Evidence of meeting #1 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
If a witness has been informed that documents must be in both official languages, that is already a huge improvement.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Yes, Mr. Chairman, but this will not change anything in any case.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I would like to tell you that this is what the clerk does already. He informed the witnesses that their documents must be in both official languages and that there is a translation service available. It is up to committee members to decide wether we want to mention that in our routine motions.
Mr. Godin.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
The motion we are discussing is about the distribution of documents. This does not mean that witnesses could not give the committee their document. If the document is not translated in time, normally it will be translated by the House translation service, and we will receive it later.
I think that Mr. Lemieux is saying that we have to ensure that witnesses are informed ahead of time that if they want their documents distributed, they must be translated. however, if there are not able to have their documents translated, the House will do so. If a witness wishes to appear before us before his document is translated, that means the committee would have received it one week in advance, and so we will not have to wait a week to get the translation.
I see nothing wrong with the motion, because we are still talking about the distribution of documents, and not the submission of a document to the committee. We talking about distributing documents at this table. We should not get too far away from the motion.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Since the clerk is already doing this, perhaps he could suggest a wording that would cover what we are trying to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
We are asking the clerk to come up with wording to express the committee's wishes, Mr. Godin..
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
What Mr. Lemieux said is true. I think that some witnesses come here with a brief text, but they do not know that they should have it translated. This may have been forgotten in the past. I think that is the intention behind Mr. Lemieux's motion. I support that, and I think that by stating that here, it would be...
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I am just going to ask the clerk to explain what he does at the moment.
The Clerk
When I speak with the witnesses, I tell them that we have certain rules and that any document distributed to committee members by the clerk or during a meeting must be in both official languages.
In the case of an organization with the translation service, the witnesses will come with a translated text. Otherwise, the witness can send in the document and we will have it translated. Of course, this takes sometime. So if we do not get the document in time to have it translated before the meeting, it has to be distributed afterwards. I think I explain our rules on this matter quiet clearly to witnesses.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I just asked the question, and he answered it. I wanted to know what was done at the moment, because for the moment, the situation may not be perfect, but it is working. I have been on this committee for three and half years, and I think we can leave things as they are, and trust our clerk to do what is required.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we are transferring our obligations to the Canadian Parliament to the witnesses.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I recognize that, Mr. Lemieux, but the way in which we have worded your motion could lead the witnesses to believe that it is up to them to have their documents translated, where is that is not the case.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have the floor, Mr. Lemieux.
The interpretation of the motion that you have put forward could be, for people, that if they come here, they will have to have their own document translated, which is not the case.
I would like to continue the practice that the clerk described for us that involves warning people that if we wish to have the document distributed, it must be in both languages, and that we point out to them that it is not their duty to have it translated themselves. If they are able to do so and wish to, then so be it, but it is not an obligation. I would certainly not want us to move in that direction.
The proposal that was read to me could be interpreted by potential witnesses as putting the burden on them, which is not certainly the case.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I would like to point out that is not my intention. We do many things as a committee. All of the routine motions are regularly passed, but we decided that it would be a good idea to formalize the process. It is a good thing for the witnesses, because they do not often appear before the committee, and they must travel to come here. If they arrive with the document that is written and only one language, that causes problems. I thought I said that the clerk should warn witnesses that
if they would like to have their documentation distributed
the documents should be written in both languages. We could add a few words on that subject. We have already done so through
the friendly amendment.
In fact, we explained that the committee itself could have the translation done. That is not a problem for me. However, I would like to formalize the fact that the clerk has the duty to inform the witnesses. He certainly does so, but for the moment, we have a lot of issues on the table.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I do not believe it is difficult to clarify. In my opinion, Mr. Lemieux's intentions were perhaps not clear at the outset, but they were good. It is simply an issue of submitting documents in both languages, but there was a bit of ambiguity. In any case, everyone agrees this must be made clear.
I want to ask a question that is a bit silly. Suppose we make no clarifications. The clerk usually warns people, but he takes his orders from the Chair. Imagine we have a new Chair—and I agree that this could under no circumstances be Mr. Blaney—decides to subvert the process by telling the clerk that he should no longer inform witnesses of this requirement, but simply tell them to appear. Would the clerk have no choice other than to follow the Chair's orders? There is no need to be embarrassed. Do you receive your orders from the Chair, yes or no?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I am told that this is common practice for all the committees. Is that right, Mr. Clerk?