to me for the respect of the francophones around the table.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Unless I am mistaken, over all the years that I have been here, no unilingual document was distributed unless the chair had the unanimous consent to do so. I know that Mr. Carrie just said that there had been exceptions.
To my understanding, we have never distributed documents that were not in both languages. Members could be invited to speak to the witness, or in this case to the presenter, but the chair has always sought, in my experience--and that is with at least three chairs--unanimous consent in the event that we had only documents for expediency's sake.
If we introduce this element of obligation, it is entirely possible that some witnesses who would otherwise be in a position to make a good presentation would no longer be able to do so. If memory serves me well, even the Bloc Québécois has on occasion accepted documents there were not in French. The word "must" could therefore cause problems even for the Bloc Québécois, as well as for us in the opposition, if the issue is clarifying, knowing and being aware of someone's position, particularly when we require that witnesses appear before the committee, often with just a few hours notice. I know that James Latimer, the previous clerk, always had difficulties in that regard. We have to give some degree of latitude to the chair.