Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 6 - Evidence, March 27, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:38 a.m., pursuant to rule 86(1)(f)(i) of the Rules of the Senate, to give consideration to the notice requirements for questions of privilege, to the reinstatement of bills and to a draft budget.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have two items to discuss. One is a budget that requires our approval, and the other is the reinstatement of bills. You have all received a summary of the discussion, I would now invite questions and comments.
Senator Smith: I think there is a consensus on a practical, bona fide procedure that allows bill to be reinstated in an efficient way, without any negative prejudice; not just a wide open, automatic procedure. It is basically that simple.
The Chairman: I agree with you, other than the fact that we have to give the staff some direction. They asked a number of questions; for example, should reinstatement only apply to government bills, or to private member's bills? Should the reinstatement be automatic? What kind of mechanism do we need to verify that the bill is in the same form? It is in those areas that I thought we should take some time this morning to give direction to the staff so that they can prepare a draft report for us in the near future.
Senator Smith: In the case of government bills, the assumption would be that the government still wanted to proceed with them.
The Chairman: That raises the question of whether this should be done by way of a motion by the sponsor of the bill and/or the government, if it is a government bill, each and every time.
Is it an automatic reinstatement? I agree with you. This is what the staff is saying, so let us help them so they can help us.
James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: I was going to draw your attention to that paragraph at the bottom of the English, page 2, which I think was Senator Fraser's intervention, on which we did not have time to arrive at a consensus. There was clearly no interest in an automatic reinstatement. The feeling was that it should be applicable to public and private bills introduced by individual senators as well as government bills introduced in the Senate and that there should be an automatic review to ensure that the bill was in the same form as it had been at prorogation. It is my suggestion that that would be done by the Speaker. There would then be an individual motion for each bill. This could be done now.
Senator Fraser suggested that for a new process there would be a built-in time frame regarding how long that motion could be debated before it came to a vote in the chamber, the idea being that this facilitated reinstatement.
If you are interested in that suggestion, we can prepare the report and draft wording for your review after the Easter recess.
The Chairman: A working draft is fine.
Senator Smith: That is reasonable. Not everyone may be in sync with the odd point, but that is the gist of it. Otherwise, we will probably have to have a steering committee rather than going through the whole thing clause by clause with the whole committee. I would be content with that suggestion, and then come back with a working draft that we could fine tune.
Senator Cordy: You summarized the proposal very well. You reflected what we discussed at our last meeting, that reinstatement should not be automatic. Whether it is a working group, the steering committee or whatever, we can go forward with a draft.
Senator Andreychuk: I question the point that you said Senator Fraser raised regarding a cut-off on debate. Why, in this motion, would we have a time limit, closure? Why are we thwarting the debate of individual senators, including independent senators? We did not explore that issue well enough to satisfy me that this was an unusual circumstance that would warrant such action.
The Chairman: Some senators have expressed, probably clearer than I have, frustration at having to reintroduce bills three or four times. It became apparent to me on a bill that I was putting forward that there were those who were opposed to it and used unique opportunities to delay. I like that notion of «reasonable» so that a person would not be allowed to be unduly mischievous in delaying a bill, for whatever good or bad reason. I have sympathy for her comment.
Senator Smith: I would suggest, Senator Andreychuk, that if the staff are to prepare a working draft on that point, why not have two or three options, one of which would encapsulate your concept? We could then decide which made sense. However, in the meantime, give us some choice on that one.
Mr. Robertson: Without speaking for Senator Fraser, I think the idea is that this is a fast-track mechanism to get a bill to the same point it was at prorogation. At some point there must be a decision as to whether it is better to start again from square one and go all the way through the legislative process rather than let it leapfrog to where it was at prorogation. If the debate to reinstate is going to go on for as many hours as people want, perhaps it would be better to start with introduction, first reading and so forth. I believe that is the only reason a built-in time frame was a suggested, but we can certainly provide options. The idea would be to allow a reasonable period for debate, not to limit debate unduly.
Senator Andreychuk: Except in whose judgment do you do that? We are then presupposing that the dynamics that played in the previous sessions would replay themselves. Who gets the heads up that a bill was unwillingly passed or enthusiastically passed? We have the debate all the time in which we say that as senators we are all of equal weight, but we know that under our rules one or two people can adjourn a matter.
It is a conundrum not only for this issue but for everything. We either live with that process and respect the independence of all senators, or we start imposing these finite rules that will restrict all of our privileges. If we are going to do it here, we had better do it openly and know what the consequences are when we start down the slippery slope.
The Chairman: If I understand correctly, we are instructing our staff, based on the last paragraph plus the discussions that we had, to prepare a draft report. That is further than I thought we would get this morning.
The last item on our agenda this morning is the consideration of a draft budget, which has been circulated. It concerns the other issue with which we have been charged, and that is the use of ancestral languages. It is felt that it would be useful for the committee to see this in practice and a budget application is being prepared for a visit to Yellowknife and Iqaluit. I was asked why we would not go to the Yukon. The Yukon does not use languages other than French or English.
I was informed this morning that the sittings in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut unfortunately do not coincide, so we will change our plans to reflect a visit only to the Northwest Territories for now and then decide whether it would be of value for us to go to Nunavut as well.
Senator Smith: If committee members find this budgeted amount a bit rich, I am happy for you to blame me. My initial thought was that perhaps the steering committee would go. However, in our discussions, a consensus developed that all members of the committee who want to go should be able to do so. We have been grappling with this issue for a couple of years. There seems to be a consensus that we would have a trial period with Inuit members who speak Inuktitut. Some believe it should be at a level parallel to French and English. With the number of people involved in doing that, we are talking about significant costs. On the other hand, there are also versions where a member gives reasonable notice.
Is reasonable notice several hours so that we have to have people standing by all the time? Is it several days? When the committee dealt with this matter in the last session and I was chairman, we canvassed all the Aboriginal members. For example, Senator Dyck indicated she did have some language ability in Cree and would like to be able to make a statement in Cree on occasion, perhaps two or three times a year. She indicated that she would be happy to give a week's notice. There are others who think they should be able to do it at almost any time.
We want to show great respect for Aboriginal languages. We want to do something practical but also cost effective that we can defend because these are public dollars.
We do want to visit these two legislatures, and the one that has grappled with the issue of Aboriginal languages the most has been the Northwest Territories. I felt that I wanted a first-hand, close look at how they deal with it practically and cost-effectively. Do you negotiate with a whole bunch of unions, or do you contract the service out to some outfit that does it when necessary?
I thought the steering committee should go this fact-finding mission, and we gradually thought all committee members should be entitled to go, if possible. When you consider the cost impact over many years, once it is in place, it is a big decision that warrants having done our due diligence ahead of time and in a practical, fair and cost-effective way. That is the gist of the issue.
Senator Joyal: I was saying to Senator Hays that in the 10 years I have sat on the Rules Committee, we have never travelled and there has never been an appetite for travelling.
I was thinking of two other options. One would be to bring in witnesses from the Northwest Territories or Iqaluit. The would come here to make a presentation, or we could hear from them via video conference. I raise that opportunity as an option that would be less expensive.
The other option would be to form a subcommittee of our group. We could invite any senators who want to be on the subcommittee to identify themselves, and this small group would draft a report when they come back. I feel that we must peruse the other option before agree to send 19 people.
The Chairman: It is a tough issue.
I have visited the North on a personal basis a number of times. Three or four years ago, I went to visit a gentleman that I had met who was at that time a member of the legislature of the Northwest Territories. It was enlightening to live the experience and see the setup. He introduced me to a number of people, and I think they had to deal with seven or nine different languages.
I believe that a personal visit would be of value. I did not do that in Nunavut, although I have been there as well on personal visits, nothing to do with the government or the Senate.
The Northwest Territories was an enlightening experience that raised this question in my mind at that time. I would encourage a visit as opposed to inviting witnesses to come here or take advantage of their visit here on some other occasion.
As far as the number of people travelling, Senator Smith correctly identified the dilemma that we had when we discussed this matter. We originally felt that we should ask permission for the steering committee or a small group to go. It is tough to tell members of the committee that they cannot go. That is why we are presenting a budget suggesting that all of them, if they wish to come, should have the opportunity, although we fully understand that probably not all will go.
Senator Losier-Cool: Mr. Chairman, with respect to drafting a budget that allows all those who want to go to do so, it is like any committee that plans a budget to travel. All members of the committee are permitted to go if they so wish.
[Translation]
They have the right to go if they want. Of course, not all the members of the committee will necessarily be able to make the trip. That happens any time a committee travels.
As for the second question, I know the reason for the meeting. It is about fact-finding, and about Aboriginal languages. If it is really about looking into all the different languages spoken, I have to point out that francophones in the Northwest Territories have in the past complained to the Official Languages Committee that, as an official language, French did not have its proper place among the languages used up there. So it would be interesting to hear from them in this fact-finding. We just have to find the French-speakers. There is a francophone association, and a French-speaking community in Iqaluit, and in the Northwest Territories.
[English]
Senator Keon: I do not want to delay anything, but I have some apprehensions that we do not know what we are getting into here. The brief notes we have refer to the ancestral language of the first inhabitants of the land, and I do not know how many ancestral languages we have.
I have had the experience in my previous life of providing translation services for people from the North and some of the First Nations people, and it was fine when we had advance notice that these individuals were coming. We had the people in place. However, when we did not have advance notice, it was a difficult story because there seemed to be so many dialects. Also, sometimes the translators could not cope with the witnesses because of the different dialects.
This initiative has to be framed. The committee should know how many ancestral languages we think should be accommodated. Recognition and accommodation are two separate issues, and then we should take the necessary steps to deal with it.
I do not know what this whole committee could learn by spending time in Iqaluit. I have been there a few times myself, and it is not an easy place in which to gain information. There are not a lot of resources up there. We might be better off bringing the necessary people here.
The Chairman: It may be of value if we circulate the information that we have gathered and the results of the debates, which have been going on for a couple of years, just to refresh our minds on the issues Senator Keon has raised.
To focus the discussion a little, we are talking about the Senate. We are talking about providing services only when members of Aboriginal communities are in the Senate and for those who wish to take advantage of the opportunity. No decisions have yet been made.
I think it is fair to say that, generally, there is a consensus that, as Senator Smith stated before, it would be on a trial basis with one language. If we cannot do it right, we will not do it at all. We will ensure that there are qualified interpreters to do the job. In addition, it will always be with notice, at least at this stage. It is also important to remember that we are opening a door that could lead to an expansion of services as time passes.
I think it may be useful — and this is more for the staff — to send around the information that we have gathered, which has been over the last couple of years.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In my opinion, we are now at the point where we should be exploring every avenue to satisfy Senators Watt and Adams. Clearly, we cannot deny them the right to speak their own language; by the same token, other senators must be able to understand what they are saying. This is absolutely not about whether we should or should not do it, it is more about finding a practical way to do it, and correcting the situation.
I agree that an expense of $110,000 might perhaps cast a shadow over our efforts to cut costs and re-establish our credibility in the eyes of the public, but perhaps we could adopt Senator Smith's suggestion that a group of three could go to see what is happening. But I am embarrassed with the talk of a fact-finding mission, because there is no interpretation in the country's two official languages. I feel strongly that Senate committees should always have interpretation in both official languages — even when they are travelling. A fact-finding mission is cheaper, but I really do not like it.
To sum up, I think we have to stop discussing whether or not we should be satisfying Senators Watt and Adams; we must make every effort to correct the situation. Some senators would, I think, argue that Aboriginal people have the right to use their ancestral languages. On what basis could that right be refused? I believe that we should do it.
[English]
The Chairman: Before calling on Senator Smith and Senator Andreychuk, I want to make a clarification. This is a maximum budget amount. I do not expect it will all be used. Yes, it does budget for interpreters, in response to your question.
Senator Smith: I want to respond the point raised by Senator Keon that perhaps we do not know what we are getting into. Actually, we have a pretty good feel for what we are getting into because we have studied the legal obligations thoroughly and come to the conclusion that there is no law preventing us from doing this if we as a chamber decide to do it.
We decided out of respect for Aboriginal languages that we want to make a statement about how important this matter is to our culture, our tradition, what we are all about as a people. We want to show some kind of recognition.
We also know which Aboriginal senators have a facility in which Aboriginal languages because we did a survey. Basically, we know that virtually all of them, other than the two whose mother language is Inuktitut, are quite content with a system whereby they would give perhaps as much as a week's notice and we would have an agency that can contract this out. There will be some work involved in identifying who would be the right translator, but we have a pretty good feel for that right now.
There is some lack of consensus on how far we go if we experiment with Inuktitut. Is it just in the chamber? What is the required notice period? Is it there all the time? Do we extend it to committees? Do we get into a huge apparatus similar to the two languages we have now? There is no consensus that we go that route without a trial period.
I came to the conclusion that I will at least go to Yellowknife, regardless. If I have to use points, I do not mind. Some committee members feel, on principle, that we should not have to use our own points.
This matter has been before us for a couple of years now. Some senators affected by it do not think we are proceeding with due diligence, and I am always sensitive to their concerns. On the other hand, they want it done right.
If someone wants to move a motion that it be a smaller group, I will not be offended, but I think that we do need input directly from a legislature that has dealt with this issue and has a number of years of experience. The legislature in Yellowknife has the most experience.
I am satisfied with the proposal we have before us. As I say, if someone wants to shrink the numbers, I will not be offended. One way or the other, I feel I have to go and see what they have been doing in Yellowknife. If I have to use my points to do it, I will do so.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Smith seems to think we have reached some decisions. If we have, it must have happened at a meeting I missed. I thought we had some very good discussions
Senator Smith: We came to a consensus as opposed to a decision.
Senator Andreychuk: If we have reached a consensus, I would like to know about it. We have a consensus that we have a problem that we need to address, but I do not think we have come to the conclusion, by way of consensus or otherwise, as to how to tackle this issue.
My concern is that either Aboriginal groups have a right or they do not. I do not know whether we have definitively stated our take in that respect.
Then we come to the matter of ancestral languages, which I think Senator Keon is quite right about. We may be discussing two or three senators who are here today, but we do not know who will be here tomorrow or the day after. We seem to be gearing our discussions to the North, but we better look west and east also. If it is a right for Aboriginals, it is a right for all Aboriginals. Do we believe that their rights should be acknowledged in some other form?
The issue of dialects is very important. There are many Aboriginal languages and dialects in Canada. If we say that a senator will have the right to communicate in his or her ancestral language, I do not know that we will learn from the Northwest Territories because our situation is entirely different.
We have equal reason to then go to Saskatchewan and to Nova Scotia because we must incorporate and treat all Aboriginals equally. We then get into the Metis, which are self-identifying communities. How should we deal with them?
We seem to have reduced the problem, but I think the problem is greater than being fair to all future Aboriginals in the Senate. I would like more discussion of our conclusions before we determine that we will seek advice from the legislature of the Northwest Territories. It is very unique in its own right, addressing their needs, not our needs. First, I would not want to be led down a path that they have travelled in order to solve their problems, which may not suit the rest of us across Canada. Second, I would not want to raise an expectation among an Aboriginal community about rights or customs before we decide what we want to do.
I would hope we would do more groundwork before we travel to the North. I am not saying that we should not go, but I think we should go with a better script than we have at the moment.
The Chairman: Given the previous discussions of this committee and its predecessor, there is no question that there is a recognition that all Aboriginal peoples and all Aboriginal languages be given equal treatment. There is also no intent to focus on the North.
The choice of the two legislatures we looked at was based on the fact that they actually have an operating system where they deal with a variety of languages. We could have also chosen the Council of Europe or the European Parliament. That, in my opinion, would not have been as useful. The proposed trip is intended to hopefully increase our knowledge and understanding of not only the issue, but also the practical process that needs to be undertaken.
For the record, this undertaking is taken very seriously, but we must do it right or not at all. All Aboriginal languages would have to be included; but, remember that the service would be provided only when a member of the Senate who is of an Aboriginal community requires and requests it.
Senator Cordy: Senator Keon raised valid and practical concerns that we must consider as we continue our dialogue about what exactly to do. People have a right to communicate, but others also have a right to be able to understand the communication. In our study of accommodations and what exactly we should do, first we need a background in terms of where we are going. Then we must be very practical.
Others have mentioned the financial aspect. It might sound great to say that we will accommodate all the languages, all the time, at a cost of $4.5 billion a year, but the practicalities of it will not sell well.
With respect to travelling to the North to see what they are doing, viewing any process first-hand is always best. Whether or not we go is a decision of the committee. However, I do not like the idea of select people from a committee being chosen to go. All committee members are entitled to attend, not just three or four. I guess we have to make the decision whether we are going to go. Do we go at the beginning of the process to see what they are doing, or do we wait until we actually have more dialogue. That is a question for the committee to consider, but please do not say that only select members can choose to go.
The Chairman: Obviously, the budget undertakes to do that.
One of the goals is to increase our knowledge and understanding. We are grappling with two specific things: the quality of interpretation — and they have an example of how difficult that is — as well as the infrastructure and what it would entail. These are questions that the committee discussed. We do not have the answers because we do not have any comparable legislatures in the southern part of Canada.
Senator Smith: On the issue of rights, Senator Andreychuk, we had a couple of sessions with Mr. Audcent where we pursued that at some length. We more or less concluded that no right currently exists for this to be done in a legally enforceable way. On the other hand, no law prevents us from doing it if we decide it is the right thing to do. Rather than pursue it any further, we decided to proceed on that basis.
With respect to the questions that you are raising about the Northwest Territories, yes, I guess we could study everything in the world regarding languages. However, must to do so in a reasonably timely way. I do not know another legislature that would have more first-hand experience in dealing with this issue. I have heard that when they initially went this route, they did not do it in a cost-effective way. In some people's opinion, it developed into a job creation program for a lot of friends. We want to get their input as to the mistakes they made; we want to hear about it first-hand so that we do not make the same mistakes.
This issue has been before us for a couple of years, and I think we have an obligation to come to a conclusion and issue a report with recommendations.
Senator Cordy makes a fair point. I do not think everyone will want to go. I initially tried keeping the numbers small, and I succumbed to the arguments that we should not deny anyone who wants to go the right to go. Therefore, I would be happy to move adoption of the proposed budget. It would be a ceiling. If we are only going to one location in the first round, because they do not sit at the same time and not everyone will go, the final amount will not be six figures. For a starting point, it is a fair budget. If a motion is required to approve the budget, I so move.
The Chairman: I will take the motion.
Senator Andreychuk: First, Senator Keon's questions have to be addressed before a motion is put.
Second, Senator Cordy raises a good point. It is important that all senators have a right to communicate, but the other senators have a right to know. However, I think it goes further; if a senator has the right to communicate in an Aboriginal language, I think the public has a right to know. We are here to serve not ourselves, per se; this institution is here as part of a parliamentary system.
That brings me to another issue: Do other Aboriginals then have a right to hear debate in the two official languages or their own language? I have a problem with saying it is not an Aboriginal right. If we go down that road, we create a custom and convention that can turn into a right, and we should know we are doing that. It is not a question of whether we should do it or not, but we should know what we are doing and why and what the consequences are before we embark on the study. Do we travel first, thereby raising expectations, or do we come to a consensus first and involve more people in the debate from the Aboriginal communities, which we have not done? I think that is a value judgment.
The Chairman: We must remind ourselves that this reference from the Senate was given to us over the course of two different Parliaments. It has been discussed and has before this committee for a couple of years. We have accumulated a great deal of information, and it would be useful to circulate that for the benefit of committee members. It is probably impossible for us to sit down and come to some form of recommendation without having first-hand experience. It is for that reason that the steering committee felt we should prepare this budget on the basis of a maximum. If all senators who are members of the committee wish to go, then that will be the budget, but it may be less than that amount. I believe we have reached a point in this discussion indicating that this budget represents a useful expenditure of public funds if we are to do a proper job of reporting to the Senate on this reference.
I respect the position of all senators, but I think we should adopt the budget and come up with a plan to bring back to the committee, assuming that the Internal Economy Committee approves the budget. It may not.
There is a motion on the floor.
Senator Joyal: I understand that in the meantime the clerk of the committee or Mr. Robertson will prepare a composite of where we are in our discussion. The points raised by Senator Keon, Senator Andreychuk and others were all raised in the meetings we had with witnesses. Some groundwork has been done. It would help to refresh our memory for those senators who have been participating, as well as for those who are new to this issue, so that we have a summary of where we are in our reflection.
The Chairman: With respect to the budget, the Internal Economy Committee established a deadline we have to meet. We will come back to this committee before any final travel plans are undertaken. Are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does anyone wish to record their opposition?
The committee adjourned.