EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 11, 1997
• 1114
[English]
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Catherine Piccinin): Honourable senators and members of the House of Commons, it is my duty, as joint clerk of this committee, to preside over the election of the joint Senate chair. I am ready to receive motions to this effect.
Senator Erminie Joy Cohen (New Brunswick, Lib.): I move the name of Landon Pearson for chair of the joint committee.
The Joint Clerk (Ms. Piccinin): It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cohen that the Honourable Senator Pearson be the joint chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators and members, to adopt this motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Clerk (Ms. Piccinin): I declare the motion carried and I invite the Honourable Senator Pearson to take the chair.
• 1115
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Richard Rumas): It's now my duty to seek motions for the election of a co-chair from the House of Commons.
I see Mrs. Finestone.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Roger Gallaway.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Richard Rumas): Are there any other nominations?
If not, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Richard Rumas): I declare Mr. Gallaway elected co-chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.)): Bonjour tout le monde. Good morning, everybody.
It is a great pleasure for me to find myself with this opportunity to co-chair what I believe is an extremely important opportunity for all of us. I'd like to say just a word or two before we start into the other motions.
First of all, I'm sure there's not a single person at this table who has not been touched in some way or other, either directly or indirectly, by the issues we've been asked to examine and analyse. So I think we have a common task in front of us, as well as, I would like to say, a common opportunity perhaps to do something that will really make a difference in the lives of the children, who have the least voice but are often the most affected by the separation of their parents and the issues that arise around that.
As you remember, in our terms of reference we've been asked to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focus parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests. So I think we have a clear direction to our task and many opportunities to hear a variety of witnesses on all the issues related to it.
I hope that we will also have an opportunity to listen to some young people. I would remind you that article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that Canada has ratified states:
In one way, I see us as an appropriate body to speak on behalf of the child in this important issue, and I welcome the beginning of this committee and look forward to working with all of you on the issues before us.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.)): It's a pleasure, Madam Co-chair and members of the committee.
I think that for many of us this is a new experience, and I say that for two reasons. First, it's not often that the House and the Senate come together to form a committee to examine and study a topic. Second, for each of us this is an opportunity not—and I have to stress “not”—to comment on legislation presented by the Department of Justice, but to have some real input into the shaping and creation of law on a subject that is important to literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country.
As a joint committee of both houses, all of us will be asked from time to time to understand that the committee proceedings are not necessarily identical for each chamber, and in brief I would have to say that we will be asked from time to time to blend our procedural expectations.
It's equally important to realize that numerically and physically the House of Commons outnumbers and contributes financially more to this committee and that this reality will, of necessity, be reflected in the proceedings and the work of this committee.
I'm extremely pleased to be working with our Co-chair Landon Pearson, who, many of us know, has a great interest and has devoted much of her work to this area.
• 1120
During the period before the return of both chambers
in the new year we will hopefully be working to prepare
not only an agenda or outlines of our schedule of
meetings but an overview of how we might approach this
topic in terms of issues. This agenda, of course, will
need the approval of you, the members of this committee.
Finally, we would ask committee members to provide to the clerks of the respective Houses the names of any witnesses you feel are important to be heard.
[Translation]
As you are aware, we will have until November to carry out our duties and to complete our study. I know we can count on everyone of you for that.
[English]
Thank you very much.
We can now move to page 2 of the agenda, where a number of motions are proposed. One might characterize these as housekeeping in the sense of the formation of a committee and the work of that committee. I would ask if there are any who would care to move motion 2.1.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, as printed, I have some difficulty with that concept. I would prefer that we have some discussions about it and maybe just put that particular topic off to another session. It appears a little strong that the wording says the joint chairs are to be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings. I would prefer a much more collegial approach, perhaps in the form of a steering committee. But we don't need to argue that now. I think we need to discuss it in the interim. Maybe we could just put that topic off till the next meeting.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): This is not a motion, because it hasn't been moved at this point. You have attempted to discuss it, but it hasn't been moved. If someone would care to move it, or not to move it, it's the pleasure of the committee to determine that.
Senator Anne Cools (Toronto-Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think he has suggested the item not be dealt with at all. So the issue to be decided is whether or not a motion should be put.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): As you know, Senator, I called for proposals or for anyone to move it. He is discussing a motion that is not before us.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion that we adopt a steering committee, somewhat in line with how other House of Commons committees operate.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Is that a motion?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, that is a motion, and I have a seconder.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): I'll ask the clerk, then, to state the motion.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Richard Rumas): If I understand Mr. Forseth correctly, he is proposing the establishment of a steering committee for the special joint committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Is there any discussion on this before we call the vote?
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I think we need further clarification on the motion, to the effect that the steering committee's role with the agenda would be to invite witnesses. As phrased here, it would be the role of the steering committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Any other discussion?
Senator Anne Cools: Chairpeople, perhaps I could have a note of explanation. I don't know that much about joint committees, but I do know something about committees, and most committees tend to have a steering committee. Could I find out perhaps how a decision was made not to bring forward a proposal for a steering committee in this particular instance?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): During this session there have been two other joint committees of the House and the Senate, and in both cases the normal practice has been not to have a steering committee. Bear in mind that whatever agenda is proposed must be approved by the full committee.
Mrs. Finestone.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience to serve on three joint committees of the House, on official languages, Term 17, and section 93 of the Constitution. In the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, we have a steering committee that is actually composed of vice-chairmen from three or four political parties. It has been my experience that that has been a very effective way to work. On the two special committees dealing with constitutional change, this particular approach was used but it was not effective. In the end, to write the report and to have the fullest collaboration and input, a member of each of the parties in the House was on that drafting committee.
• 1125
So I think the motion put to the floor is a good
motion, but I would suggest that one keeps in mind that
representation on that steering committee should
reflect the nature and the composition of the political
parties in the House. It's the most comfortable way in
which I found to work, and in the end it was
productive.
Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand that the two committees that had the joint chair situation were under very strict timelines, and that was why the particular option was chosen. We are perhaps in a little different situation, but I appreciate the comments you have just made and I hope the vein in which we can proceed is a more collegial, cooperative one.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Could you explain that a bit better? I don't understand what you meant about the languages. Did you say there were four people?
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: On official languages?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There are the joint chairs from the Senate and the House—Madam Cool and myself—and we have, what is it, five vice-chairs.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): We have five there, and we have five more, because there are seven on the steering committee. Each political party is represented.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): So there are seven.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: On the steering committee.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If I may add to that, the creative thinking from the various members and from their political perspectives has proved to be very constructive and very helpful. It has moved the agenda forward in what I would consider to be a very helpful way.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): If it's being put forward as an amendment to the original motion, I would second that amendment. If it isn't being moved, I would move that it be considered by the committee as an amendment.
I think it's only fair that the standing committee reflects in some way the composition of the committee itself. I think the proportionate representation of all the parties is necessary. I can see no other way in which the committee could operate.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If I may, we quite specifically had a Conservative senator from the Senate, we had one NDP, Bloc, Conservative, and Liberal member each from the House, and a Liberal member from the Senate.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: And the Reform Party.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Oh, pardon me. I forgot. Yes, of course—and the official opposition, Reform, and it worked extremely well.
We had a Liberal member from the House and the Senate, so that was two; from the House we had the other parties; and then from the Senate we had the Conservative senator.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Did you have a quorum within that steering committee?
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: What was it? Do you remember?
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: I think it was four out of the seven.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I don't know what Ms. Finestone did in the past, within her other committee, but what I find somewhat odd here is that there are two Conservative members on the steering committee. If all the parties are to be represented, I find somewhat odd that the party who has the lowest representation in the House can have two members on the steering committee.
[English]
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I didn't say that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Excuse me, but I wonder if we could first deal with the motion that is before us. I would propose it this way—
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There was only one Conservative on there, Roger. If I wasn't clear, the Conservative member named by the committee of the whole happened to be Senator Rivest, who is a Conservative member of the upper house.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): With your agreement, perhaps we could approach it this way: we will proceed to vote on the motion that is before us, which is to form a steering committee. If we could have a vote on that, then we perhaps could have a motion, and the clerk has a proposal to deal with it so that it's representative not only of both Houses but of the political make-up of the House.
• 1130
So with your agreement then, I would call for the vote
on the motion, which is that we will form a steering
committee for this committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Then I would call for a motion for the formation of a subcommittee. What the clerk has proposed, based on the experience in other committees, is that the steering committee would be comprised of the two co-chairs, one person from each of the opposition parties in the House and one opposition senator from the Senate.
So repeating it, it's the two co-chairs, one member of each of the opposition parties in the House of Commons, and one senator from the opposition in the Senate.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Might I just suggest, to make it simpler, that it be comprised of a representative to be named by that party, regardless of whether that person is representing the Senate or the House of Commons? I think that might make it simpler. The party itself would designate who their representative might be. We're drawing any lines at this committee level as to whether people are senators or members of the House, so why should the subcommittee be any different?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Do you want to move that then?
Mr. Peter MacKay: I so move, Mr. Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Is there any other discussion on that?
Mr. Paul Forseth: I think that solves our problem.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): We'll call the vote on that then.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Richard Rumas): Mr. MacKay has proposed that the subcommittee be composed of a representative from each party represented on the committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): For clarification, is he including the two co-chairs? The two co-chairs are Liberal members from each House. So then there's one other person from each party to be decided by the party. Is that correct?
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Richard Rumas): That's correct.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Are there any other questions or comments?
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): It has been pointed out to me that we will now have to move to amend the wording as printed in section 2.1 so that it would read.... I'll ask Senator Pearson to read it.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): It would read that the steering committee has the power to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings, and that the steering committee reports the decisions to the committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Could we have a mover for that?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I so move.
Mr. Paul Forseth: On a point of clarification again, I see the word “decision”, rather than how other committees work, whereby the steering committee really doesn't make any decisions. It does planning, but then brings its plans back for the decision of the whole committee. Perhaps substitute the word “recommendation”.
• 1135
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Okay.
Ms. Bakopanos, you'll agree to that? Okay.
Senator Mabel DeWare (Moncton, PC): Mr. Chairman, I find the steering committee definitely has to have the power to make some decisions on putting out the agenda—when you're going to meet, scheduling the hearings. They're asking us for our input into witnesses, and I know they'll bring it to the committee for their ratification, but there are some things that definitely the steering committee has to have the power to decide.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): The motion as proposed would change the word “decision” to “recommendation”. We're having a slight disagreement here. Which do you prefer?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's “to make decisions”, based on....
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Okay. So the motion is that the word “decision” continue to be in that motion as read by Senator Pearson. If there is no other discussion, I will call the vote on the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Number 2.2 is a call for a motion:
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): I so move.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): It further states:
In this case it's probably the steering committee rather than joint chairs.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): The next one is under the heading “Witness Expenses”, number 2.3. Having regard to motion 2.1, it should read that at the discretion of the steering committee, “reasonable travelling expenses...”. Then it would proceed as printed.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): This one could be the joint chairs, because it's very technical.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): All right, then we'll leave it at joint chairs.
Could I have a mover?
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You probably can do that, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to alert you to a potential problem.
Unless you two like to have very broad shoulders and take all the blame and all the misery, you will find.... I chaired a similar special committee of the House, and I can only tell you that it is not a very easy task. Deciding who you're going to hear and who you're not going to hear becomes quite a problem. So why don't you allow the steering committee to—
A voice:
[Editor's Note: Inaudible]
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Exactly. Don't leave yourself in that spot.
You can if you want. It's just a suggestion.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mrs. Finestone, then—
Mr. Paul Forseth: There are Reformers on this committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Go ahead.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): The other point in this potential motion is that if we are going to hear children, I think there would be times that we would need somebody from the organization, the child witness, and a parent or guardian who would come with the child, in the same way we do on the committee of persons with disabilities. Sometimes we also have to allow for expenses for the attendant.
I think it should be at the discretion of the chairs or the steering committee that sometimes this will be different if the witness is a child.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): So you're referring to the number two, that it may be expanded. Would you like to propose an amendment on it?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We can always re-amend this, can't we?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): We can, but it may be easier to do it at the front end.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Can you add to the motion that at the discretion of the steering committee it could be changed, if necessary?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Certainly, for a disabled person or for a child.
• 1140
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): The motion will read:
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I'm worried that leaves it open for every organization to now ask for three. I would rather be more specific and say “persons with disabilities, or minors, or at the discretion...”.
Senator Anne Cools: When there's a situation where we want to hear more than two, we will make an exception. But this is the guide that will be circulated by the committee clerks to individuals and organizations around the country. So let us stay with two, because most of the rules say two. If we need to hear three or wish to hear five, then we will make a decision in that instance.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It works, but it does not convey the message that we are expecting to hear from children in the same way the committee on persons with disabilities would make it very clear it would expect it to be enabling for those people to appear. That's all.
Senator Anne Cools: Two could be a child and two could be two children. Two could be anything we make it to be. But if you start to say more than two, each organization will then ask for more. In other words, you're setting the floor here.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson):
[Editor's Note—Inaudible]...on this. There are also guidelines in the Senate that state that.
Senator Anne Cools: This is what we always do. We pay for two and if we want to take three we then go to three.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): You make a special motion for that when the time comes.
Senator Anne Cools: Otherwise everybody is going to ask for three or four.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): I'll call for a vote on the motion then as printed, with the exception that “joint chairs” is replaced by the words “steering committee”.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): The next one, 2.4, is:
I understand the House of Commons does not print copies of proceedings.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Should we specify that both the English and the French versions must be printed?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Documents are always distributed in French and in English; this is not a problem.
[English]
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Madam Chairman, I don't know if we need this in the minutes or not, so I'd ask for guidance from your clerks. One of the more frustrating experiences is the fact that the House does not print Hansard copies. Certainly members of committees in the past have found this to be not very helpful. It's very good for members of the House to have permanent copies, where you can have at least some reference. At least members of the committee who are in the House get copies from the Senate's numbers.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: We thank the Senate from depth of heart.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Would someone please move that we print 200 copies, which we will share?
A voice: So moved.
(Motion agreed to)
• 1145
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't know what directions or rules have been established. I would like to know, first, if this committee is going to travel and hold hearings across the country or not. Second, is this committee hoping to televise any of its proceedings? If so, I believe your agenda and procedures should outline the potential for travel.
You're showing me some piece of paper.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): I'm showing you the terms of reference, which have already been voted by both Houses. The terms and references say that we have the power to travel here and abroad, and then we have this thing about being empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting. So it's there, in the terms and references that were voted by both Houses.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry. It was only you who told me I was on the committee, so I didn't see the terms of reference.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Galloway): Ms. Bakopanos.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have a question about the time slot for regular meetings. Has that been decided? I sit on the justice committee, and it's exactly the time that it meets. Mr. Forseth and I believe other members who are present would have a conflict there.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We don't know yet, actually, what time will suit everybody best. I'm not quite sure how to proceed with this. One just puts down a time to set off the discussion, but it doesn't mean you're married to it.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I understand there's a problem, but the fact is that it was the Minister of Justice who asked for this committee to be formed.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): That's right.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The motion was moved by Ms. McLellan. All that said, the majority of the members present do sit on the justice committee, so could we make an effort at least to ensure that there is no conflict with the justice committee?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Of course.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Galloway): I think that Tuesdays at 3.30 is simply a suggestion. It's not in any way—
Mrs. Sheila Finestone: A point of order. I do believe, speaking for the Liberal side of the House, the question of the time slots is a serious problem for all members of the House. Bob Kilger, our whip, has indicated that the question is going to be studied in conjunction with the whips of the other parties of the House. I think we could perhaps make a recommendation to Mr. Kilger that he look at this issue and suggest the most convenient time slot, once he is given the knowledge from the other whips—who their members are that are sitting, what the committee conflicts might be. Could we perhaps delay setting that time slot until we come back in February?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes. I think Senator Cools has a comment too.
Senator Anne Cools: Thank you. I appreciate what Eleni had to say and I would like to reinforce that. On Tuesdays at 3.30 p.m. the Senate tends to be sitting. So I would ask all of us to bear in mind that the committee should try to choose a time when our chamber is not sitting. The issue I'm raising is not just that a committee is sitting; it's the Senate chamber itself. You have these terrible problems that everybody leaves the Senate chamber. I like to see bodies in the Senate chamber because—
An hon. member: For a change.
Senator Anne Cools: For a change? That's not true.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Senator Anne Cools: That's not true. The House of Commons calls quorum more often than the Senate.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Galloway): Senator, that was not a remark on the record. Secondly, I think we will have consultation amongst the respective whips of both Houses before we come back with the times.
Senator Anne Cools: Of course; that's what I'm saying. But I'm supporting the concern that we have to put some concentration into choosing the time. But I will resist anything bad that is said about the Senate.
While I'm at it, I observe that the scripting of the motions does not place the Senate first. The precedence of Canada is always the Senate and the House of Commons. This is the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, just so the committee staff will follow the rules of Parliament.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): I think we have to wait until we can figure out if there's a time when at least we can get a quorum.
Mr. Marceau, do you have another matter you wish to bring up?
• 1150
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, Madam Chairman. Under the heading "Other matters", I would move that any documents received be distributed only once they have been translated in both official languages. I will read my motion so that we can vote on it.
THAT the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated in both official languages.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): I agree.
Senator Anne Cools: That is the law. We cannot receive anything unless it's translated. There is no need of a motion.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): But if you wish to put it on the record....
You've moved your motion. We need a vote.
A voice: You'd like a written copy of the motion?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes, because the motion has been put on the table,
[Translation]
that is, THAT the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated in both official languages;
[English]
that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only when they've been translated into two languages.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Chair, I'm opposed to that and I'll tell you why. First of all, I think it's very common that all documents in both houses are always translated into official languages, and nobody opposes this. In fact, we encourage it to make sure it happens.
This motion will curtail committee business, because very often in other committees I sit on witnesses come forward with documents right in the middle of the proceedings, and that motion will not allow you to distribute them.
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): You can put them at the back of the room.
Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm saying I don't know if that motion is even necessary. For any documents we have had on committee, from all parties, we do everything we can to get them translated and off as quickly as possible. We all recognize there are two official languages and we do everything possible. So I don't even see why we need this motion; people will do that regardless.
Mr. Peter Mancini: As a new member, I have a question for the co-chairs. I see no problem, because that's the law, as indicated. My concern is for an individual or a group who wishes to submit something to this committee and whose resources are limited. Is it normal practice for the committee to do the translation of that report at their expense?
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes, it is.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: In reply to the question of my colleague from the Reform Party, since we have until November 30, 1998 to present our final report, people will have ample time to submit their documents early enough to have them translated here, at the House of Commons, which will allow us to work as conveniently as our English speaking colleagues, knowing quite well that most briefs are going to be written in English only, as usual.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Cools.
Senator Anne Cools: Chairpeople, I would like to speak against this motion because it seems to me that our governments have gone to a lot of trouble to position all the laws and rules that are necessary to guarantee appropriate and proper translation. I don't think it is properly in order for a member to be bringing a motion that will be guiding the behaviour or the activity of the clerk of the committee.
It seems to me it is sufficient and just and already very well stated that the committee is governed by the Official Languages Act and all the other rules and regulations and laws that govern how the two languages must be treated.
[Translation]
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: I agree with you, Senator Cools. Moreover, I think that such a motion would impose limits upon the different witnesses we might want to hear. The witnesses who appear before us don't always have access to translation services and I am concerned that such a requirement might limit them. They will not be permitted to present their views unless their documents are written in both official languages, which will not necessarily be easy for them.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn: With all due respect to my friends from the Bloc, I concur with the other comments that have just been made, and I also speak against this. We will be travelling in all parts of Canada, including Quebec. When documents are brought forward in French, by all means you should have them. I know we will get them as soon as possible, but we don't want to hamper or curtail.... There are two official languages, and at the end of the day we will all get all documents in both languages. So this motion is redundant.
• 1155
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Let me be more specific on that. First, I remind you that it is always possible, as my friend Peter Mancini mentioned, to ask the different groups to send us their briefs early before their appearance so that we can have their documents translated here; they don't have to pay for that.
Second, we are not proposing that witnesses be prevented to make their presentation in the only language they master; that's not what we are saying. We just want that, when we meet those people in their community, in the English speaking parts of Canada or in Quebec, everyone of us can at least have in hand the documents in their own language so that they can understand them and be prepared to ask questions. We do not want to prevent people to make their presentation in one language only. We simply want to be able to follow the debate in our own language.
Ms. Sheila Finestone: But if their documents have not been tabled yet, will you refuse to hear them?
A voice: But it's not possible for them to do it. That's the problem.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mr. Lowther.
Mr. Eric Lowther: I have to agree and differ with my colleagues here a little bit, from some personal experience I've had in committee, where documents have been brought forward from various witnesses in English only and some of the French-speaking people there had great difficulty in trying to keep up with the committee because they were in English only. I can sympathize with that situation. So I would speak in favour of the motion, although I wonder if we can't change it to something along the lines of “the committee will make the best effort to provide the documentation in both languages”.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): We have a number of problems that are inherent here, because when we start talking about “best efforts”, it's very difficult to define, as the word “document” is very difficult to define, because it could be an e-mail. Documents come in various forms these days.
If there's no more comment, might I propose two ways of dealing with this. We can either call for a motion to refer this motion to the steering committee, because we can sit here for a considerable period of time today and discuss this, or we can call for a vote on this now. I'll ask what the committee prefers to do. We could call for a motion to refer it to the steering committee for further discussion and recommendation back to the full committee or we could have a vote on it right now.
Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd sooner refer it to the steering committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): All right, if you want to make a motion, we'll—
Mr. Eric Lowther: I move that we refer this issue to the steering committee for a resolution.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: What do we do with this motion? Do we refer his motion to the committee?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): We refer his motion to the committee.
I call the motion that is to refer the motion before us to the steering committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): There being no further items on the agenda, this committee now stands adjourned.