Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of June 7, 2005
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 7, 2005
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m. for clause-by- clause consideration of legislation; and to consider the use of languages other than French and English in Parliamentary Proceedings.
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will be starting with the motion by Senator Banks that was referred to the committee. Presently, he is in attendance at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, but we have sent someone over to see if he wishes to come here for a few minutes. In the meantime, we will proceed. We will hear from both Heather Lank and Gary O'Brien. In due course, we will probably hear from Mr. Robertson who produced a paper which you should have received. If you do not have that, we will make that available to you. Ms. Lank's comments are also available in written format.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Deputy Clerk and Principal Clerk, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable senators, as you know, Senator Banks' notice of motion, which he spoke on in the Senate, was referred to your committee. At your meeting last week, you asked that the table present its views on both the drafting of the motion and some background with respect to clause-by-clause consideration in the context of Senate work. I will ask Dr. Lank, who is the Principal Clerk of Committees, to speak to the committee now.
[Translation]
Ms. Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate: I would like to begin by thanking you for your invitation to appear before you this morning.
Second, I would like to apologize because I prefer doing informal presentations rather than reading a text, as I am going to do this morning.
However, given the technical nature of the issue and the procedural precedents I will be quoting, in this case, it is better that I use a written text.
[English]
I would apologize for reading a text, but it is important that we cover the substance of the issue. I ask for your indulgence in allowing me to read this text which was prepared with the assistance of the table team, as well as drawing extensively on the work done by Jamie Robertson. I should like to thank him for assisting us with the precedents and practices in other jurisdictions.
Honourable senators, as you are aware, the issue of dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in committee resulted in a point of order being raised in the chamber on May 18, 2005. In her ruling, the Speaker pro tempore indicated that the Rules Committee might wish to consider the practice with respect to clause-by-clause consideration of a bill and the advisability that it only be dispensed with through leave rather than by motion to ensure that no rights to which a senator is entitled are unduly infringed.
The following day, Senator Banks gave notice of a motion to amend rule 96(7) to include provisions regarding clause-by-clause consideration of a bill that reflected the Speaker pro tempore's decision. His motion read as follows.
That the Rules of the Senate be amended in Rule 96 by adding, in subsection (7), the following:
In particular, clause-by-clause consideration of legislation shall not be dispensed with unless by leave.
This question was in turn referred to the Rules Committee for consideration.
It is my pleasure to provide the committee with some background on clause-by-clause consideration of bills in committee and to answer any questions senators might have regarding the practice of dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration of bills.
Beauchesne, in the sixth edition, at citation 760(3) notes: "...that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.'' Marleau- Montpetit similarly notes that, "...committees are said to be `masters of their own proceedings','' within the bounds set by the House that established them.
A committee, as a creature of the Senate, cannot undertake work without being duly authorized to do so by the Senate and cannot exceed those powers granted to it by the Senate. As rule 96(7) points out:
Except as provided in these rules, a select committee shall not, without the approval of the Senate, adopt any special procedure or practise that is inconsistent with the practices and usages of the Senate itself.
When considering a bill, a committee's role is to examine the bill "..with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable.'' That is a citation from Beauchesne, sixth edition.
It should be noted that the Rules of the Senate make no specific mention of clause-by-clause consideration outside a passing reference in rule 92(3)(b) which provides that, "when clause-by-clause consideration of any bill is before the said subcommittee, shall be in public.'' As a consequence of this, practices surrounding clause-by-clause consideration of bills may be governed by evolving Senate practices, with reference to practices in other jurisdictions.
It should be noted, senators, that practises in Commons committees are different from those in Senate committees. In Senate committees, witnesses on a bill are heard without any part of the bill having been called. After receiving evidence, the committee will then normally proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, although some witnesses, particularly government officials, may also be invited to appear again before the committee to provide additional clarification.
In the Senate, then, the hearing of witnesses and the clause-by-clause process are treated as two fairly distinct processes, although the one follows naturally from the other. In the House of Commons, however, the practice is as follows:
...the Chair of the committee calls Clause 1 for debate (or Clause 2, if Clause 1 contains the short title) to allow the members of the committee to hold a general discussion on the bill and to question witnesses, if any witnesses are appearing.
That is a quote from Marleau-Montpetit, page 648. This practice reflects specific provisions of Commons Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 75, although there may be divergences from this in the actual day-to-day usage.
When undertaking clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, committees will normally deal with the bill in an established order as set out in citation 690 of Beauchesne, sixth edition, with clauses considered first, followed by new clauses, schedules, new schedules, the preamble, clause 1, if stood, and the title.
It is, however, open to the committee to decide to consider a bill in a different way. Committees will often consider bills in a less formal fashion, sometimes grouping large numbers of non-controversial clauses and/or schedules, or the entire bill, into one motion. Indeed at times, committees have dispensed with clause-by-clause consideration altogether, simply agreeing to report the bill without amendment.
There is no standard decision-making process with respect to dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Sometimes it is done through a formal motion, moved and adopted by the committee.
[Translation]
Previously, the practice was to have the committee's unanimous consent. It goes without saying that the circumstances that arose around two weeks ago in the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources very rarely occur in committees.
[English]
It was indeed exceptionally unusual that there was a show of hands resulting in the adoption of the motion to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. In fact, we can find no other precedent where the decision to dispense occurred over the expressed objection of a member of the committee. As far as we know, that is the only precedent.
[Translation]
Practices in other jurisdictions indicate that there is usually a need to reach unanimous consent. In fact, I will be providing you with some examples of circumstances in which the process is similar during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. In other jurisdictions, it was determined that unanimous consent was the best way to proceed.
[English]
I will give you a couple of examples of processes not unlike clause-by-clause consideration where unanimous consent is indeed required in these other jurisdictions.
For example, it is important to note that moving amendments en bloc in the House of Lords requires unanimous consent. In describing clause-by-clause consideration of bills in the House of Lords, Erskine May explains:
The clauses of a bill are then considered in order, unless an instruction varying the sequence has been agreed to. The Lord Chairman first calls the amendments to each clause. When those have been disposed of, he puts the question that the clause, or the clause as amended, stand as part of the bill.
Where there are several consecutive clauses to which no amendment has been set down, it is the practice to put the question on all of them together. If a Lord wishes to speak to a clause or move a manuscript amendment he may do so when the group is called; in this case he should warn the Lord Chairman of his intention.
Amendments may also be moved en bloc provided that they appear consecutively on the marshaled list, that they relate to the same clause or schedule, that they are consequential on an amendment already agreed to, and that no Lord objects. If any Lord objects to amendments being moved en bloc, they must be moved separately to the extent desired.
In the Australian House of Representatives, after a bill has been read a second time, the House, or Main Committee, proceeds to detailed consideration of the bill. As explained by House of Representatives Practice, Fourth Edition (2001), the function of this stage is the consideration of the text of the bill, if necessary clause by clause and schedule by schedule, the consideration of amendments, and the making of amendments to the bill as are acceptable to the House or committee. This text goes on:
In the majority of instances leave is granted for the bill to be considered as a whole. The Chair asks, "Is it the wish of the House (Committee) to consider the bill as a whole?'' If there is no dissentient voice, the Chair then proposes the question "That the bill be agreed to.'' If a clause is to be opposed, the question on that clause is put separately and the bill cannot be taken as a whole.
These examples from other jurisdictions suggest that it is appropriate to have unanimous consent to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in committee.
The change in the rule suggested by Senator Banks would have the effect of clarifying both that dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill is an option for committees, and the circumstances under which it is appropriate for this to take place, thereby protecting the right of senators to move amendments in committee.
The impact on the actual operation of committees would be minimal, since dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill has nearly always been done with the unanimous consent of the members of the committee. However, it would ensure clarity and address the concerns raised in the Senate during the point of order on May 18.
After very careful consideration, I and my colleagues on the procedure team would like to respectfully submit a slightly revised text that would perhaps be more in keeping with the drafting conventions within our rules.
Our suggested wording for rule 96(7.1) would be:
Except with leave of its members present, a committee cannot dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I am going to provide you with a text in French that achieves the same outcome as Senator Banks' motion. The text reads as follows:
Except with leave of its members present, a committee cannot dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.
[English]
I look forward to answering any questions that you might have on this issue.
The Chairman: I believe the wording in Senator Banks' motion does not imply unanimous consent when it says "leave,'' does it?
Ms. Lank: That is in fact what "leave'' means, the unanimous consent of members present.
The Chairman: I should have known that.
Out of curiosity, and we do not need names here, but when this incident arose at a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, was it raised by one member or more than one member?
Ms. Lank: The vote was 7 to 3.
Senator Robichaud: A vote was taken.
Ms. Lank: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Did you relate the procedure followed in Committee of the Whole of the Senate?
Ms. Lank: No, I did not.
Senator Corbin: You did emphasize that the procedure in committees cannot go beyond what is provided for in terms of procedure in the house. I have had the honour of presiding over the Committee of the Whole in the Senate, and in all instances we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of bills. We may present clauses in blocks to ascertain if there is any objection to any group of clauses.
As I recall, there has never been a unanimous decision to adopt a bill as a whole. There has always provision for either clause-by-clause consideration or consideration of blocks of clauses; is that not a fact?
Mr. O'Brien: As clerk of the committee of the whole, I could confirm exactly how it is done. It is done very formally. It is done clause by clause and this is not only to give a senator an opportunity to voice an objection to a particular clause, but also to conduct the study of the bill in an orderly way. The discussion on clause 3 will focus on clause 3 and then senators will proceed to clause 4. We will not intersperse problems with the bill. Traditionally, it has been done in a formal way, that is, clause by clause.
Senator Maheu: In their studies, have either the clerk or the Library of Parliament come across a rule or practice whereby, if an amendment is rejected in committee, it may not be brought before the House or the Senate? Is that a practice?
Ms. Lank: That is the rule in the House of Commons. We have no comparable rule in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: I wish to express my support for the amendment. One of our key roles is to allow any senator to express his or her concern on any particular clause of a bill. If that were not done with unanimous consent, the majority could deprive any senator, who has a special interest in a clause, from tabling amendments or question a witness or witnesses who may either support or be against the amendments. This is a serious breach of what I consider to be the normal legislative, deliberative role of a committee of the Senate.
However, I am not sure that the amendment proposed by Senator Banks protects that right. As I read it, and I have the French version in front of me, it says:
[Translation]
In particular, the committee shall not dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill without leave of the Senate.
[English]
I read this to mean that the consent of the Senate does not mean the unanimous consent of the Senate. That means that the majority of the Senate could decide that on any bill there will be a majority consideration without amendment. You would deprive, effectively, the opposition, or any senators of the possibility of introducing amendments, which I suggest is a serious breach of the deliberate function of the Senate, either in committee or in the Senate chamber.
I prefer the suggestion that it has to be with leave of the members present, which means that any senator who wishes to express a different view, may maintain the normal procedure of proceeding by clause-by-clause consideration in the manner described by Mr. O'Brien. That would maintain an orderly debate or consideration of each and every clause of the bill.
However, if there is unanimous consent among members to dispense with that, that means that none of them on either side has an amendment to propose. In other words, it protects the freedom of the committee to be the master of its proceedings. It does not deprive a senator of his or her privilege to introduce an amendment if he or she considers that that is what should be on the record in so far as any clause of the bill is concerned. That same procedure is followed in the House. If that were not the case, the majority would rule all the time. If we had majority rule all the time, that would change essential elements of the legislative and deliberative function of the house. That is a serious situation with regard to decisions to be taken because it does not protect the rights of the opposition. The opposition means not only the official opposition, but also any senator, because that is essentially the nature of the house. The house has an adversarial nature. There are always pros and cons in any deliberation. If you prevent that from happening, you change the fundamental deliberative nature of the house.
I would support the proposal put forward.
[Translation]
Ms. Lank: We have done our best to word the text in such a way as to achieve a balance. We wanted to remove any possible ambiguity from the meaning of the text.
[English]
For example, we could use the word "present,'' that is, "except with leave of members present,'' not just "members.'' What if somebody asks about those senators who are not present on that day? We tried to word it in a way to be absolutely clear what needed to be done to allow that to happen. However, it is a matter of finding the balance. I would refer to the point Senator Joyal made that senators are masters of their own proceedings as long as they respect the rights of all members. This makes it clear that committees can dispense with clause-by-clause consideration as long as there is unanimous agreement. It clarifies the situation from both sides. Our effort was to find that appropriate balance in our wording.
Senator Joyal: I wanted to ensure that my reading of Senator Banks' motion was accurate. I do not see how you can request the consent of the Senate to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration. Once a committee has completed its consideration of a bill, does the chair return to the Senate and request the authorization of the Senate not to proceed? Would you get the authorization at the beginning of a study of a bill when you do not know what will happen during the hearing of witnesses? There was a practical argument in the proposal of Senator Banks.
The Chairman: I can advise that I have been informed that he is on his way over here now. We could give him an opportunity to respond to that question. He may be in agreement with the suggested amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I always have reservations about using unanimous consent because that gives all the power to one person to control what can happen within a committee or the House. Some circumstances would indicate that we should look at this issue more closely, for example, being able to see the clock and call it 6 p.m. without someone being able to delay everything until eight o'clock, only to have everyone come back for 15 minutes.
Let us come back to the consideration of bills within committees. If we were to amend the Senate Rules, as suggested, and if a bill contained 10 clauses — the title not being considered a clause — would a motion to have clauses 1 to 10 inclusively adopted by the committee, be in order under the Rules of the Senate? Would that be the same as dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration?
Ms. Lank: In the case of a bill containing 10 clauses, the title not being included, would a motion to the effect that clauses 1 to 10 be adopted be the same as dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Robichaud: Could the Chairman consider that motion to be in order?
[English]
Ms. Lank: I think it would require the unanimous consent of the committee. Returning to Senator Joyal's point, if a member of the committee had a motion in amendment to clause 3, for example, and the motion that was proposed was, "I move that we adopt clauses 1 to 10,'' clause 3 is no longer available to the senator to move an amendment. Of course, it would be the chair's call as to whether they were prepared to receive it.
Going to the spirit behind this, this would give any senator around the table, as a member of the committee, the opportunity to put on the table his or her motion in amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I understand what you are saying. However, if the Chairman finds himself in a situation in question, you are saying that the outcome could depend on the Chairman. Therefore our rules would change absolutely nothing. The outcome would depend entirely on the Chairman and the majority would determine the vote.
Ms. Lank: At the end of the day, for Senate committees, the committee is always master of its own fate. In the case where committee members would disagree with a chairman's ruling, then a motion to defer the decision can be put forward. It is true that those cases are always difficult. However, I believe that the spirit of the text is very clear. All senators should be able to put forth motions of amendment to their colleagues.
People may not always agree. Procedure is an art, not a science. There are always grey areas. However, I think that the wording of a rule provides a clear indication of its intent. If someone has a motion for an amendment, then they should be able to present it. In such a case, the chairman will indicate that a senator has a motion and he will then ask if any committee member has a problem with that motion given, for example, that it affects clauses 1 to 10. If a senator answers in the affirmative, then the chairman will ask that senator to identify the clauses he or she has a problem with. For example, clauses 1 and 2 may be grouped or clauses 4 to 10 may be grouped so that the senator will be able to present his motion of amendment.
In my opinion, the process has a certain amount of flexibility, in all regards. This is an issue of balance and it always comes down to the chairman's discretion and ultimately the consent of the committee. It is an issue of respect. I believe that the rule illustrates the spirit of that respect. Obviously, there can be debate, as there always is.
Senator Robichaud: You are telling me then that my motion would be considered in order by the chairman. If it is in order, then it can be debated and, in that case, there will have to be a vote.
[English]
Ms. Lank: Perhaps I could speak to that. Again, I am somewhat uncomfortable with trying to put myself in the position of a chair, which I am not. If a chair received that motion knowing that this rule is in place, before he or she puts the question, she could remind senators of rule 96 (7.1) that requires unanimous consent for a motion of the type, and ask, "Is there agreement that this can proceed?'' At that point, she can put the question as opposed to simply putting the question without reminding the members of that particular rule.
Senator Robichaud: I could then change my motion to say that clauses 1 to 9 shall carry. There are all kinds of ways of doing this. I am making the point that this will not change much. We should take everyone's views into consideration. We are here to discuss things and the rules are here to assist us. I am a rule junky. I follow the rules.
Ms. Lank: It is important to reiterate the point I made at the end of my presentation, which was the impact of this rule change will be minimal since dispensing with clause-by-clause consideration is almost always done with unanimous consent. We can find no other example where, against the express objection of a member of the committee, the committee proceeded to dispense.
Senator Robichaud: A precedent was established in that committee.
Ms. Lank: Absolutely, senator. I am suggesting it is not, by any stretch, normal practice. This rule change is an important message and a reminder but, in practical terms, it will have little impact. Most committees, out of respect for their colleagues, will not dispense if there is any possibility of an amendment.
The Chairman: Does anyone know if this 7-3 vote was along party lines?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, senator.
Ms. Lank: I do not know.
The Chairman: I am hoping Senator Banks shows up, to respond to this important point. I have sympathy for the point Senator Robichaud is making of allowing one, solo ranger to hijack the committee. It is reasonable to have the consent of both sides, the government and the opposition. I do not know how to word that, but I am nervous about solo hijackers. Senator Banks can hopefully clarify that if he shows up.
Senator Di Nino: I am also having trouble with this. Along the lines of Senator Robichaud's comments, I too was offended by the actions taken at that committee. I do not think that should ever happen again. However, I do not think this will clarify the issue, for me anyway.
What are we trying to accomplish? I understand the provision of unanimous consent, but it may seem more like expediency, that is, "Let's deal with this as quickly as possible,'' which is not something committees should be doing. That should not happen in committees.
I would much rather see a system along the lines Senator Robichaud suggests where we have agreement. If we take our time, nobody will disagree. Many times we have seen the chair of a committee put a large part of a bill to senators. He will ask, "Will clauses 1 to 52 carry?'' The response is, "Yes.'' Then he asks, "Does the title carry?'' That response is also in the affirmative.
What will be accomplished by this change, other than the fact that we lose the discipline of going through that very short time-consuming process of passing a bill in that fashion? Now there must be leave to dispense with clause-by- clause consideration. I am not comfortable with that. It will not save any time.
The Chairman: Senator Di Nino, if the committee were dealing with a bill with 200 clauses and a member has the right to throw a wrench in the works, just one person, and force every one of the 200 clauses to be read, does that seem like a cost-effective use of time where, apart from that one member, you would have a clear consensus?
Senator Di Nino: Explain to me how this rule would change that if that person were opposed?
The Chairman: I defer to the table officers to respond to that because they speak with greater authority.
Mr. O'Brien: The purpose of this rule is to bring a greater degree of formality to committee procedure, which does not exist at the moment.
Senator Di Nino: Answer my question. I do not want to be in that position because I have my own problems with that.
The chair has given the example of a bill with 200 clauses where a senator asks for leave to dispense and one senator does not give leave. How does that change the system as we now know it? A member can still insist on not giving leave and requesting that every clause be called. What are we doing here?
Mr. O'Brien: If the rule is adopted, it is clear that a bill will be dealt with clause by clause, not, for example, clauses 1 to 9. Clause-by-clause consideration cannot be dispensed with without the consent of every member of the committee.
The Chairman: That is a straitjacket.
Senator Stratton: I have been involved in a situations where a senator has insisted on clause by clause. That is the right of every member of a committee. As Senator Joyal points out, you cannot take that away. You can agree unanimously to adopt the bill without clause by clause. That is your choice. It is clarified here.
I am in support of this because it will prevent what just took place at that committee, whereby a majority said, let us get rid of this, over three senators' objections. That is fundamentally wrong.
Senator Di Nino: I do not have my answer, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Would you have felt differently if most of the opposition members, all but one, or all of each side other than one member, felt differently?
Senator Stratton: That does not matter. If one senator objects, that is his or her right.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I do not have an answer to my question.
The Chairman: Some of these are rhetorical questions.
Senator Di Nino: I am asking how does it differ. Is there a difference? Can I have some expert witness answer that?
Ms. Lank: I can try to speak to it. In what way is it different from the current situation? First, in practical terms, it will change virtually nothing because it is almost always done now with unanimous consent. However, the difference is, if one senator does not want to dispense, and wants to proceed clause by clause, he or she now has that right. The majority vote to dispense will no longer stand. It protects the right of every member of the committee to have clause- by-clause consideration, if he or she so chooses. That is the difference in practical terms.
In my opinion, it does not remove the ability of the committee, again with leave, to deal with more than one clause at a time. Let us say that a senator does not want to dispense with clause-by-clause but does have an amendment to propose to clause 6, then the other clauses could be grouped and clause 6 could be dealt with separately. With unanimous agreement, that is not a problem. That flexibility remains.
Members of a committee, if they have a motion in amendment, will know that, under the Rules of the Senate, they will have an opportunity to present amendments to their colleagues and to have those discussed at the table. That door will not be closed by the majority. That is the difference.
Senator Di Nino: If I were at the centre, I could ask that each clause be amended. Is that right?
Ms. Lank: Of course.
Senator Di Nino: I still have that right.
Ms. Lank: Absolutely.
Senator Di Nino: It is not really any different.
Ms. Lank: You have that right now out of respect but not by rule. In theory, if you wanted to amend every clause and somebody moved a motion in committee to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration, even if you have a whole stack of amendments, based on this precedent, the majority could simply tell you to bring those amendments to the chamber. This clarifies that situation. This clearly states that, if Senator Di Nino wants to move motions in amendment, he has a right to do so and the majority cannot shut him down. He has an individual right as Senator Di Nino to say, "I am going to move motions in amendment and you have to give me that chance.''
Senator Di Nino: Therefore, if somebody wanted to be disruptive, they could be disruptive.
Ms. Lank: Yes.
The Chairman: I would like clarification on one point. You talked about a member wanting to introduce an amendment. What would happen in the situation of a bill with 200 clauses and a senator says that he is in favour of 197 of them but he offers no amendments and just wants to vote against those three clauses? Must an amendment be proposed, or can a senator ask that three clauses be called separately, even though it is not a recorded vote? He just may want to say, "I want to be able to vote against those clauses.'' That would be the same thing.
Ms. Lank: The clauses would need to be called so that they could vote on those clauses.
The Chairman: An amendment is not necessary to have them called.
Ms. Lank: That is correct.
Senator Furey: I, too, had some problems with the notice of motion as stated by Senator Banks so I spoke to him about it. He informed me that what he was attempting to accomplish by stating that clause-by-clause consideration shall not be dispensed with without leave was the unanimous leave of the committee. The way it reads, it is more open to the interpretation that Senator Joyal gave; but Senator Banks' intent was to move that it be with unanimous leave of the committee.
Ms. Lank: Perhaps I can reread the wording because I think Senator Furey might have missed that.
Senator Furey: I am coming to that.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting inserting the word?
Senator Furey: No, I am just clarifying what he was saying — whether it was leave from the chamber or from the committee, because there is some confusion in the wording.
My question is: Are you satisfied that this particular wording, "...except with leave of its members present,'' imports unanimity?
Ms. Lank: Yes. In fact the word "leave'' is defined in our rules as unanimous consent.
Senator Corbin: I want to obtain assurance that the new wording would preclude the forcing of the issue by forcing a vote on it. In other words, this wording has the character of being definite. With one or two or three senators objecting, you cannot come behind, so to speak, and force the issue with a majority vote. The new wording will do away with resolving the issue by way of a vote in absolute terms. Do I read that correctly? I do not know if you get my point.
Mr. O'Brien: It should be clear that you proceed with clause-by-clause consideration unless there is unanimity. It cannot be overridden by a majority vote. To dispense with any part of the clause by clause would require unanimous consent. That is very clear.
Senator Corbin: You cannot come through the back door and call for a vote to reverse that.
Mr. O'Brien: You can always be clever with it. The beauty of our system is that you can be creative.
Senator Robichaud's very interesting motion, was that clauses 1 to 10 carry. There are only 10 clauses in the bill. By agreeing that they should carry, that means the bill carries. To say that the bill carries is almost the previous question: That the question be now put, that the bill carry. We know by our own rules the previous question is not permitted to be moved in a committee. You cannot move the previous question in committee.
It is essentially saying that you have to go through the bill step by step. As to trying to add more formality into our procedures, the reason committees do clause by clause is because, up to that point in the legislative process, senators are not permitted to discuss clauses of the bill. Second reading is a debate on the principle of the bill. You are not supposed to get into the clauses of the bill. You are supposed to talk about the broad concepts of the bill.
Only when the bill is referred to committee can a senator express difficulty with, say, clause 3 of the bill, or when the committee is actually going through the bill step by step, which is what a clause-by-clause process envisions.
Senator Corbin: Was that an answer to my question?
Ms. Lank: It is absolutely clear in the rule that you cannot do through the back door what you cannot do through the front door.
Senator Corbin: The requirement for unanimous consent puts a finality to that. You must then do the clause by clause.
Ms. Lank: Yes.
Senator Corbin: A vote cannot reverse that.
Ms. Lank: That is right.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Therefore, my motion to adopt clauses 1 to 10 would not be acceptable to the chairman. He cannot receive it. If he does, and we begin to debate it, then we have to have a vote, is that not so?
Ms. Lank: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Then the wording is not clear. We are often told that committees are masters of their own procedure. In my opinion, no change is necessary. I do not see a problem in being able to object and then proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. However, if someone, in order to complicate matters, decides to put forth a motion, what grounds will the chairman use to indicate that that motion is not in order?
[English]
Ms. Lank: Were I in the Chairman's position, I would suggest that the way to interpret it would be to say that the default position for clause-by-clause consideration of a bill is clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, and any deviation from that — the grouping of clauses, eliminating clause-by-clause, dispensing with it — would require the unanimous consent of the committee. The basic approach is that we do clause-by-clause consideration but, as long as all members present agree, it can be done in a different way. It leaves flexibility, but only with the agreement of all members of the committee. That is how I would suggest it could be interpreted.
Senator Di Nino: I was sympathetic to Senator Robichaud's position. I understand that this opens the door for someone who wishes to be mischievous.
Senator Stratton: That can happen now.
Senator Di Nino: Until this situation happened, you could have a vote on every clause.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, Senator Banks cannot be here because they have a bare quorum in the Finance Committee.
Senator Stratton: How many people do you have on your side and you cannot get a quorum?
The Chairman: I am not defending what is happening over there. We have a good quorum here.
Mr. Robertson will make a few points now.
Mr. James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Ms. Lank quoted most of the relevant sections from this material. This material is general background information about how the Canadian House of Commons, the British Parliament and the Senate and House of Representatives in Australia deal with the referral of bills after second reading to committee for clause-by-clause or consideration in detail. The relevant sections have already been referred to, so there is nothing to add.
The Chairman: Is it fair to say you are ad idem with what we have heard?
Mr. Robertson: The wording suggested by the table officers would certainly clarify the situation about whose leave is required, and it would formalize what appears to already be the practice in Senate committees.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, I would have liked to have heard from Senator Banks before disposing of this motion. It would be fair to give him an opportunity to speak.
The Chairman: A suggestion was made to me that the table officers draft a report to the Senate in support of the revised version for our meeting tomorrow. It would not be a long meeting, but perhaps we could ensure that Senator Banks speaks first and is told about the massaging that has occurred. Hopefully, he would be briefed ahead of time. Perhaps the clerk could undertake to do that.
Is that reasonable?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
The Chairman: In the meantime, we will have the clerk draft a report that we could be in a position to adopt tomorrow.
Is anyone uncomfortable with that?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: That is fine. Mr. Chairman, sometimes senators are detained and they cannot get to their committee on time. If the motion that is before us is passed and we decide to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration, that means that if a senator arrives five minutes late, we will not be able to reconsider that motion, even if that person had the right to reject it.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you mean a clause that had already been dealt with being reopened?
Ms. Lank: Just to clarify, let us say, for example, a unanimous decision was made to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration at the beginning of the meeting, and then a member of the committee showed up after that decision had been taken and wanted to present amendments and to reopen the consideration of the bill.
[Translation]
Have I accurately illustrated the circumstances you are referring to? My feeling is that, in that type of case, it is always possible for the committee to reconsider clauses before it reports to the Senate. The decision to open up the issue again would depend on the majority agreeing.
[English]
If a member is not present, he or she has no voice. If the members present say they are prepared to proceed by dispensing and someone shows up after that decision has been taken, they would require the agreement of committee members.
Senator Robichaud: May I make a motion for reconsideration?
Ms. Lank: Yes, and that would be decided by majority.
The Chairman: We are comfortable with having a report drafted on which we will hold off until we have given Senator Banks a chance to respond to the nuance. We will deal with that as the first item tomorrow.
Senator Joyal: Senator Robichaud raised his issue about the procedure in committee. There is a rule, or perhaps it is a convention, that a committee does not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration without 24 hours notice to its members.
Ms. Lank: There is no rule on that. The only requirement is that committees meet with public notice. I suggest that the rule that says that subcommittees must meet in public for clause-by-clause consideration of a bill clearly suggests the importance of it being done in public and with notice. There is no rule that explicitly says that notice must be given. It is much more a courtesy than anything else. No rule requires 24 hours. Indeed, sometimes the notice is literally minutes, and I know that can be a source of great frustration. There are political realities at play, and sometimes, unexpectedly, in the course of a meeting, members of the committee will decide that they have heard all they need to hear and that they are ready to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
The clerk will probably remind the chair that that was not put on the agenda and that the convention is that clause- by-clause is put on the agenda, and that the committee is well advised to do so. However, again, committee members are masters of their own proceedings. If they want to proceed, they may proceed. There is no rule outlining a minimum number of hours for notice for clause by clause. It is much more a courtesy and a convention.
Senator Joyal: I was under the impression it was more of a convention, which is why I raised the matter. I have been on the Legal Affairs Committee for eight years and that is the practice we have followed there. When we have heard our last witness, we normally postpone clause-by-clause consideration until the next meeting. In that way, all senators who have an interest in the bill are informed 24 hours in advance that the bill will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration so that senators have an opportunity to bring forward amendments or observations, depending on the situation.
[Translation]
Ms. Lank: In the case of committee clerks providing advice to the chairman, we suggest that if there is a likelihood of clause-by-clause consideration occurring at a meeting, then it should be on the agenda so that senators and members of the public are aware of this. If, after hearing witnesses, the committee decides that it is not ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration, that is its choice. It is better to proceed that way rather than put nothing on the agenda and then going ahead with consideration unexpectedly.
The committee always has the right to make that decision. However, we call upon chairpersons and committees to be vigilant and include on the agenda clause-by- clause consideration in case witnesses, senators, or other people have an interest in this. Normally, we suggest that any procedure should avoid surprises.
Senator Robichaud: We could have clause-by-clause study and that in committee I could propose that section 96.7.1 not apply for that meeting. Would that motion be in order? You said that committees are masters of their procedure.
[English]
Ms. Lank: Committees are not allowed to do things that are prohibited by the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Robichaud: It is not prohibited. It just says that. There is a difference.
Ms. Lank: There is a rule that says explicitly that a committee shall not dispense with clause-by-clause consideration, except with leave of the members present. In my opinion, a committee cannot then say, "We are going to vote or agree that the rules do not apply.''
If committees were to do that, there would be no rules whatsoever that apply to committees. Committees have to respect the Rules of the Senate that apply to them. In this case, there would be an explicit rule that says, "This is how you proceed, when it comes to clause-by-clause.''
Senator Robichaud: We do it in the house every time the adjournment motion is put. When we revert, we ask for leave to dispense with a certain rule.
Senator Di Nino: That is the house. It is not a committee.
Senator Robichaud: I know. Committees usually follow the practice in the house, do they not?
Ms. Lank: That is right, but not the exceptions to the rules in the house. It is fair to say that there is a difference. The committees are bound by the rules set for them by the Senate. They cannot choose to ignore the rules.
Senator Robichaud: The rules and the practices.
Ms. Lank: Yes. For example, by unanimous consent, the Senate can choose not to see the clock. I suggest that, if a committee chair were to say, "The Speaker cannot see the clock. Therefore I will choose to do the same thing. I will start my meeting at 2:30 and pretend it is 4:00,'' senators might say, "Wait a minute, you cannot say because the Senate can do it, you can do it too.'' There is a specific Senate rule that says committees shall not sit when the Senate is sitting, except if given permission to do so. That is a requirement imposed by the Senate on its committees. A committee cannot then choose to ignore it.
I suggest it is a parallel case. If there is a rule about it, committees have to follow it.
Senator Stratton: The Senate is about the protection of minorities. This is about the tyranny of the majority and what took place last week. As a fundamental principle, we should be against that kind of behaviour and allow each individual senator, despite it being a pain at times, to be able to invoke that right. We must protect that. It is a fundamental principle of this chamber.
What Ms. Lank has proposed fits that.
The Chairman: The draft report will be ready for tomorrow. We will try to ensure that Senator Banks is briefed as to the nuance and that he attends tomorrow.
The only other issue that we can deal with this morning is the Inuktitut issue. Since Mr. O'Brien was going to be here today, he has brought along with him an individual, whom he will introduce, who is coordinating translation facilities. It is important for us to have this information.
We have had discussions. We set up a three-person working committee who will talk with various officials in the Senate. I am still awaiting confirmation from the official opposition as to who they will designate. I hope to finalize that within a day or so. We can work on a few principles. I might even review my thinking after we have heard from our guests today.
Mr. O'Brien, would you please introduce everyone?
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, I have with me today Mr. Alain Wood, Director, Translation and Interpretation Directorate, Senate of Canada; and Mr. Serge D. Gourgue, General Director, Parliamentary Precinct Services, Senate of Canada.
Honourable senators, as you know, the question of Senator Corbin, deals with a proposal to establish a rule whereby a senator desiring to address the Senate in Inuktitut shall so inform the Clerk of the Senate at least four hours before the start of that sitting of that Senate, and the Clerk shall make all necessary arrangements to provide interpretation of remarks made in Inuktitut into the two official languages.
Two major questions are to be addressed. One, obviously, is the availability of our services to provide the translation of Inuktitut into both English and French. The other is how that could be physically accomplished in the Senate chamber with respect to the logistics of our present translation booths. We are limiting the discussion at this point to the chamber, although we are prepared to talk about committees as well.
The Chairman: But the motion just relates to the chamber.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
I propose that Mr. Wood now speak to you about interpretation.
Mr. Alain Wood, Acting Director, Translation Bureau, Public Works and Government Services: As far as interpretation is concerned, and whether a four hour notice is acceptable, it all depends on what you want. Let me give you several scenarios.
One scenario, for instance, would be to have interpreters on call all week long in case a senator would wish to speak at any moment. Another scenario would be to have an interpreter on call once a week. Otherwise, if you proceed in an ad hoc manner, as you have suggested, the interpreter's services may be needed any day, but not necessarily every day. In that case, an advance notice should be given. But in any case, you would have to tell me what your needs are and we would make sure that you get an interpreter.
In any case, a four hour notice is acceptable. I am more concerned about the quality of the service. From a logistical point of view, I have no problem with the advance notice.
Senator Robichaud: You say that you have enough staff, enough resources to provide the service on short notice.
Mr. Wood: Yes, we have the interpreters. But as it now stands, in a regular year, we do not know whether there will be 10 or 20 native language assignments, and that goes for the government as a whole. So it is very little. We really do not need native language interpreters very often.
As things now stand, yes, we do have native language interpreters. However, if their services were required more frequently because you want to provide interpretation in a new native language, we would have to see precisely how many native language interpreters there are out there. So there would be short-term and long-term implications.
Senator Robichaud: I have a technical question. Would interpretation, for instance, be done from Inuktitut into English or French, or into both languages, and then, interpreted again into the other official language?
Mr. Wood: As far as I know, if a senator spoke in his mother tongue, such as Inuktitut, there would be two interpreters. One working towards French and the other towards English, simultaneously.
Senator Joyal: When you say, and I am trying to quote you here, that you are more concerned with the quality of the service rather than the number of interpreters, what exactly do you mean?
Mr. Wood: There is a relationship between these two things. Today, there is not much need for interpretation in languages other than English and French. All of our interpreters working into English and French, and in some foreign languages, but not in all languages other than English and French, must pass a test to become accredited. But in the case of languages for which there is less demand, we cannot develop a test. So we end up with interpreters whose skills range from very good to average. If we were to bring in a language other than English and French, we would have to make sure that the interpreters are competent in that language. That might mean, for instance, hiring a full-time native interpreter, who would be responsible for the interpretation in that language.
Senator Joyal: We would need two interpreters.
Mr. Wood: In fact, we would need four interpreters per session. If you need interpretation from Inuktitut to French, you need two interpreters. Because, you see, interpreters work in shifts, they work for 15 or 20 minutes before the next interpreter comes on. So you need two of them. Therefore, you need four interpreters per session.
Senator Robichaud: We would have to limit the speeches.
Senator Joyal: Are there interpreters for native languages other than Inuktitut?
Mr. Wood: There surely are, and that is why I said we would have to conduct a more in-depth analysis. If we are lucky, we could find interpreters speaking more than one language.
Senator Joyal: So, for instance, the same person could master Cree, Iroquois and perhaps another language?
Mr. Wood: Yes indeed, but we would have to find such a person.
Senator Joyal: You say that advance notice of four hours gives you enough time to find someone. This means that if we call you at 9 a.m. and request an interpreter at 2 p.m., since the Senate usually sits from 1:30 p.m. or 2 p.m., that that would be enough time to find an interpreter for the afternoon sitting that day.
Mr. Wood: I believe so. That is why it would be important to know what exactly you want to do, and on the basis of your needs, we would act accordingly. We generally like to avoid having people on call, because they may be around or not. But if we can predict demand, we would have a contract with that person stipulating that he or she must be on call a couple of hours before a potential assignment.
Senator Joyal: So the person would be permanently available three days a week, for example, on the days the Senate is sitting.
Mr. Wood: Based on the formula, the interpreter might not want to have to be available all week because he or she might not get called in. Those are the terms.
Senator Joyal: The nuts and bolts.
Mr. Wood: Exactly.
[English]
The Chairman: On that point, we need a little more discussion on the technical viability and on the relative cost effectiveness. I suspect the differences in the various options might be quite dramatic. We should be aware of that.
Senator Di Nino: My question about the rotational and backup requirements has been partially answered. The job could not be done with only two interpreters, one in English and one in French. There would need to be some backup for illness, rotation schedule, et cetera. I will put on the record that we would need to have more than two people at any one time to do that.
I also wanted to ask about cost effectiveness. If there are people available, the cost would be similar to the costs that we currently incur for all other interpreters. Is that correct?
Mr. Wood: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: That might be expected. If I may, I would like to add something. As it now stands, we have about 20 interpreters, which is what we need to meet the demand. But do not forget that most of these people are not full-time interpreters. That aspect has to be taken into account.
I think that if we go ahead with this project, we will have to have more interpreters on hand. That would be a good thing.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I support Senator Corbin's motion but I would suggest that we not limit it to one native language. We are discussing that this morning but I wanted to make the point that I would be in support of expanding that to include additional native languages, provided there is the availability of translation and we are aware of the costs. If the costs are dramatic, we might have to reconsider the proposal.
The Chairman: I will speak to that in a moment.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
[Translation]
When you say that you now have a pool of 20 interpreters, is that for the Senate only?
Mr. Wood: No, it is for the entire market we serve.
Senator Corbin: The House of Commons, the Senate, the ministers?
Mr. Wood: The House of Commons, agencies, departments, everything.
Senator Corbin: Only 20 people?
Mr. Wood: For native languages.
Senator Corbin: How many official languages interpreters do you have?
Mr. Wood: Interpretation providers? About 100, that is a ballpark figure.
Senator Corbin: Can you also tell us a little bit about the budget involved? How much does interpretation cost for official languages?
Mr. Wood: An interpreter today is paid between $500 and $600 a day.
Senator Corbin: You also talked about standards for simultaneous interpretation, that is, an interpreter will work for 15 or 20 minutes, and will then be replaced by someone else for another 15 or 20 minutes.
But is it also not true that some interpreters are willing to work for an hour at a time? Is it a standard which is imposed on or required of interpreters?
Mr. Wood: These standards exist in two areas. Our employees have a collective agreement, and freelancers work according to international interpretation standards. Of course, there can be all kinds of circumstances, but that is generally the rule.
If, for instance, a meeting is extended or, perhaps it is impossible to find two interpreters for a particular sitting, the interpreter may agree to keep on working, but then his or her fees will change. However, these are exceptional situations.
Senator Corbin: May I ask you whether you have ever been involved in conferences, seminars or activities taking place outside of government, Parliament and its agencies?
I have just thought about the circumpolar conference which takes place once in a while, every two or three years, and which brings together Inuit people or people speaking Inuktitut around the North Pole. Languages other than Inuktitut are also spoken at these conferences. Have you ever been involved in that type of event, and how would it work there?
Mr. Wood: Not since I have held this position. Generally speaking, we provide the service to Parliament, to various courts such as the Supreme Court, to departments and agencies. If there is an international conference, we will provide the service if a department asks us to do so because the department is sponsoring the event or because it is taking place in Ottawa. But outside of that, we do not provide the service to conferences if the government is not involved. Therefore, I do not know how it works in that situation.
Senator Corbin: Do you have any idea how many federal public servants there are whose mother tongue is Inuktitut?
Mr. Wood: I cannot answer that question.
Senator Corbin: Do you currently provide interpretation or translation services in Inuktitut for departments?
Mr. Wood: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Is there a lot of work? Does it cost a lot?
Mr. Wood: Are you referring to interpretation?
Senator Corbin: Interpretation and/or translation.
Mr. Wood: There are about 20 interpretation assignments per year. That is not a lot.
Senator Corbin: Is it based on demand?
Mr. Wood: That is right. We get a request and provide the service.
Senator Corbin: Can you offer a quality service?
Mr. Wood: As far as native languages or more rarely used languages are concerned, we depend on the client's feedback. If we were to have a third language in the Senate, we would have to assess the skills of available interpreters because it would be important to provide a high quality service.
Senator Robichaud: Would you get a request for a full day's worth of interpretation?
Mr. Wood: I might get a request for half a day.
Senator Joyal: That is the minimum.
Mr. Wood: It is all based on competition. If someone needs interpretation for half a day, will the interpreter ask for half of $500? Perhaps not. However, it is possible.
[English]
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Acting Chairman: For clarification, am I correct in saying that there is a minimum time of four hours?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: Generally, yes. You may call in an interpreter who will only work for 15 minutes. But there are flat fees.
Senator Joyal: It is like a plumber.
Senator Corbin: It will cost you $75 just to get him to come over.
[English]
Senator Joyal: With respect, I have as much respect for the plumber as for the interpreter.
[Translation]
As far as the 20 assignments you mentioned earlier are concerned, can you tell us how many different native languages have been requested? That would give us an idea of the diversity of languages.
Mr. Wood: I would have to get back to you with that information. I do not have it with me now.
Senator Joyal: Is there more than one?
Mr. Wood: No doubt.
Senator Joyal: If the Senate decided to adopt Senator Corbin's motion, and if interpretation for Inuktitut was requested, what would you do tomorrow morning, practically speaking?
Mr. Wood: Everything I do is based on demand.
Senator Joyal: Let us say it is for Inuktitut.
Mr. Wood: I would hire a principal interpreter who would be responsible for that task — I do not speak Inuktitut, nor do the managers — and I would begin by looking at the interpreters available to us. We would have to build a capacity which we do not have at this point. That is what I would start by doing tomorrow morning.
Senator Joyal: How much time would it take before we can say that, starting on this date, we could probably proceed? I am just talking about the availability of languages, not technical availability, because I imagine Mr. Gourgue is the one who will answer that question.
Mr. Wood: Assuming the facilities are available, six months would be acceptable.
Senator Joyal: If a decision were made in June, for example, it would be a go in January 2006.
Mr. Wood: Yes. And if we encountered any difficulties, we could let you know.
Senator Corbin: Could it be less than six months?
Senator Joyal: It would be a maximum of six months?
Mr. Wood: If you had an event in town and needed aboriginal interpreters, we would find them for you overnight. At the Senate, we are talking about an institution that requires the provision of high quality service. That takes some investment.
[English]
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: I believe Senator Di Nino had a question of Mr. Gourgue. Perhaps you have some comments to make about the space.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Gourgue, could you give us an idea about the implications from a facility standpoint?
Mr. Serge D. Gourgue, Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Services, Senate of Canada: Overall, it can be done. It is feasible. Using the translators' standards, we would have to build two new booths for the chamber. We cannot extend the one on the fourth floor. It is maximized. We propose to relocate or add two booths in the antechamber. It would take more time because of the architecture involved, but it is feasible. It would take a year to do that. The cost would be $1 million plus. A lot of work has to be done in the chamber itself. Consultation has to take place to ensure that we do not alter the chamber or antechamber itself. With everything included, it would cost around $1 million.
Senator Di Nino: We are talking about adding two booths with visibility into the chamber?
Mr. Gourgue: Yes, that is what they have now.
Senator Di Nino: Would it be done in the antechamber?
Mr. Gourgue: Yes, that is what we propose at this time.
Senator Di Nino: We should get our folks to do more research and give us specifics.
The Chairman: We will have a working committee on this. When talking about that amount of money, there must be a fair amount of research.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Gourgue has suggested that a new translation cabin would have to be set up in the antechamber. Currently, the cabins are on the fourth floor level. What precludes you from extending the current cabins in the fourth floor corridor without having to spend $1 million?
May I just make another point? Interpreters, of course, want to see the person who is speaking. They want to see the body language as well. However, in any case, because of the current seating arrangement, the interpreters who cannot do that in terms of certain seating arrangements, for example, both Senators Watt and Adams are out of the line of sight of interpreters because of where they sit in the chamber, so that is totally irrelevant in absolute terms. We should not be too picky. We want to achieve an ad hoc accommodation to facilitate the work of those two senators. We do not need accommodations respectful of the heritage and architecture of the House of Commons.
Translation will be required only occasionally. The figure of $1 million is enough to consider scratching the whole project. That is not the way we want to go. First and foremost, we want to be practical in the delivery of service without having to spend that much money. We ought to go back to the drawing board with a view of doing just that, never mind the architecture.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Gourgue, am I to take it that currently, in the Senate lobby, there are two booths, one on the left and one on the right, each with a window on the extreme left and extreme right? That would mean, in practice, that we would have to build two other booths immediately adjacent to the existing booths.
Mr. Gourgue: The booths would disappear. They would be replaced by two eight square foot booths, according to the required standards.
However, as Senator Corbin was saying, the standards currently require there to be visual contact. Does the visual contact have to be physical or could it be done in another way?
I am just telling you the standards I am given to work with. It is up to the committee. There are a number of ways of doing things so as to minimize the architectural impact.
Senator Joyal: I understand there is a system that allows a camera to pan the Chamber. When a senator would speak, the interpreter would see the senator on screen and be able to hear. There is currently no such system in the Chamber. So we are not talking about that system.
Let us talk about the system we currently have. Let us talk about expanding the current system. As you were saying before, you would open another window on both sides, so that the interpreters can see the interior of the Chamber, of which they currently have a partially obstructed view. Because the person in the booth currently sees this or that senator through the window, but is unlikely to see me unless I am standing, and may only see part of me at that, but cannot really pick up on my body language.
That would mean you would put in another window where there already is one so that the interpreter can see the Chamber as it is. And you say that costs one million dollars.
Mr. Gourgue: The project per se, once it involves heritage infrastructure, like the Chamber, is costly because of the woodwork, et cetera. It takes skilled trades people to do it. For each technical system, it is around $100,000 per booth.
Senator Joyal: The console and all of that.
Mr. Gourgue: That is right.
Senator Joyal: Could you draw up a detailed budget so that we can determine what the unavoidable costs or site requirements are, particularly where the system would go?
Mr. Gourgue: The costs would largely be covered by Public Works Canada, because that is part of the building infrastructure. The Senate would have to pay for the equipment.
Senator Joyal: The Senate would pay for the technology, the console, the wiring, the equipment or whatever might be required, whereas Public Works Canada would be responsible for whatever is, as they say in civil law terms, attached to the building, the building itself, the architecture and the structural parts of the building. So part of the budget would be covered by Public Works Canada.
Mr. Gourgue: That is correct.
[English]
Senator Corbin: Are we talking about new booths on the second floor or the fourth floor?
Mr. Gourgue: In the antichamber.
Senator Corbin: That is an entirely different matter. The current booths are on the fourth floor. You go for the big dough right off the top by putting those booths in.
Senator Di Nino: Not necessarily.
The Chairman: This is just preliminary thinking. Nothing is carved in stone.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up, the thought came to mind, as the discussion was going on, that the request is to translate the Aboriginal language of Inuktitut and others when a senator is speaking in those languages. Will we also be looking at having the translation of English or French into that language? That is a totally different issue, because then you would need much larger facilities. We are only talking about translating the Aboriginal language. If we do it for one, you do it for the others.
Senator Corbin: I am not suggesting that. Let us put it that way.
The Chairman: I will speak to that in a second. Senator Maheu is the last questioner.
Senator Maheu: I believe we already have four possible languages in the Senate, as of today.
An earlier comment referred to an ad hoc installation. I strongly hope that will never happen. Thirty years ago, it happened with the French language.
[Translation]
We are starting to accept standards that are less perfect. Why would we do the opposite? If we must accept standards because the costs are uncontrollable for now, we must absorb the costs as we did for both official languages. If we open the door to aboriginal languages — there may eventually be four, but today we are talking about one language — then we must do it properly, respectfully, or not at all. That must be taken into consideration by the people who are responsible for the costs linked to installing the interpretation booths. Let us not start trying to determine the costs required in the end. That is where we went wrong with the two official languages.
[English]
The Chairman: That is more of a comment than a question.
Senator Maheu: That is a fact we must face.
The Chairman: I have one question to put to whoever should respond. Clause 5 of Senator Corbin's motion states that remarks in Inuktitut shall be published in the Debates of the Senate in the two official languages with a note in the Journals of the Senate explaining they were delivered in Inuktitut.
All of the commentary has been on the translation. Is there anything in this clause that requires a response? How manageable is that? Is it problematic in any way? Perhaps you could respond to that fifth clause.
Mr. O'Brien: Again, Mr. Chairman, as you just said, remarks made in Inuktitut shall be published in the Debates of the Senate in the two official languages. I assume from that that we are not doing a translation into Inuktitut. The script of Inuktitut will not appear in the Debates. There will be a note. For example, in our Fisheries and Oceans Committee, where Aboriginal languages have been spoken, a notation is made that the following remarks were made in that language. It can be tracked. That does not cause concern.
The Chairman: That completes this item.
Senator Corbin: I must react to Senator Maheu's comments. I give her full credit for her remarks on the principle. However, please keep in mind — and I believe I made this comment in my original presentation before this committee — that I am not suggesting ad hocery. This is new. We owe it to ourselves to go through a brief experimental period to determine with greater clarity what permanent fixtures we need. That is what I meant by "ad hoc.'' I do not want an ad hoc situation to become a permanent fixture.
To test this proposal, we must go through some experimentation. That would only be reasonable. We could all live with that.
The Chairman: We have a consensus that a three-person working committee will be drawn up because there are many details to consider. Further working meetings will deal with the details.
I am not suggesting for a second that I am seeking approval of any suggestions I make here today, but off the top of my head, I think the first thing they might do is develop a few principles, after a consensus, on which this working committee could proceed. We could start off with an acknowledgement of the principle that Aboriginal languages can be used in the chamber.
I would like to add another clause and ask people to think about it: particularly if the language is a senator's mother tongue. The reason I say that is that any person who is appointed to the Senate whose mother tongue is not a Canadian language should not be prejudiced by not being able to speak clearly. I would be inclined to specify any Aboriginal language as opposed to only Inuktitut. That is in response to a point Senator Stratton made. Where I would draw the line would be, if somebody wanted to make a statement in 10 Aboriginal languages, one after the other, I certainly would not think they should have a right to request 10 translators. We may need to define the principles.
We also must do it cost-effectively. Senator Corbin has already spoken to that.
We would start with the chamber. Whether or not it is extended to committees would be phase two. You crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. I hope we can establish this working committee as soon as possible. The opposition will advise me as to their representative.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Are we currently limiting it to Inuktitut? I am hearing some assertions and statements.
[English]
The Chairman: That has not yet been decided.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I think that decision should be made at some point, so that the committee can take the necessary action.
The motion mentions Inuktitut since we have two senators whose first language is Inuktitut. When I spoke on the motion, it seemed to me that Senator Corbin indicated that this was a starting point so that these two senators could speak in their own language.
[English]
The Chairman: Let me answer that. My thinking is that we not limit it to Inuktitut. The practical effect of the present wording is that the mother tongue would be Inuktitut. If someone were appointed to the Senate whose mother language was Cree or Dogrib or whatever, then he or she should fall into the same category.
The numbers will be probably quite manageable if we do it in a reasonable way. We have not made that decision. This will require more discussion. This working committee will have to do a fair bit of work on that.
Senator Joyal: I totally agree with your way of defining — to put it in the least legal term — the natural use of one's Aboriginal language. We would have to look into how it is defined in Bill 101, because the mother tongue may not be the language spoken by the person. It must be the mother tongue plus another factor. We will have to consider the definition.
The Chairman: Their heritage language.
Senator Joyal: We will have to look into the legal definition to prevent what you have said, that is, just because a person's mother was Cree he or she starts talking Inuktitut. It must be linked to the language that is learned and still understood.
Senator Corbin: We would link the two elements in the definition to circumscribe in the way you have suggested. That seems to be the practical way of doing it.
The Chairman: I agree. This working committee would come back to the committee as a whole with some recommended principles on how we should proceed. Then we would have a debate and try to arrive at a consensus. Some changes could be made.
That completes this issue for today.
Senator Banks is here. There is a slight nuance change that Mr. O'Brien and Ms. Lank have suggested to your motion. To ensure you understand it, I would ask Ms. Lank to walk you through that.
The one other issue that we could deal with tomorrow is the issue of whether or not we can use laptops in the chamber. You can reject that notion tomorrow, but Senator Gauthier did raise this matter. He wanted us to deal with it. We were unable to deal with it because we were preoccupied with the conflict issue. Now, Senator Mitchell wishes to raise it. I am not advocating it. We have had requests to review this. We have already agreed to Blackberries. We have a working paper which could be sent out tomorrow. Senator Mitchell should be advised and, out of courtesy, we may want to advise former Senator Gauthier in case he wants to come.
Do committee members wish to deal with that tomorrow if we are in a position to do so? We may choose not to do that, but the matter is properly before us.
Senator Robichaud: We need unanimous consent.
The Chairman: We do not need unanimous consent for that.
Mr. O'Brien and Ms. Lank will explain the subtle change to Senator Banks.
Ms. Lank: Senator Banks, we looked carefully at the wording that you had proposed and did some background research on precedents. After reflecting on it and discussing it within the procedure team, we wanted to ensure that the wording not only reflected your intention, but was also was consistent with the wording of other rules and was utterly unambiguous, to the extent that we could achieve that.
The suggested wording would be as follows, and the rule would be 96(7.1):
Except with leave of its members present, a committee cannot dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.
That would require that unanimous consent be granted by the members of the committee present at the time. We thought that would achieve your objectives and remove any ambiguity that might have been in the initial proposal.
Senator Banks: It does. I would to reiterate that I understand, and you have said, that it is correct that the term "leave'' means "with unanimous consent.''
Ms. Lank: Perhaps it would be useful if I quoted the rules.
Senator Banks: I will take your word for it. Assuming that is correct, that would be fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We did have some discussion about the facts. Was that a 7 to 3 vote along party lines?
Senator Banks: No; not absolutely; not clearly. There were people on both sides. That is beside the point, in my view.
The Chairman: It would not be to me. In any event, it is a fact I wanted clarified.
Senator Banks: In my personal opinion, it is improper, even if it were 7 to 3 along party lines, which it was not. I am assuming that those three members were voting against the proposal to report without discussion or without clause-by- clause consideration in the normal sense of that phrase.
We only can have democracy if the interests of the opposition, the minority or whatever you want to call it, are to some extent taken into account. Democracy does not consist of the simple rule of the majority and damn the torpedoes.
The Chairman: I agree with that. However, 7 to 3 along party lines would bother me much more than, say, 9 to 1, where the majority on both sides were in favour, with one opposed. That would not trouble me nearly as much as a 7 to 3 vote along party lines. It is a question of degree.
Senator Banks: Even if it were 9 to 1, and even if it were an obstreperous "nay'' in answer to "Do we have leave?'' I would still argue that it is better to err on the side of proceeding with doing clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: That is the route we are taking.
Senator Banks: I advisedly agree with the proposal.
The Chairman: Are we fine with that?
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest, it is always dangerous to suggest that because three so-called opposition members take a different attitude from the rest of the membership of the committee, that that is necessarily a party position. Strongly held views by three individuals are not always necessarily a party position. We ought to be careful.
Senator Banks: In this case, it was not.
The Chairman: I agree with you, but sometimes it is.
Senator Corbin: Sometimes it is, but I do not think you can generalize.
The Chairman: I am not trying to generalize. I just want the facts.
You have had distributed, whether you wish it or not, a draft report with respect to the laptop matter.
Senator Joyal: When do you intend to consider the proposal of the subcommittee on the issue of the languages?
The Chairman: I should like to do that tomorrow. I will await word from whoever is nominated.
The committee adjourned.