Official Languages Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a motion on reduced quorum. I move:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two (2) members of the opposition.

I am sorry, I made a mistake. I did not read the first motion. I thought it was about electing the chair and vice-chair.

We will start with the first motion, Mr. Chairman, regarding the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament. I move:

That the Committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one analyst from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That is the motion we have before us. All committee members have a copy of it.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

According to this motion, it is at the discretion of the chair whether or not to retain the services of an analyst from the Library of Parliament. Could you tell committee members whether you intend to retain these services?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, Mr. Bélanger. It will probably be Mr. Paré.

Are there any other comments on the motion?

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your understanding. Is there another motion? Would someone care to move the next motion?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I would like to move the following motion about reduced quorum:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two (2) members of the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Are there any questions?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Is that the current practice, or has there been a change?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

The clerk tells me that the motions we have before us are those passed by the committee during the last session, before prorogation. Are there any other questions or comments? Are you ready for the vote?

(Motion agreed to.)

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If no one else wants to work this morning, I will move the third motion. This is the motion regarding the distribution of documents:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the Committee only when they exist in both official languages, and that no document provided by a witness be distributed without the clerk's authorization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I think this motion goes without saying for the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We must apply it quite strictly. I would ask those who want to distribute documents to committee members to ensure that they are in both languages.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the effect that the clerk is required to inform witnesses that documents must be in both languages. It sometimes happens that witnesses do not know that and come with documents in one language only, and we have to tell them that we cannot distribute them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

So we have an amendment asking the clerk to inform witnesses of this requirement ahead of time.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I could agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I want one thing to be made clear. If the intent of Mr. Lemieux's amendment is to ask witnesses to have their documents translated themselves, I would be opposed. We need clarification as to whether the intention behind Mr. Lemieux's amendment is to advise witnesses that if they want their documents to be distributed, they must provide them themselves in both languages or provide them in time so that they can be translated by the House translation services. If that is the intention behind Mr. Lemieux's motion, I can support it, but I hope the intention is not to require witnesses to translate their own documents.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, my intention is to inform them that documents must be in both languages if they want them distributed here. However, it is up to them to determine the best way of doing that.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If I understood correctly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lemieux is saying that documents must be in both languages. That is not the case. It is not up to witnesses to translate their own documents. That is the responsibility of the House of Commons.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If witnesses want their documents distributed, they must be in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

We know that if the document is to be distributed to committee members, it must be in both official languages. In recent months, some witnesses arrived with only one version of their documents and they were told here that they could not distribute them. The motion is very simple. We can inform witnesses that there is a translation service available to translate their material. That could be added; we could easily agree to that. The objective is to ensure documents can be distributed if witnesses want them distributed.

Quite often, we get the translated version of a witness's document one week after the meeting. We cannot work with the text we are given. It think Pierre's amendment is the best possible one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Is this a friendly amendment to Mr. Lemieux's motion?

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It is a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

So the idea is to say that no documents from witnesses can be distributed without the clerk's authorization, and that the clerk should inform witnesses ahead of time of this fact and of the fact that a translation service is available to them.

So we have a friendly amendment. The question is whether we have a whole new amendment or whether you wish to include this friendly amendment in your amendment, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will therefore re-read the amendment as amended, so that we can discuss it. The motion is that the clerk inform witnesses ahead of time and inform them as well that there is a translation service available.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'm trying to understand the relevance of the motion, Mr. Chairman. I agreed with what Mr. Harvey said initially, which is quite surprising, but I was no longer with him by the end. We would have to wait a week in any case. If witnesses decide to bring a document that is not in both languages, this will change nothing. It is up to witnesses to decide in which language they present their documents. We cannot require them to come with a translated document.

Mr. Harvey, you say that sometimes you wait a week to get the translated version of a document. One way or another, whatever the amendment states, we will have to wait a week, because people may come with texts in one language only. Initially, your argument made sense, but by the end, it no longer did because one way or another, we might have to wait a week to get the translation.