37-1
37th Parliament,
1st Session
(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)
Select a different session
Proceedings of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Formerly: The Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 4, 2001 The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:07 p. m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate. Senator Jack Austin (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum and we are ready for the conduct of today's business. There are two items of administrative business. To begin with, you will see a document about committee restructuring and the critical path, which was distributed by the clerk. This is a general design for our workload in dealing with that particular assignment from the Senate. I do not propose to discuss it, but I would ask you to look at it and provide comments with respect to the critical path. The second point is that the subcommittee on committee restructuring held an hour-and-a-half meeting yesterday. There was a very good discussion. We will continue to look at the three issues that concerned us and continue our discussion with the intent of merging our views with the general committee of operational design at an appropriate time. In that committee, we are examining how to address the scope of government operations and the way in which government and parliamentary operations deliver important policy and the operating consequences. For example - and this might interest, particularly, Senator Murray - one of the questions that we discussed was whether the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the right mandate in terms of the way in which reporting to Parliament is now done. We reached no conclusions, and, as you know, Senator Stratton and I wish to chat with you and your committee at a future time. However, I thought it would be interesting for you to know that the nature of our discussion looked at whether the departmental estimates that are tabled should be considered in the appropriate committees, rather than in the National Finance Committee. As well, we talked about whether the committee should have its mandate changed so that the reports of all officers of Parliament who report to Parliament, such as the Privacy Commissioner, the Official Languages Commissioner, the Auditor General, and so on, should be reviewed and taken up in National Finance. There are other thoughts in that direction. We also want to deal with the question of whether it is possible to consider a completely different operating circumstance for committees that would give them two different roles. We would have committees specializing in dealing with legislation, and then we would have committees that deal with policy analysis and policy development. Again, the idea is not fleshed out, and it may not work, but I want to give our committee a heads up. If you have interest in these subjects, Senator Stratton and I would be delighted to discuss them with you and develop our ideas. There is also the question of how to report to the people on whose behalf we are servants - the people of Canada - with respect to the work of the Senate. As well, and this is not a communications strategy I am talking about - there is the issue of how we meet public interest in the emerging policy questions. For example, one of the greatest issues today in Canadian political debate is globalization and its impact on the social value system. We are not focusing on that in the Senate. How do we create an operation that allows us to move quickly into issues that are of a policy nature and are of importance to the Canadian public? Senator Murray: You obviously missed our report on social cohesion. The Chairman: No, we were thinking of that as one contribution to our analysis. We have on our agenda today a brief discussion on the issue of disabled senators. I remind colleagues that by motion of the Senate that issue is formally before the Internal Economy Committee. We have had it on our agenda for some weeks and have advanced our discussion in this area. This will be our last review; it will come off our agenda today. In respect of the question of disabled senators, I am borrowing now from a discussion that was held yesterday with Senator Kroft and Senator DeWare. We have a small combined committee to review this question, but we had, as you know, reports in 1998 by this committee, and a special study by Senators Joyal, Kelly and Bryden, on the question of disabled senators. I think that - and bear in mind that the Internal Economy Committee wants to make a submission on senators' privileges to the Lumley group. We believe - and this is a repeat of many points you have heard and dealt with before - that it is in the interests of this institution that senators be able to make an effective contribution and that barriers to that effective contribution should be removed wherever possible. Those barriers would include permanent disabilities, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Senate by appropriate medical evidence. The individual person would be given an incentive to retire from the Senate without financial loss but would retain his or her full salary until age 75 and would continue to build a pension. After 75, the individual would be on pension, but in order to take that option the individual would have to retire from the Senate and leave a vacancy, so that someone else, who could do the work and carry the load, would be able to take his or her place. If the person were partially disabled and there was a medical reason to believe that he or she could come back to work after a period of time, a leave of absence with the approval of the Senate could be taken. We have not yet quite distilled what that incentive would be for them to take such a leave of absence, because the choice today is to report illness and stay on full salary. There is nothing to compel a senator to submit medical certificates and take a two-thirds salary. A senator can do that, but there is also an age difference - the public service plan is available only up to age 65. Thus, partially disabled senators between the age of 65 and 75 would not be able to have recourse. The Senate, therefore, needs to put something in place for those people and, perhaps, for the whole category of partially disabled people. Those are the outlines of an approach that we are considering to be presented to the Lumley commission, and, of course, to be recommended to the Senate before that is submitted to the Lumley commission. Senator Pitfield: Mr. Chairman, what are we absolutely clear about in respect of our authority in this area? The independent senator, perhaps, views this somewhat differently than the senator who belongs to a party. However, I would question that you could go as far as you seem to suggest that we impose. The Chairman: There is nothing compulsory in what I have outlined. In other words, at the moment the Senate has no authority such as the Judges Act provides to the judicial system. Under the Judges Act, a judge can be removed if such person is found to be unable to perform the duties of a judge for reasons of health. There is no such power in the Senate. Nothing in my comments suggested that we are seeking such power. However, if we were, we would probably have to have an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to enable that authority. Senator Pitfield: I suspect that is true, and likewise, the effort to imply to members the reasoning that we are into this is somewhat questionable - the use of the setting of conditions in respect of what is or what is not a characteristic for classification as an active or an inactive senator. Surely it is, at some point, up to the senator to determine for himself or herself what the appropriate definition is as an acceptable job or as a desirable job. Is it more desirable that a senator be present at the Senate or is it better that the senator be carrying out the word to parts of the country about the work that the Senate is doing? I don't think it is absolutely clear that it is one way or the other. The Chairman: Is that what you think Senator Thompson was doing? Senator Pitfield: No. But there was an undertone to the Thompson story, which left some people uncomfortable. The Thompson case was quite overwhelming, but had he been occupied elsewhere with the work of the Senate would that have been acceptable to the committee that was dealing with his case? The Chairman: I do not want to debate an issue that is not on our agenda at the moment. I want to discuss the question of disabled senators, rather than senators who have a different policy agenda than, perhaps, other senators might have. Your question is a serious one, and I take it as such. However, it takes us off the agenda, Senator Pitfield. Senator DeWare: We should, if we feel that we have the authority, explore this issue. It was brought to our attention by the ad hoc committee - the subcommittee that Senator Joyal was part of - and they used section 59 of the Parliament of Canada Act on which to base their findings, I believe. Section 59 states as follows: The Senate or the House of Commons may make regulations, by rule or by order, rendering more stringent on its own members the provisions of this Act that relate to the attendance of members or to the deductions to be made from sessional allowances. The report of the ad hoc committee goes on to say: Therefore, the Senate has the latitude to make the necessary regulations towards implementing a policy that would parallel a private disability insurance plan. This would provide the proper compensation to Senators incapable of attending to their Senate duties due to illness over an extended period. Senator Joyal, would you just reaffirm that that is what they based their recommendations on? Senator Joyal: Yes. The Chairman: With respect to Senator Thompson, the Senate's actions were based on the advice of the law clerk, with respect to the Senate's authority. Senator Joyal: I think it has been clear from the beginning for anyone who tried to understand the implications of a disability policy that there is no way that the Senate can put an end to the term of a senator who is disabled. The Chairman: That is correct. Senator Joyal: The Constitution is clear on the specific cases in which a senator does not find himself or herself in compliance with the Constitution of Canada, and, as such, subjected to disqualification. None of those three cases covers disability. If we want to express a policy over disability, it must be within the constraints of the constitutional provision, and it can be a suggestion for a senator to go through various steps and not be harmed financially. Thus, he or she always retains the right to attend to the work and the activities of the Senate. A senator could come to the conclusion with the support of independent medical advice, such as Senator Thompson has. As you know, he has a certificate, which was renewed every six months. If he had appeared at the bar of the Senate, as was requested by a resolution of the Senate, there was no way, in fact, that we could conclude that he was in breech of his Senate duty. That has remained the same. The approach here is to pay fair recognition to the physical condition of an individual who cannot really perform his or her duty on a long-term basis. There are various steps, as you remember, in the report that allow the flexibility to adapt and review the various steps, or various periods of time - six months, then two years and another two years - to draw a conclusion whereby the right of the senator is protected to remain a senator. The senator never loses his qualification; however, if a senator comes to a conclusion that he or she cannot perform his or her duties, he should not be penalized financially for that. That is essentially what we want to achieve. We should not question the right of a senator to remain a senator, if he or she complies strictly to the letter of the Constitution. The Chairman: I will take one more intervenor on this issue, and then I would like to move to the official languages issue. Senator Andreychuk: My understanding, and I would like your clarification, is that we are not going to get rid of the Senator Thompson type of problems. Anyone who wants to avoid our rules and who does not accept the collegiality of Parliament will still be a problem. I understood that the disabilities would refer to those senators who are genuinely ill so that we could give them some recourse to address that problem in an up-front way, and to receive some financial security. It does not preclude senators who would try to manipulate those rules for their own end. That is a different issue. I thought the rules were made for the senators who work within the Parliament, according to our rules, and who have a genuine problem that we are trying to solve. The Chairman: You are right. Our discussion is about giving disabled senators an option. Senator Andreychuk: The senator triggers it, not the Senate. The Chairman: That is correct. May we move then to the second item on our agenda, which is the question of the motion of Senator Gauthier, as amended, on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. Today, we have asked certain senators, who have participated in that joint committee, to give us their view of whether it is operating effectively, whether it could be made to operate effectively, or whether the motion by Senator Gauthier to establish, either in addition to or in the place of, a separate Senate committee on official languages is one that should be carried. In these circumstances, I have asked Senator Maheu, who is currently the Senate Joint Chair of the Joint Committee on Official Languages to give us her views. Senator Maheu: With all due respect to Senator Gauthier's motion and to his feelings about the Official Languages Committee, I have just recently been asked to co-preside this committee. From the time that I have been on the committee, I find it is not working the way that I was led to believe. In fact, I think it is working quite effectively right now. There are possibly situations in the past that made it difficult for some of our senators. By that, I think Senator Gauthier - and I will stand corrected if he disagrees with me - was referring to an attitude by the member from the Bloc Québécois and another member from the Reform Party, who, in the case of the Reform Party, does not like Quebec and francophones, period. At least, that was my opinion after witnessed their antics and actions in the House of Commons. As far as the Bloc is concerned, we had a particularly aggressive member from the Bloc Québécois as a member of the Official Languages Committee, and he did not want to hear anything about official languages. He was interested only in showing the government that nothing was working and that Quebec should leave Confederation. Therefore, I have a great deal of difficulty anticipating, at this time, that the committee will not work and that we should pull ourselves away from a joint committee, thereby dropping the House and let them continue on their own. I wonder where our credibility level would be if we made that type of gesture. I believe it can work and I would like to see it at least tried for this part of Parliament. If, at the end of this session, we feel that it is not going to work, I would like people to be really honest and open and not just use personalities as a reason for the committee not working. We are all Canadians, and we have official languages right across this country. Can the Senate handle it alone? Should we exclude the House? I do not think so. That is my personal opinion. I would like to hear the opinion of other members around the table. May I, should I feel the necessity, return to your committee? The Chairman: Certainly. How long have you been on the joint committee, either as a member or as the chair? Senator Maheu: It has been as chair for just under two months. I was a member at one time, when I was an MP, and it worked fine - the Bloc was not there. I must admit that part of the problem would appear to be travelling across the country and contacting groups. There are horrendous costs and the problem of dealing with them. How do we do that? I guess we have frustration because we are not getting out to the communities. That is part of it, and I can understand that. If we just do not have the money to travel, that frustration may just have to be borne. There was never enough money for travel for that committee. The government has to set its priorities and either we are behind the Official Languages Act or we are not. If we are, we may have to go back and say that if they want us to do something about it, and to show that we are interested, then maybe we will have to put the money where our thoughts are. The Chairman: In your experience as a member of the committee, in any capacity, have you have found that issues that senators wanted to include in the agenda of the joint committee were excluded for reasons of partisan politics or by members of the House? Are the issues that we want being placed on the agenda of that committee? Is the work that we wanted it to do moving forward? Senator Maheu: I feel that everyone around that table has one goal, and that is to ensure that the official languages are protected on both sides of the issue - anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. Are Senate issues really different than anybody else's? We are doing an opposition intervention and then a government intervention. MPs and senators both have opportunities to ask questions of witnesses. I have not seen a problem at that level. Mind you, I was not there when Senator Gauthier was there as a senator, so I cannot speak for that period. Senator Murray: I will preface this by saying that I think the role of the committee, as any committee, but this one in particular, is to hold the government to account and to ensure that the law and the policy are being properly implemented by the government and all its departments and agencies. On what will you focus for the next three to six months? Senator Maheu: The executive of the committee has decided that it may go to the public to canvass how they feel their official language requests are being treated: Do they have the opportunity and do they feel that the federal government is there for them, on one side? On the other side, it is not just consulting with the community groups, because if we are talking about federal services to the community, we are talking about an obligation - the law is in place, and it is specific. I have even requested that a special minister be named with the power to insist that the various departments do their job. I can think back to one example when I was there as a member of Parliament. Our leases in the National Capital Region are not obeying the law, and nothing was done to correct that issue. This time around, we will ensure that the problem is made public. There are things that we can do, but to succeed, we need a minister responsible for it and with the power to force the issue in the departments. That is one of the things that we will do. Senator Murray: There are a number of ministers who are responsible for implementing the act, such as the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of State for Canadian Heritage and others. I understand that you are going to the minority language communities and that is fine. How tight are you with the commissioner? We used to get our basic information from the commissioner, who had a staff and whose reports were analytical and very blunt as to how well the government was performing on service to the public - on equitable representation of the two language groups in the public service. In 1988, we added the obligation, or the power, for the federal government to use the spending power in aid of community groups. I am not saying that you do not need to talk to the communities, or have them into talk to you, but our raw material, to some extent, was the commissioner and his reports. Ministers, frequently deputy ministers and heads of Crown corporations came in to answer for their actions and to keep us advised of their plans. Senator Maheu: That is still part of the basic plan. The rapport that several of the members of the committee have with the Official Languages Commissioner - Ms Dyane Adam, would appear to be developing. Ms Adam attends all of our meetings; she is there for us if we need her input on any topic. Her report will be studied and part of our mandate is the examination of Part VII of the act, government support to official language authorities. That has probably risen as a priority with the seven members of the executive, but it does not mean that we will not look closely at Ms Adam's report. The Chairman: May I make a point with respect to procedure? We have four senators who are present today at our invitation, and they will address these issues. I wonder if you would allow me to allow each of them to make their comments, and then we will have a general discussion? Would that be agreeable? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: I will call on Senator Bacon now. [Translation] Senator Bacon: I have not been a member of this committee for very long. Some opposition parties in the House have chosen to replace certain committee members who were causing problems with more approachable individuals who can discuss official languages in an intelligent fashion. Until now, I have not had any first-hand knowledge of these big problems that some other members have experienced. It is important that we attend meetings, consider what is happening and study the commissioner's report. The latter is an important document. Since we are just beginning our work, we have yet to examine it. We should wait until the spring to see how things work out with the new committee members and then make a decision as to whether we need a separate Senate committee or a House committee, or whether we can still work together. For the time being, it is difficult to say what is best. If a decision were made to go with two separate committees, we would still need to meet occasionally, since we are working on the same issue. We cannot be completely removed from the House of Commons. We need to work together from time to time, if only to adjust our game plan. We are responsible for an important and sensitive issue across Canada. We are trying to improve the way government departments and agencies address this issue. It is our responsibility to enhance people's awareness of official languages so as to ensure their compliance with the legislation. To my mind, it would be premature at this time to set up separate Senate and House of Commons official languages committees. I think we should wait until the session ends in June before we decide and revisit the issue. Senator Beaudoin: I agree substantively with Senator Bacon. If the joint committee continues to operate as it is now doing, I have to admit that I would have some reservations. As far as procedure goes, particularly for the Senate and maybe even for the opposition is the Senate, it is somewhat questionable. In the past, we have had joint committees that have worked very well. One such committee was the joint committee on section 93. I have some reservations about the proposed procedure. This being said, there is always room for improvement. We can change the way we hear from all parties, opposition and otherwise. We must never lose sight of the fact that there is an opposition in the House and in the Senate. We can make changes for the better. I know a separate Senate committee could do some excellent work because of the smaller number of members. We are accustomed to working together and we know one another well. I am sure that we could do an amazing job. On the other hand, the House of Commons and the Senate would have to get together on issues, which leads me to believe that perhaps we would be better off to stick with the joint committee format until June and give the joint committee - and certain new members - a chance to amend its rules of procedure slightly. As I see it, while we should give the joint committee a chance to prove itself, some reforms are definitely in order. If we do succeed in finding a way to make the committee run more smoothly by June and if we can show that there has been some improvement, then I think that is what we should do. If things do not work out, I might be tempted to go with a separate Senate committee. The problem, however, is that if we have two committees, they will have to get together on certain issues. Official languages are a fundamental component of Canadian legislation. However, I think it would be best if we tried to work together for another two or three months. Senator Setlakwe: I am also relatively new to this committee. I am happy that there is a joint Senate and House of Commons committee that tackles official language problems. I agree with what Senators Bacon and Beaudoin said. Should a disagreement arise on the joint committee, I would have some concerns about setting up separate official language committees at the Senate and House. I much prefer to have a joint committee that works well. [English] The Chairman: What happens if it does not? Senator Setlakwe: If it does not, then I guess we have no choice, but it will create many problems. It is my view that we will, as someone suggested, have to meet with the Commons sooner or later on such a touchy issue. I would prefer that we do it amicably now, rather than be forced to do it later. The Chairman: I invite Senator Joyal to comment. Are there other senators before I call on Senator Gauthier? [Translation] Senator Joyal: When the Joint Committee on Official Languages was first set up, senators Gauthier, De Bané and myself were MPs. I always felt that the Commissioner of Official Languages was the backbone of committee work. The Commissioner is an officer of Parliament and has responsibility for advising Parliament, namely the House of Commons and the Senate, on initiatives that need to be taken and on progress achieved in promoting linguistic equality in Canada. I have always believed that this was the priority consideration. The focus of this committee is the essential contribution of the Commissioner of Official Languages, just as the focus of the public accounts committee is the work of the Auditor General of Canada. At the outset, the aim of this committee was not to examine various questions at random. The work was structured. The joint chairs would meet with the commissioner at the beginning of the session and agree on a work plan based on the report. The commissioner was asked which areas he felt Parliament needed to intervene in in order to achieve progress on this front. In other words, he was asked to identify areas that needed more urgent attention. The commissioner would also focus on target groups to ensure the growth of communities. From the outset, the committee operated in a structured way. Over the course of one or two sessions, we heard from the officials in charge of the services identified and from various witnesses and ultimately, we would agree to monitor the situation on an ongoing basis. Committee members were loyal to the committee. After listening to Senator Gauthier speak on several occasions, I realized that things had changed considerably from the days when the committee operated so efficiently. I think we need to face the inevitable. On the one hand, as senators, we must be satisfied with the advice of the officer of Parliament who is responsible for advising us on matters of linguistic equality. On the other hand, the commissioner of Official Languages must reasonably be satisfied with the work of the committee. The committee and the Commissioner have a mutually beneficial relationship. There is give and take on both sides. If the committee is unable to structure its work in such a way that action on the report's recommendations is possible after one year, then it has not met its stated objectives. As members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, we must assume our responsibilities on the official languages front. Ideally, both chambers work together. That was the original concept behind the committee and it worked well when the political parties represented on the committee acknowledged the principles contained in the Official Languages Act. When you sit down at the table with representatives of two political parties, one of which wants to abolish the Official Languages Act, and the other to transfer jurisdiction over this area to the provinces, it becomes impossible to achieve a consensus and to make any kind of progress. What are we to do? Senator Gauthier was justified in asking this question. It is a fundamental question. We need to hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages, our special witness who works for us. Without going so far as to ask her to do away with this committee - I do not think that such a decision is hers to make - she can advise us on how the committee should be structured. In my view, this would be the most reasonable approach to take in order to fulfill our responsibilities in matters of official languages. Committee members alone cannot be responsible for the future of the committee. They may be on the front line, but we have to consider the structure which supports the implementation of the legislation's objectives. [English] The Chairman: We have a new commissioner. Are you suggesting that we invite the commissioner, who is just recently retired, as well as the new commissioner, so as to cover the scenery? Senator Joyal: Absolutely. The Chairman: Senator Poulin, and then Senator Gauthier. [Translation] Senator Poulin: I would like to thank the joint chair and the members of the joint committee who are here today. As members of the Committee on Privileges, Rules and Procedure, it is important for us to be able to listen closely to people's views on the roles, operation and responsibilities of the joint committee. I would like to make three comments. The first concerns the principle at issue, the second, the process and the third, responsibility. To begin with, I would like to express my support for my colleagues who thanked Senator Gauthier for raising an issue that is so important to the Senate. He has stated repeatedly that the raison d'être of the Senate is to represent the interests of minorities and of the regions. The members of the Senate are unanimous in acknowledging the responsibility of senators, individually and collectively, in this matter. My second comment concerns the process and at this time, I would like to speak directly to Senator Gauthier. Agreement had been reached on a decision-making process, on whether or not to move immediately to set up a standing Senate committee on official languages. I hope that Senator Gauthier is still comfortable with the decision to take the time to hear the views and recommendations of the members of our chamber who serve on the joint committee. As I understand it, the chair of the joint committee has tabled a proposal which calls for the joint committee to continue operating until June at which time the situation will be re-evaluated. I am as passionate about official languages as Senator Gauthier. It is vitally important that the principle of official languages be upheld from coast to coast. I hope that you find Senator Maheu's proposal to be reasonable and practical. Thirdly, I would like to address the issue of responsibility and I would like to speak to you as the former Vice-President of Radio-Canada, a position I held from 1983 to 1992. As such, I was called to testify before the joint committee. One has to understand the position not only of the commissioner, but of our agencies, our department and minorities across the country. I took my appearance before the joint committee very seriously. Opportunities to give evidence before such committees were quite rare. We were more likely to testify before House committees. To be quite honest, reporting on our activities to a joint committee impacted the decision-making process in an organization like Radio-Canada. Senator Gauthier: I am pleased to see people express so much interest in the committee. Senator Beaudoin speaks with authority, given that he was a long-standing member of the committee. The committee has been sitting for three weeks or one month. Let us be honest. I cannot believe that you will pass judgement on the effectiveness of the committee's work after only three weeks. You cannot say that you will travel across the country. We have always been opposed to this idea. Like any other thing, it would merely attract critics, but it would not be that productive an exercise. It is better to bring the witnesses here for questioning. I would like to explain my frustration with this committee. When I was appointed to the Senate in 1994, the committee operated smoothly for one year. I became ill in 1996 and was absent from the scene for approximately two and a half years. I read all of the evidence and minutes of proceedings of the committee during my illness. I had nothing else to do. When I returned, I resumed sitting on committee. What else was I to do? I followed the work of the committee very diligently during this time, but not much happened. I have been involved with this committee from the very beginning. For the past two years, this committee has not been fulfilling its mandate. The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages has yet to be examined, despite the fact that it was presented to the committee last October. I doubt very much that we will get to it before the summer because all kinds of issues keep coming up for discussion, such as the broadcasting of the House proceedings. The Senate is not involved in this debate, but the House is. Those senators blessed with a corporate memory will recall the subject better than any Member. Senator Maheu co-chaired the committee yesterday and the questions asked by senators were as good, if not better, than those raised by Members because senators know their facts. They have worked on this matter. We are not being difficult just for the sake of it. I will admit that this is a complex issue. As far as the committee is concerned, the most important person has to be the Commissioner of Official Languages. Admittedly, Ms Adam attended yesterday's as well last week's meeting. Last week, she was here as a witness while this week, she was here as a participant because she was interested in the subject matter, having published a report on broadcasting last fall. This may be of interest to the House of Commons, but as far as the Senate goes, the impact is nil. I have attended every single meeting . There have been three so far. Nothing much besides CPAC was discussed. I would have preferred to see the committee turn its attention to the Commissioner's annual report tabled last October. It is a very good report. We have not had a report for 18 months because the term of Mr. Goldbloom, Ms Adam's predecessor, was extended for less than one year. Ms Adam, in turn, was appointed commissioner less than one year ago. There have been no discussions about the Commissioner of Official Languages' annual report for the past two years. As circumstance would have it, there were elections. I realize that, but last year and the year before that, I had suggested that we strike a separate Senate committee. I firmly believe that the Senate has the corporate memory, the capability, the knowledge and the personnel to review the report in depth. Instead, we are spending time focusing on some of the problems the House of Commons and its speaker have encountered, because he controls broadcasting. He is the person who decided not to make sub-titles available because it is too costly. He decided that only Question Period would be broadcast and that sub-titles would be in English only. Why is that? Ostensibly the decision was made for financial reasons. I am tired of hearing the same argument. We are dealing with serious perception problems and many of these problems originate with the House of Commons. I think it is up to them, not us, to solve their problems. I am pleased to see Senators Maheu, Poulin and Bacon here and to note their interest in this matter. I have no problem with this. Quite the contrary, in fact. If you want to defer this matter until June, go right ahead, but I will watch closely to see where the decision is coming from. If it comes from informed people speaking with conviction, that will be fine, but if the contrary occurs and we discover that our sole purpose in being here is to say that we do not need a separate Senate committee and that the joint committee works just fine, that would be rather unfortunate. I agree that the Senate needs to speak out clearly on issues that affect official languages. Currently, we are seeing a kind of vacuum. [English] The Chairman: I will ask Senator Maheu to end this discussion, and then we will move to the in camera session. Senator Maheu: This committee, as it stands now, has had three meetings. The Official Languages Commissioner will be asked to report. However, the members have to understand that there is an executive of seven members; it is not just us - there are seven people. They wanted to study CPAC and the CRTC, so I will not say that they cannot do that until we speak to Ms Adam. I have to wait. She will likely attend next week or the week after. I cannot just say that they have to do what we want them to do - it is a two-way street because there are two chambers represented in this committee. What happened in the past and years ago I cannot do anything about. All we can do is hope that this time we can make the joint committee work, and if we have to spend a year studying Ms Adam's report, fine, let us do it. How can we say that it is not going to work before we even try it? The Chairman: I would like to ask colleagues about Senator Joyal's suggestion that we invite Ms Adam and perhaps Dr. Goldbloom to discuss the operation of the joint committee. Is that something that we are ready to agree to at this moment? Senator Maheu: It is up to the committee, is it not? Do you want to invite them here? The Chairman: Yes, here. Senator Maheu: Is that what you suggested, Senator Joyal? The Chairman: Does anyone have any objection? It strikes me as a good way to proceed. Senator Beaudoin and then Senator Bacon. [Translation] Senator Beaudoin: You say that there is a seven-member executive committee. How many senators serve on this committee? [English] Senator Maheu: There are nine members. Jean-Claude Rivest and I are on the executive committee of the seven members. [Translation] Senator Beaudoin: Two senators out of a total membership of nine? Senator Maheu: Two senators out of a total of seven members. Senator Beaudoin: You told me there were nine members. [English] Senator Maheu: He thought we were talking about something else. Senator Bacon: I would just suggest to the committee here and, respectfully, that you invite Ms Adam, who is the commissioner. If you need more information, maybe you can ask Dr. Goldbloom. I think that Ms Adam can answer all your questions. The Chairman: She has been in office less than a year. Senator Bacon: Yes, but she can answer all your questions and discuss this with you. The Chairman: Senator Gauthier? Senator Gauthier: I like Senator Joyal's proposal of bringing Dr. Goldbloom, mainly because he was there for seven years and has a good idea of how the committee should operate. Ms Adam has had only three meetings with the Official Languages Committee. She has not met with the committee since, so she does not have much experience with committees. The Chairman: I will take up this discussion with our steering committee. I would like to go in camera now. Senators, of course, are welcome, even if they are not members of the committee. I want to keep the translators and the reporters. I ask everyone else who is not on the staff of this committee to leave. The committee continued in camera.