Industry Committee on March 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I don't want to say that it's standard practice, but we normally invite witnesses, should they want to include a written brief, to absolutely do so. We could maybe make sure that is sort of standard on this one, given that they will be getting a shorter presentation period.

Is there any further debate on this? As chair, I want to flag just one thing.

As you know, the clerk and I work on scheduling witnesses, but I want to flag this because the analyst mentioned that we might have the report for telecommunications ready in April. If it is possible for us to deal with that and to be able to finalize it, my concern would be that by using those Easter weeks for these meetings, we wouldn't be able to get to that report. I want to flag that so people are aware of what we're able to do, unless there's some flexibility on the part of the committee to allow the clerk and me to work out the availability of witnesses so that, once we get things that are coming in that are time sensitive, we can book them in.

I wanted to flag that for the committee because we have had the opportunity to work in a very flexible way in the past, and it has worked out well for us. I don't want to be holding up any of our work with a rigid schedule. I just wanted to flag that for folks.

Is there any further debate on the motion?

Go ahead, MP Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Just very briefly—and I don't know the right language to use, because I don't have the text in front of me—from this study to the permit economy and competitiveness writ large study, I don't know whether it makes sense as it relates to the Competition Act piece that whatever meetings we were to set aside for that in relation to the permit economy get pulled into this, which may just intellectually make more sense as it relates to the topic.

I don't have the text in front of me, and it may well make no real difference, because it sounds like they're bleeding into one another anyway. That was the only thought I had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

What we could do, MP Erskine-Smith, is that if this motion passes, obviously, and once we start scheduling in terms of when we reach witnesses that we book each week, it could be that we go from one to the next that makes the most sense in terms of flow, so that—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That makes sense, because I think that for the witnesses, as it relates to Competition Act reform, it probably makes more sense to fit it around this kind of consideration as opposed to strictly the permit economy.

I defer to you, Chair. I think you'll be able to manage this with Mike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

Are there any other further comments or debate on this before we go to a vote?

Seeing none, if it's the will of the committee, we do not need a recorded division. I will reread it just so everyone has it. I'm going to see if I actually have it.

Mike, could you reread the motion so that everyone has it before we go to the vote?

[The Clerk]

Yes, of course.

It states:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the proposed acquisition of Shaw Communications by Rogers Communications; that the study consist of a minimum of 8 hours; that the clerk book witnesses for 1 hour panels; that opening remarks for witnesses be limited to 3 minutes; that the meetings take place during the Easter break weeks if possible; and that the committee report to the House as soon as possible after witness testimony has concluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mike.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

With that, I understand that MP Lemire would like to speak to the committee.

Go ahead, MP Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to take this opportunity, while there are no witnesses, to analyze the motions that we submitted with regard to translation. You received them by email on February 22—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Lemire, I think we have a problem with translation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Ironically, that's what I was raising.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I turned the sound off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Please wait a moment, Mr. Lemire. We'll check whether it's working.

Mr. Masse, I'll speak in French to check whether it's working now.

Okay.

Mr. Lemire, you can start again.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I could hear the English interpretation in my headphones, so I turned the sound off. I thought that it might be an issue with just the French channel.

I want to thank the interpretation team. Their work is absolutely vital, and we want to acknowledge this through these motions.

I'll come back to the motions that our clerk sent to you by email on February 22. The first motion concerns documents translated or reviewed by the Translation Bureau. Here's the motion:

That all documents submitted for Committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

The words “or member's office” could be added after “federal department” to support the adoption of each motion.

The goal is to ensure that these motions aren't translated through Google Translate and that they have been reviewed by a person, to avoid any translation errors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

As MP Lemire mentioned, we received notices of motion on February 22 from the clerk, and these are the three motions that were proposed by Mr. Lemire. The first one is dealing with official translation of documents.

Is there any debate on that motion?

Go ahead, Mike.

[The Clerk]

It was just unclear to me if Monsieur Lemire had proposed that motion with the inclusion of “member's office”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mr. Lemire, please go ahead.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I gather that I can't move an amendment to my motion. However, I would be open to this compromise, since it has been introduced in other committees. If someone moves it, I would gladly agree to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

This is not to include members' offices—is that correct?—or does it include members' offices?

The motion you had would actually include members' offices if the documents came from a member's office, and I am assuming, you also mean that for a minister's office. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I am understanding.

Is that right, Mr. Lemire?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, that's right.

We want a human being, a professional approved by the Translation Bureau, to translate the documents, rather than Google Translate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Okay.

Is there any further debate on that motion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

The second motion concerns technical tests for witnesses. It's a common practice and we're used to doing it now. The day before an appearance, the witnesses participate in a technical test session to ensure that their equipment meets our standards. Here's the motion:

That the Clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advise the Committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

If a witness hasn't conducted the tests, we can reject the witness without wasting too much time. Sound quality is obviously important. That way, we can protect our interpreters by ensuring that they have the best possible working conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

That's fine, thank you.

Just for the committee's knowledge, this is something that we have been doing and we plan on continuing to do.

Is there any debate on the motion in front of us?

(Motion agreed to)

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll set the third motion aside. We didn't take the motion into account in the exercise that we just completed, and it still worked out well. We'll come back to the motion concerning the translation of motions later.

The work done by the clerk and the interpreters helped us to fully understand and keep up with what happened in the past hour. We can talk about this again.

I want to thank my colleagues for passing the first two motions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Before we adjourn, I want to remind members that next week we will have meetings with respect to the aerospace study. We will hopefully be able to complete those meetings. We will be back, too, with respect to a work plan regarding these various studies that we've agreed to.

With respect to the study we agreed to today on Shaw and Rogers, I would ask that each party submit to the clerk directly their witness list as soon as possible. Please prioritize them, because if it's the will of the committee to have these meetings during the constituency weeks, we need to have those witness names as soon as possible.

With that, I will declare this meeting adjourned.