Bonjour à tous. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to meeting number eight of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs regarding the new Veterans Charter.
We have two witnesses with us today: Sandra Pickrell Baker and Wolfgang Zimmermann. I'm going to call on them in a moment, but I want to just do some housework prior to that.
In our last meeting we had some concerns regarding documents. I promised I would look into it. I have just a couple of things I want to bring to your attention.
When witnesses are confirmed, they are sent a confirmation letter, which is called a confirmation of appearance, and it is explained very specifically—and by the way, it's also explained in both official languages—that if they have briefs that are necessary for their testimony, they must get them to the clerk ahead of time, and in fact a minimum of five days and a maximum to 10 days for the translation.
Also, from our Procedure and Practice manual, from the 2009 second edition, let me just read something to you:
The public has the right to communicate with a parliamentary committee in either official language, as stipulated in the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Official Languages Act.[575] However, Members sitting on a committee are entitled to receive documents in the official language of their choice. Committees usually adopt a routine motion to ensure that all documents distributed to committee members will be in both official languages. When a committee receives a document in one official language, the clerk of the committee has it translated into the other official language before it is distributed to committee members. Some committees specify in the motion that witnesses are to be advised of this rule.
And of course I've just read to you that in fact they are, but in writing, in the confirmation of appearance.
Some committees further prescribe that only the clerk of the committee is authorized to distribute documents to committee members.[576]
And of course there's a sample of that motion.
Section 4 of the Official Languages Act...and section 17 of the Constitution Act, 1982...give everyone the right to use either English or French in their dealings with Parliament. However, the right to submit a document does not include the right to have it distributed and examined immediately. Howard P. Knopf, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on April 20, 2004, took legal action against the Speaker of the House on this point. Mr. Knopf maintained that his rights had been violated when the Chair of the Committee, in accordance with the Committee rule requiring that any document distributed to members be bilingual, refused to distribute the documents that he had submitted in English only. The Federal Court ruled on June 26, 2006, that Mr. Knopf’s linguistic rights had not been violated and that the work of the Committee was protected by parliamentary privilege. Mr. Knopf appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed it on November 5, 2007. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which also dismissed it on March 20, 2008.
Quite simply, what was said last time is that individual citizens have the right to communicate with their member of Parliament in the official language of their choice. Members of Parliament have the right to retain those documents and carry them within the precinct as they choose. But when it comes to committees, if there's a document that the witnesses want to be distributed, it must go through the clerk, it must be translated, there must be five to 10 days allowed for that translation, and then it'll be given to every member equally in both official languages.
In regard to the document in question that started this whole process, I've been advised that by Thursday morning you will have the translation of that document from Captain (Retired) Sean Bruyea, and subsequently you can decide in a business meeting when you would like to have Mr. Bruyea return.
Yes, Monsieur Vincent.