Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 16th, 2021

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Then, finally, Mr. Hussein, the last word is for you, and then I know that will be our time.

[Tesfaye Hussein]

Withholding humanitarian aid, no. Actually, there is a need to increase it because people are starving. People are dying. People don't have access to medical services, and so on.

Bilateral aid, yes, I agree with Mr. Alemu. That might put pressure on the government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. Thank you for your testimony and for the answers to the questions on the current situation that is transpiring in Ethiopia. Our analysts have been capturing this information. A statement will be put together, and once published, that will also be distributed to all of you.

On behalf of all the committee members, we want to thank you very much for participating and for being part of this committee session.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Can the subcommittee have a quick discussion, Mr. Chair? We can let the witnesses take their leave first, though. I very much want to thank them, by the way, for being with us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Of course, yes.

Thank you to all of the witnesses. You are free to leave the meeting at this time.

[Tesfaye Hussein]

Thank you, everyone.

[Christina Hailu Gebrekirstoes]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is something I want to share with the members. I want to thank the clerk for finding if there was a precedent for what we discussed earlier, the unanimous consent to be able to move forward even though we didn't have the interpretation. Even with unanimous consent, the committee cannot overturn higher procedural authorities, a statute authority or an order of the House. In the case of bilingualism, it's protected under both the Official Languages Act and the Constitution Act, so, no, we could not provide unanimous consent to move forward even if we wanted to, just so members are aware of that.

Thank you very much, clerk, for finding that information for us.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to set some things straight.

First of all, had I not been the only francophone participating today, it wouldn't have even been necessary to check for a precedent. The only reason the clerk found out that there was no precedent is that I didn't have interpretation.

Let's be frank. Each of you knows that I speak English and can understand English perfectly well. After all, I'm bilingual—trilingual even, since I speak Spanish.

My apologies for getting a bit worked up, but these are very sensitive issues. I would never want to tell someone in Sudan who has taken the time to speak with the subcommittee about an awful situation that they actually won't be able to make their statement because I don't have interpretation, even though I can understand what's being said fine.

That puts me in a very awkward position, Mr. Chair. It's happened a number of times. I look like a guy who cares more about his language rights than about what someone has to say about gang rape. It's not right. Can you understand the position that puts me in? It's ridiculous, and I don't want it to happen again.

I know the House staff are doing their best, but I still find this quite overwhelming. I know it's no one's fault, but we have to find a way to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.

I can't say to a witness who is describing an appalling situation that, because of our Official Languages Act, we can't hear what they have to say, even though I can understand them fine in the other language. You can appreciate my position.

I'm no expert, so I don't know how to go about fixing the problem, but I would like those in charge to make an earnest effort to keep it from happening again.

I'm not angry at anyone. I just want you to know how uncomfortable and emotional the situation makes me. I don't want it to happen again. That is my appeal and I hope everyone hears it.

Forgive me, but it helps to say it out loud. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Actually, I think we all feel the same way. We really wanted to work. It was a technological challenge, especially for somebody on the other side of the earth. Not knowing their connectivity, their Internet, the technology or the equipment they have, that's where things get very challenging. Then, of course, for our interpreters, who do a tremendous job and a very difficult job, to be able to hear and interpret and do that from so far away....

I know that once the clerk and the technicians and everybody else are able to get in touch with our witnesses or potential witnesses, they speak to them about what their capabilities are in terms of technology and they do their best, I'm sure, to find a quiet space etc., but especially with this committee and the types of witnesses who come before us, it's not always easy. As you know and you've heard, some of them are fleeing very dangerous situations and are not able to get into the best places to be able to deliver their message because of the space they are in and the technology, etc. We are all learning. This is all new, even to us.

Do members or the clerk have an idea for how we can do better as far as best practices or trying to make sure we can have that interpretation and technology work better?

I am looking for any raised hands if anybody wants to speak.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with MP Brunelle-Duceppe that it's really.... I'm sure we all agree with this, but there are two things that I think need to happen.

One is that in the past, prior to the Christmas break, I felt that we tested the microphones with the witnesses before they came, not 15 minutes before but days before. Maybe that was another committee. I'm on four, so I don't know which one is which now, but it felt like they had headsets and were very prepared. We didn't run into the same situation in the same way when we were looking at the Uighur genocide, for example. It felt like maybe there were things we did before that maybe we could do again.

The other piece that I think is also really important—and I'm going to be doing this for the New Democratic Party—is that our whips need to know. I think we need to go to our parties and explain that this process is not working and is unfair to certain members of the committee. Don't get me wrong. My French is not as good as it needs to be, so it is unfair to me as well. I don't want Alexis to feel like this is his problem. This is all our problem, of course.

We could maybe run through what could be done on that end with the whips and then they could take that piece, but we could also see if there is a way to do test runs with the witnesses. These witnesses have vitally important information they are going out of their way—and risking their lives in some cases—to share with us, and it's unfortunate when it ends up this way.

I, like Alexis, don't blame anyone. It's just a system we're stuck in, but I think there might be solutions there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much, Heather.

Kenny will speak next to what you just said.

Also, just so we can get some background, I don't know what the process is, Clerk. Once you reach out to witnesses, how do we test their technology? Do we test what we sent to them beforehand? How does all that work? Maybe we can look at doing that better. If it's happening in other committees or the like, then we could bring some of those best practices here.

I know it's a bumpy road for everyone. We feel for you, Alexis. We don't want to have you in this position.

Kenny.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if we can think outside of the box here in this day and age. Rather than insisting on video conferencing, could we actually buy ourselves clarity by not using full audio-video conferencing? In other words, if the witness's Internet connection is not sufficiently clear, perhaps we could have them join us over the phone, for example. At least we would be able to communicate verbally. It's not as fulsome as with body language and the like, but at least we'll be able to hear them clearly.

I'm just offering that as a suggestion to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, if you want to say anything that maybe we are missing here, please let us know.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can give you a quick rundown of our process right now.

Right now, when we contact the witnesses, we indicate to them what equipment they will need for the meeting. The committee is also authorized to reimburse up to $75 Canadian per witness for the required headsets. Obviously, it's not possible for some of the witnesses, depending on where they are, to get those headsets. If they're in Canada, we send the headsets to them directly. Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to courier things worldwide in a timely fashion right now, partly because of COVID and partly because of unreliable mail services in certain countries.

We do a test with the witnesses. They tune in with our multimedia team. The multimedia team makes sure they have the most recent version of Zoom so that they have access to the interpretation. They also make sure their audio quality is sufficient. If it's not sufficient, they tell them how to improve it. Witnesses sometimes will improve it, and sometimes they won't. There's nothing we can do from our end to force them to do this. The problem we have is that, as the clerk, I'm not empowered to tell them that their audio quality is not good enough and that they cannot appear. That is not a decision that I, multimedia or the interpreters can make.

We have that process in place. We have a very fulsome discussion with the witnesses before they come before the committee, but unfortunately it sometimes seems to happen all in one meeting that witnesses don't have sufficient quality.

The whips are very aware. We're working on our communications. We're trying to streamline everything. We have a project now where if witnesses don't test we'll call them and ask them very nicely to please test or it could affect their testimony, but all of these things are dependent on the witnesses doing what is required of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

It is standardized across all committees, as you've said. As for interpretation over the phone, I guess using that as a tool doesn't work. We can't do that. Is that right?

[The Clerk]

That's correct. If someone were to phone in, they would not have access to simultaneous interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Alexis.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I want to be clear. I'm not blaming anyone. I know everyone at the House has been moving heaven and earth since the pandemic began to make these proceedings possible. This is nothing we have ever experienced. Staff found a way for us to meet this evening. This is in no way a criticism of them or anyone else.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a committee like all the rest. Had this been the finance committee, I would not have let the witness continue if the interpretation wasn't working. In this case, we aren't talking about a regular witness. We are talking about an individual who has taken the time to tell us about an appalling situation in a specific country. The same thing could have happened earlier when we were talking to the witnesses about the situation in Cameroon. It happened when we were studying the situation of the Uyghurs, in the summer. As we were listening to a woman describe how she had been a victim of genocide, I had to jump in to ask that she be allowed to continue even though the interpretation wasn't working. I do have some sense, after all.

I am in this boat today because I am the only francophone. I'm not trying to play the victim, far from it. I don't have the answer, and I know everyone is doing their utmost to ensure the interpretation works. At any rate, I no longer want to be in a position where I'm invoking my right to interpretation under the Official Languages Act, when everyone knows full well that I understand English. That really makes me feel like crap. My apologies to the interpreter who has to render my words in English, but that's exactly how I feel.

My intention is not to cast stones at anyone. I am just telling you how unpleasant this is for me. I do not want to complain, especially after all the terrible things we've heard today. That's exactly my point: I don't want to have to complain when we are listening to someone describe situations that are much bigger and more important than the Official Languages Act.

Like I said, I don't have the answer. I just want you to know that, as a vice-chair and a member of the subcommittee, I am very uncomfortable with this situation, and it's happened quite a few times.

That's all I want to say. I have to get up at five o'clock in the morning to be in Ottawa tomorrow, so I won't keep you any longer. I think everyone was already aware of the situation I spoke about. We'll see what can be done to fix the problem. I very much appreciate all of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Alexis.

Thank you to the members. I say we just keep this discussion open. Like I said, whatever the best practice is, or if we hear there's a better way of doing something, feel free to flow it through. We'll speak to our whips, and if there's anything we can do from all parties to make it better, we want to to make it better.

For you, Alexis, if you're driving, we wish you a safe drive in. Be careful because the roads are not great.

Thank you very much, everyone. The meeting is adjourned.