Official Languages Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

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

The fact remains that the committee is its own master. We are only talking about a clarification, it is not the end of the world. All we need to do is specify that the clerk must inform the witness of the need to submit documents in both official languages, that if that is not possible, that Parliament will voluntarily translate them and in order for this to be done, the documents must be sent immediately to the clerk. It is not difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I believe Mr. Rodriguez would like to say something.

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

This issue has already been discussed. I was wondering whether or not the clerk had the duty to inform the witnesses, regardless of the committee.

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

May I suggest an amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Is it a subamendment or an amendment?

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

It is a subamendment. We will clarify the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I am told that this is the normal procedure for committees if there has been no other indication provided by its members.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

In order to clarify the intent, we could say in the sub-amendment that since it is necessary for the documents to be in both languages in order for them to be distributed, the clerk invites witnesses to submit them in both languages or to submit them sufficiently in advance so that they can be translated by the House.

This way, it is clearer that it is an invitation to do so. Otherwise, there was an element of obligation that is transferred to the witness, and I do not believe that it is appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You are proposing, Mr. Bélanger, to add the words “as it is necessary to provide the documents in both languages“.

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

It would read as follows: “Because a document must be available in both languages in order to be distributed to the committee, the clerk advises witnesses of this obligation and of the availability of translation services“.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Were you able to take that down, Mr. clerk? I believe we agree on the spirit of this amendment. I did not see the wording of Mr. Lemieux's either.

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

We could say the following: “Given that there is an obligation, the clerk advises that translation services are available, unless the witnesses prefer to submit their documents in both languages“.

In that way, the obligation is not transferred to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We now seem to have a consensus. Do you wish to have further discussion? I think we have said just about all there is to say on the subject.

Mr. Godin.

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

I would not want to send a message to the witnesses that they should not submit their documents in both languages. Normally, it is their responsibility to do so. If they do not do so, we take care of the translation.

[One honourable member]

They do not have that responsibility...

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

That is true. You are right.

[One honourable member]

Canadians can communicate with their members of Parliament in the language of their choice.

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

Yes, that is true. In that sense, we can specify that and indicate that if they wish, they may bring their documents here.

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

In order for them to be distributed, they must be in both languages. Take note of the fact that we do have a translation service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right. I believe we can put the question.

If I may, I request that the motion as amended be read. Please pay attention.

[The Clerk]

It reads as follows:

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, and, as the documents provided must be in both official languages, that the clerk inform witnesses that translation services are available if necessary.

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

It would have to read: “as documents must be available in both languages in order to be distributed, that the clerk inform...”

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

It is the “if necessary” that is too much. Could you please re-read the amended part, Mr. Clerk, so that we will all be voting on the same thing?

The first paragraph is the one that appears in the motion. We are voting on the amendment.

We apologize to our audience, the motion was not written, but it is the work of a non-partisan committee.

The procedural clerk will reread the amendment to us.

[Chad Mariage, Procedural Clerk]

In support to my colleague, I will read the motion because it is in my handwriting.

As documents must be available in both official languages in order to be distributed, that the clerk inform witnesses that translation services are available.

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

Because the motion has to make sense, I believe it would be a good idea to take into account that the first part of the motion already exists and says: “That the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to the members of the committee only when they exist in both official languages.” The two paragraphs have to correspond to each other, and I believe that the wording of the second part is not appropriate.