Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of June 1, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:13 p.m. 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, the prime focus of today's meeting is use of the Inuktitut language in Parliament. We will deal with that momentarily. First, we will tackle a couple of housekeeping matters.
Yesterday, Senator Di Nino was not present, although a couple of his colleagues were, when we discussed whether the committee needed to focus on the eligibility of committee chairs to sit on Internal Economy, which they do now. Some senators raised the matter. We agreed to take it back to our respective caucuses. In our caucus, there appeared to be no momentum to broach the issue and to deal with it by means of a rule, for now. I know that Internal Economy has a steering committee for budgets where members other than the chair are not committee chairs. There seemed to be a pretty comfortable level with the status quo and with not reopening the issues. Are you able to tell us anything about where the matter stands in your caucus, Senator Di Nino?
Senator Di Nino: I am not sure that our caucus was as clear on the issue as you have just described but, certainly, there was no consensus either way. Enough opinion was expressed on both sides to the effect that there is no clear consensus.
The Chairman: We can leave it on the back burner for now. If at some time there is a clear consensus, you could report that to the committee.
Senator Di Nino: I agree.
The Chairman: For now we will leave the item on the back burner, if that is agreeable to members of the committee.
Senator Di Nino: I agree.
The Chairman: The next issue is the matter referred to us by Senator Banks' motion, that is, the clause-by-clause item with which you are familiar. I am advised that the appropriate table officers, in this case Ms. Heather Lank and Mr. Gary O'Brien will make themselves available for a discussion on this. I am sure we will do some research. Depending on how far we get today on the issue that is before us, I would suggest that the clause-by-clause issue be the lead item for next Tuesday's meeting. Does that meet with the general approval of members? We will have Ms. Lank and Mr. O'Brien here next Tuesday when the lead item will be the motion referred to this committee by Senator Banks.
We will now proceed to today's item. I know that some senators present are not members of this committee and that at some point, Senators Corbin, Watt and Adams may wish to comment. We will begin with a five-minute review of the briefing note from the library's research staff, which is the green paperwork before you. If you have not had a chance to go through it, please read it now.
Senator Corbin: I have read it.
The Chairman: I am sure you have, Senator Corbin, and I have read it as well.
Senator Corbin: I am prepared to proceed.
The Chairman: I would ask Mr. Robertson to present a brief, after which we will put you at the head of the list, Senator Corbin, for comments and questions.
Mr. James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Briefly, on the motion introduced by Senator Corbin and brought to this committee, a couple of comments were made in the Senate and at the meeting of this committee on Wednesday, May 18, on the constitutionality of the proposed change. This briefing note was prepared as a consequence of that. It cites section 133 of the Constitution Act that allows for the use of the French or English language in the Houses of the Parliament of Canada. It also refers to the relevant sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular sections 16 and 17. Section 17(1) provides that:
Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
It goes on in section 18 to provide that statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and in French. There is also a reference to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which refers to Aboriginal and treaty rights.
The jurisprudence is briefly summarized. The sections of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Charter of Rights have been used on numerous occasions in court cases, but it has generally been with respect to other aspects of language, including the constitutional power over language, the language of statutes, the language of the courts and so forth. To our knowledge, no cases have specifically addressed the use of English, French or other languages in a parliamentary setting.
Other legislatures, particularly Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, do specifically provide for the use of a variety of Aboriginal languages. They are permitted to be used and are in fact used widely in those legislatures. At the same time, sections 133 and 17 do not specifically apply to the three territories.
There is a reference to the House of Commons practice, which has been to allow members of the other place to address the House in languages other than English or French. That has only been done on an ad hoc basis. When an objection was made in 1995, the Speaker responded that there was no rule that prevented a member from using a language other than English or French.
There has been a general discussion of the issues involved. The bottom line seems to be that the reason for section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and indeed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was permissive. It has long historical roots, but the idea seems to have been to ensure and guarantee that any member could address the chamber in either French or English. It does not specifically exclude or prevent the use of other languages other than in the official reports of the chamber.
Section 18 of the Constitution Act, quoted at page 8 of the English briefing note, indicates that the privileges of the Senate and the House of Commons include the right to regulate their own internal affairs and to not have those regulations challenged in any other forum. That would, therefore, appear to allow the Houses to determine what languages other than English or French may be used, so long as there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically requires otherwise.
The last section briefly mentions section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which reinforces Aboriginal and treaty rights. It is also relevant that section 22 of the Charter says that nothing in sections 16 to 20, which talk about the English and French languages, abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French. Therefore, if there is an existing right under section 35, there is nothing in the other sections of the Charter dealing with language that would take away those rights, but we did not spend a great deal of time focusing on that particular aspect of the issue.
The Chairman: Are there any questions on the briefing note?
Senator Watt: With regard to the constitutional arguments of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus section 35 of the Constitution that was negotiated in 1982, if I remember correctly, section 35 was negotiated with the knowledge that there would, from time to time, be conflict between the rights that were contemplated under section 35 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For that reason, it was not put in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was deliberately put into another column so that they would not cancel each other out.
Are we mixing apples and oranges when we argue that it does not affect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I think we should make this absolutely clear. What are we dealing with here?
Mr. Robertson: Section 35 is clearly not part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the Charter. Part II begins with section 35, so it was not part of the Charter.
Senator Watt: Section 35, the non-derogation clause, was included as a shield from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Robertson: I am sure that some senators here have more knowledge on this than I. It is my understanding that, if you have two rights, be they in the original Constitution, or the 1867 Constitution, and be they in the Charter or outside of it, there has to be co-existence of the two. One cannot trump the other.
Senator Watt: That is basically what I am trying to say.
Mr. Robertson: In many cases, the courts have had to decide how one right can coexist with another and ensure that both provide the full ambit of their protection.
Senator Watt: That is my argument.
Senator Corbin: Perhaps I could suggest that, as sponsor of the motion, I could make some comments before we get into the details.
The Chairman: Yes, please go ahead, Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: I make this request politely. You are getting into the substance. If you give me an opportunity to make my remarks, I will then leave you to your work.
The Chairman: We are not asking you to leave. You can stay or leave, as you see fit.
Senator Corbin: The usual process is that —
The Chairman: Senator Corbin you have the floor.
Senator Corbin: If you invite a minister to defend a bill, you give him the opportunity to do so. Thank you.
I do not think there is any constitutional issue involved here. There would be if this were an attempt to take away rights provided under the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document. As far as I know, it is not arthritic. It is an evolving instrument on which we can all build, and which we can improve.
The purpose of my initiative is to recognize a practice or tradition that pre-existed the coming to this country of the two founding nations. Inuktitut and many native languages, including some that have been lost forever, were spoken in this country before the so-called "we'' came along. I aim to fill in what I consider to be an important gap in the constitutional pronouncement with respect to French or English.
Twenty years ago, when I had only been here for about a year, I approached certain members of the leadership of the Senate to do what I am attempting to do today, and I got a flat refusal. The country had just concluded protracted negotiations on bilingualism and biculturalism. The first official languages law had been passed by Parliament and initiatives that resulted from that were put in place. No one wanted to hear anything about an initiative such as we are seized with today.
That goes to show that the world is evolving. Mentalities do change. I am quite flattered that the committee would give me an opportunity to speak to this motion so soon in the course of your heavy work schedule. I am grateful for that.
I have been attempting to break the ice. I do not have the solution, and I do not have all of the arguments, but I want to break the ice on this issue and I want the issue to take on a life of its own on the basis of the merits of the arguments. The principal argument is that Inuktitut was a pre-existing language prior to all we have done since occupying the geography of this country.
Before coming in today, I talked to Andy Scott who most of you probably saw on TV last night at the signing of an agreement of intent with the Government of Canada yesterday. I asked him in what languages those agreements were drafted. He told me that almost all of them were in French and English, but that one was in French, English and Inuktitut. That is significant with respect to the attitude of the government of the country with respect to native languages. I am sure that further agreements or intents, or whatever you want to call these documents, will be drafted and written in other native language besides Inuktitut.
Why Inuktitut? As I said, I could have gone further and suggested that we open the whole process up to other native languages. I say this without any prejudice whatsoever to any other non-native language or non-official language. I am not at all addressing that matter. I am not saying that I am not concerned about it. The Senate of Canada has the special vocation of speaking up and standing up for minorities and their rights and regional concerns. I am saying that we confront this challenge head on in order to accommodate our colleagues whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. I am sure Senators Adams and Watt will speak eloquently about how passionately they feel about this issue.
I had a brief opportunity to read the paper, Mr. Chairman. I missed most of my caucus this morning because of that, but I have not done the paper justice. It seems that, in the final analysis, nothing prevents an initiative of this kind. It is a matter of finding ways to accommodate currently two senators who would feel much more comfortable and would probably be more expressive if they were allowed to speak in their mother tongue. I do not think we can prevent them from speaking Inuktitut in the debates of the Senate or its committees if they so wish.
The problem is with the printing of the evidence and the debates. However, if they choose to go that route, it is incumbent on us — and this is the crux of the matter — that the institution provide interpretation of their speeches so that they can speak from the heart and the soul on issues on which they feel strongly.
I have realized many times that they are not getting their points across to us in a way that would facilitate our comprehension because of this handicap, that they are forced to speak a language that is not their native tongue. I will not say any more at this time.
I will leave the constitutional matters to you. The mechanics of the implementation of such a proposal can very well be handled. After all, we provide interpretation for visiting dignitaries when they address both houses. I could recite a litany of instances where the institution, whether the House of Commons, the Senate or both, has accommodated people. I leave you with those thoughts. I believe Senators Watt and Adams can expand on that. I put all my trust in your sense of fairness and good judgment.
The Chairman: Are there any questions for Senator Corbin?
Senator Di Nino: In your motion, you are only suggesting the one language, Inuktitut; is that correct?
Senator Corbin: At this time.
Senator Di Nino: You do understand and you do agree with me — and I am not speaking to the merits at all at this point — that we will have to include other native languages in a short period of time. Would you agree that that may be an issue that we will be dealing with in the next few months?
Senator Corbin: I am only concerned here with native languages.
Senator Di Nino: We are talking about native languages. I agree with you. Your argument on that is a solid one.
Senator Corbin: Would you repeat your question?
Senator Di Nino: I believe you are at this point recommending that we consider having translation for the Inuktitut language.
Senator Corbin: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: And no other languages, even though they may be, today, represented in the Senate. There are other natives who may speak a language other than Inuktitut.
Senator Corbin: Yes, there are. Senator Sibbeston speaks Dene.
Senator Di Nino: That is my question for now.
The Chairman: Did you have a question, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: I have a couple of questions for clarification. If we establish that we will allow the translation of native languages — and I am not against that — and, for example, someone is appointed to the Senate who is of another country and has a language of that country as his or her first language, have we set a precedent with those individuals who have come to the Senate with their first language being another language other than native, French, or English? I would like not only for Senator Corbin to answer, but also I would suggest that we look at this issue.
Senator Corbin: In bringing this matter forward, I take it for granted that our immigration policies have a requirement that when a person comes to this country he or she must learn either one of the official languages, French or English. I acknowledge that the issue raised does exist. However, I do not want to deal with it. That is another matter, totally foreign to the basic thrust of this issue. We are talking about native languages. Break the ice. Let us have a trial period with Inuktitut and let us build on that for the future. That is it.
Senator Stratton: I do not disagree; I am simply asking if this is precedent-setting.
When you talk about parliamentary proceedings, for example, if someone were speaking Dene or Inuktitut, they could do so in all committee hearings; all aspects of the Senate would have translation available to those individuals speaking in those languages, no matter if we met outside the Senate. For example, if a committee were travelling across the country, would you accept that it is a parliamentary proceeding and the same translation would take place?
Senator Corbin: I believe that is an open issue. I should have clarified that, in terms of wanting to break the ice, I would like this initiative to apply first and foremost for speeches on the floor of the House of Commons. I leave it at that.
The Chairman: Your motion only refers to the Senate.
Senator Corbin: Excuse me, it applies to the floor of the Senate. Things can grow out of this, in that it could apply to committees and what have you. I have never attended, to my great regret, any of the Aboriginal Committee meetings, but I understand that there is provision for interpretation for people who speak neither French nor English. That already exists.
Senator Stratton: I am not arguing for or against this motion, I am simply asking how we put a fence around this. Do we fully understand what we are getting into here, not only by setting a precedent with respect to other languages, but with respect to how far this may go? We need answers to both of those questions before we can deal further with this issue.
The Chairman: Let us deal with questions to Senator Corbin before we return to the list of questions on the briefing paper and constitutional matters. I know you are on that list, Senator Adams.
Senator Adams: I would like to speak to the questions Senators Corbin and Stratton asked about my language. I can answer some of those questions.
Everything in Nunavut and the territories is set up for Inuktitut. In the cabinet meeting yesterday with the Prime Minister, we had three languages, French, English and Inuktitut. I have no difficulty with that. I just want to see the start of the Inuktitut language being used. Qujannamiik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday, Senator Watt and I asked the translators what they thought about the use of the Inuktitut language on the floor of the Senate. I would mention, Mr. Chairman, that speak a little bit of French. If a senator were speaking French in the Senate, I could translate his remarks into Inuktitut. That kind of thing can happen without difficulty. All the organizations in Nunavut have translators available. When visitors come from Ottawa to Nunavut, translation is available to them.
In 1960, Indian Affairs started putting area administrators into the communities in Nunavut and the territories. All of those area administrators had to learn Inuktitut. Now that local people are elected to the territorial government that no longer happens. We can teach the people from down south how to live on the land, how to go out hunting. That knowledge is no longer passed on to people from the south because everything has changed.
We are losing our language. Kids in schools today are not speaking Inuktitut. Inuktitut, the mother tongue, is only passed on at home, not in the schools. That is the rule in Canada.
I would like to speak my mother tongue. Seven different languages were spoken in the Yellowknife legislature before the creation of the Nunavut territory, and all seven languages were translated in Yellowknife.
The time to begin is now. We have a languages commissioner for Inuktitut. I spoke to him in Rankin Inlet last week. He thinks it is great that the Senate is trying to do something for us. The hope is that other native languages will be used in the future. Senator Watt may wish to add something.
The Chairman: I still have three senators down for questions to Senator Corbin.
Senator Dyck: Senator Corbin, you talked about including many other Aboriginal languages, breaking the ice and accommodating mother tongues. Being from Saskatchewan, I know that most of our First Nations people there speak one of the Cree dialects. I see this as a beginning, as you said, with a view to including other Aboriginal languages. To me, the issue is probably one more to do with principle rather than accommodating our current senators.
I was intending to use some Cree in some of my speeches. Although I am not a Cree speaker, I am learning bits and pieces and I want to to increase my fluency in Cree. I see this as a beginning, not as an end.
The Chairman: Do you wish to respond, Senator Corbin?
Senator Corbin: I think that statement speaks well for itself.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Corbin, as I read it, this is not an issue of using a mother tongue, it is related to the history of our country.
Senator Corbin: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: In the context of our historical background, the suggestion is that we use the languages of the people of the First Nations, plus English and French. In that way, we could fence it. Do you agree?
Senator Corbin: I am not aware that in treaties or whatever else you want to call these agreements, papers, intents, that any Aboriginal group has ever given up its native language. I am not aware of that. If I am wrong, correct me. Then, this fits in with section 35 of the Constitution. There are consequences to all of that, but I am far from being an expert on that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I simply wanted Senator Corbin to confirm that adopting this change to the Rules does not prevent senators from speaking a language other than English, French or another native language, as Senator Adams has done on various occasions with the agreement of the senators. I wouldn't want this rule to exclude the others. I don't believe that is the intent of your proposition.
Senator Corbin: No, it isn't. But I believe that any initiative must begin somewhere. I am not suggesting an automatic obligation to provide the service for anyone who wants to speak another language. If a senator wishes to say a few words in Italian or Ukrainian as part of his speech because there are some guests in the gallery for example, we have no objection to this. The Senate is very open to the world, its cultures and other languages. It touches the very purpose of this Committee, which is to safeguard the rights of minorities and regions. That is all I have to say.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I would commend Senator Corbin for his initiative. I think he raises an important element in the definition of Canada. I also want to thank Mr. Robinson for his overview of the language rights in the BNA Act and the Charter.
However, I would point out that there are language rights that pre-date those documents. The first one is the first treaty that was signed between 49 Aboriginal tribes and the French government, represented by the governor, in 1701 in Montreal. I looked into the treaties and which language was used the first time that there was an encounter, if you will, and an attempt to settle questions of governing. It is clear from the treaties that there was translation and that that translation was provided by the French, not by the Aboriginal people.
When Aboriginal people signed treaties, they did not sign in the French language, indeed signed by using the pictograms or the hieroglyphics representing each tribe, such as a fox, an eagle, a certain bird, and so forth. There are 49 of those pictograms, and the French, under each of the pictograms, identified which tribe the pictogram represented.
When the British took over in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, they recognized the peaceful possession of the Aboriginal people over their land and, in their way of governing them, they addressed them in their own language. When they signed treaties with Aboriginal people they did not force Aboriginal people to speak the English language, they adapted to the languages of the Aboriginal people.
In fact, last year the Supreme Court, in deciding the leading case in relation to the Aboriginal people of Canada, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004, stated at paragraph 25:
Put simply, Canada's Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered.
In other words, we cannot impose something on them that is not them, and one thing which is them is their language.
It is totally different with the French. The French were conquered. The Royal Proclamation recognized people who had been conquered. It clearly says that the French were conquered so they had to speak English. However, in 1774, the Quebec Act was passed, 10 years after the Royal Proclamation. However, as a matter of policy, at the same time, Westminster decided to reinstate the rights of the French population to speak French. I am French Canadian. That is where my rights stem from. The 1774 act is part of the Canadian Constitution, as outlined in the annex of the Constitution, as much as is the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
How do we solve this problem? To me it is not a problem; it is an asset. If the Parliament of Canada, and singularly the Senate, makes way to allow Aboriginal people to use their language, they allow those people to be themselves, to demonstrate their true identity as a component part of Canada and as a respected part of Canada.
In answer to Senator Stratton, there is a distinction to be drawn between someone who is of Aboriginal descent and someone from another part of the world. As someone here has said, if you are an immigrant, the governments, provincial and federal, will provide you with an opportunity to learn one of the official languages so that you can integrate. You are able to integrate, to speak, to participate in the development of Canada. However, the Aboriginal people come from a totally different constitutional background. That is what we have to see how we can manage.
I would feel quite distressed not to have a broad overview of this, and you are totally right in raising the points that you do. We might want to do the right things but in the details we are lost. We must be clear in that, if we consent to the use of the Inuktitut language after appropriate notice of several hours or a day or two, we must also recognize the rights of another Aboriginal senator, whoever he or she may be, to use his or her Aboriginal language in order to express his or her views.
I recently read that between now and 2020, 12 Aboriginal languages will have disappeared because people are not using them. Today, in the famous Huron reserve around Quebec City, no one speaks Huron. That has been lost for at least 80 years. Chief Gros-Louis, who all of us know very well, is a picturesque Aboriginal leader, but he does not one word of Huron. No one on the reserve speaks a word of Huron. Over the years, other Aboriginal languages have been lost because Aboriginal peoples were not afforded the opportunity to speak their language. If you do not have the capacity to affirm your identity you progressively turn to the usage of the dominant languages.
This is a question of principle that must have a foundation in the Constitution and it has, to me, a foundation in the Charter. Section 22 of the Charter is clear. Section 22 of the Charter comes immediately after the recognition of French and English in Parliament. Section 22 clearly states:
Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.
In other words, the Constitution recognizes that there are other languages in Canada that have customary right to be spoken. I simply submit that Aboriginal peoples have a customary right to speak their language.
However, that is not the manner in which Senator Corbin has introduced his motion. As I read it, it does not affirm a right. It opens a technical way of ensuring that an Aboriginal senator may speak in Inuktitut while occupying his seat in the chamber. The motion is restricted to the house as far as I can see, because in committee, I may occupy any seat. If we specify that the senator may use that language where he sits, it would refer to that senator's seat in the Senate.
That senator must, however, give notice so that the technical services may be provided. Perhaps we should extend the notice so that proper technical arrangements can be made.
Notwithstanding that, it is clear to me that an Aboriginal senator has a right to speak his own language, and the Constitution recognizes that. When we adopted the Charter — and I address myself to you, Mr. Chairman, Senators Corbin and Senator Watt who were there at that time — we included that section precisely because other rights were not defined and we knew that one day we would have to address them. We would not want to do anything that would prevent those languages from being recognized and spoken in government institutions.
As Senator Corbin has said, today the time has come. We must determine how to do this in practical terms. Senator Stratton wisely advises us how we could do that so it is feasible and does not disrupt the proceedings. It is clearly a privilege as a house to establish within our proceedings how we want to create capacities for Aboriginal senators to speak their language. It is strange that it took so many years for us to realize this.
As I said earlier, had Aboriginal senators not been appointed to the Senate in reasonable numbers, like everything else, nobody would have ever raised the question. They are among us. They are a part of Canada. They have an integral role to play in the building of Canada. We want to maintain their identity. We want to, as we say in French, validify their identity. We must provide them with the opportunity to speak their language in the important moments of the life of our nation, which is when we legislate and deliberate on fundamental decisions that make a country develop.
We may wish to clear up technical aspects. As Senator Stratton pointed out, we must do this practically. However, in terms of the principles involved, it must be to a point that goes beyond our own language or identity.
I am French-Canadian and you are English-Canadian. We have to deal with the issue of language in Canada. We must not try to streamline everybody. We must try to respect the cultural identity and the fundamental identity of people. This is a Canadian value that is a defining value of where we are and what we are as a country.
The Chairman: I am trying to complete the list of questions to Senator Corbin. I do not think that was a question to Senator Corbin.
Senator Maheu: I have a question for Senator Corbin.
Item 3 of your motion, states that the Clerk of the Senate will make the necessary arrangements and you specify that at least four hours notice be given. I am not aware of what technical support is available in Ottawa. Is that feasible? Are the services available here?
Senator Corbin: I would suggest that you ignore the technicalities. I had to start somewhere. I used this to open a crack in the door. I have been advised that interpretation is available, however, you do not want to necessarily have an interpreter on standby 24 hours a day.
All senators who make major statements in the house know well ahead of time when they make them, unless they speak off the cuff because of the circumstances. If you introduce an inquiry or you intend to participate in the debate on major legislation and you want to do it in Inuktitut, you prepare yourself at least a day ahead of time. That gives sufficient time for the staff to get an interpreter in the booth on time. That is all it is. Do not hang your hat on that.
Senator Maheu: I am not hanging my hat on that. This has been given to us as a mandate. We are saying that the clerk must be given four hours' notice. Perhaps we should modify this.
The Chairman: It is a starting point.
Senator Corbin: Of course, I expect you to change this in any way you want.
The Chairman: I have Senator Adams and Senator Milne down for questions to Mr. Robertson. Senator Di Nino, did you have a question for Senator Corbin or Mr. Robertson, or do you wish to speak?
Senator Di Nino: I wish to speak.
The Chairman: I think that completes questions for Senator Corbin. Senator Adams, did you have a question on the constitutional aspects?
Senator Adams: I do not want to confuse the situation. I would like to speak about the agreement between Canada and our people. Senator Watt may also wish to speak to this.
Mr. Robertson spoke about treaties. The Inuit do not have treaties. That is what we want to make sure that people understand. We are just like any other Canadian. The only thing we have right now in Nunavut is the land claim. That relates to the education system and medical services provided by the Government of Canada. Other than that, we are just like other Canadians.
We do not have an Inuit multicultural system because we are Canadian. Other people have a multicultural system that is recognized by the rest of Canada. We have different cultures. The multicultural system is not recognized because we are Canadian, Canadian-Inuit. We must make sure everyone knows what that means. That is why we want more to be able to keep the Inuktitut language.
In Nunavut now, anything documentation such as correspondence from the government must be in Inuktitut and English. Anyone going to Nunavut must be able to communicate in French, English or Inuktitut.
We have a language commission in Nunavut that is trying to ensure the usage of our languages. English has taken over, and we are losing our languages. For example, at one time we had words to describe 10 different types of snow, but now people merely comment that it is snowing. That is the kind of detail that we want to retain in our culture and in our language.
The Chairman: I take that to be more of a speech than a question.
Senator Adams: Yes, it is a speech. Senator Watt and I believe that the Inuit did not enter into treaties with Indian Affairs over 100 years ago. The Inuit did not do that.
When the welfare system came into existence, we would receive cheques from the federal government. I still receive those cheques. My mother has to go to Hudson Bay to collect hers. We are not allowed to use an Inuit signature on the cheques. We are only allowed to use an "X,'' like in the old days.
This is a beginning. We support Senator Corbin in his motion. This is the right way to do this. However, I do believe that the government should do more for Aboriginals in Canada. As Canadians, we should be allowed to use our language.
Senator Milne: I have a question and a short statement.
When I read this, Mr. Robertson, I do see nothing in here that prohibits the use of another language. Everything in the Charter and the Constitution says that English and French must be used, but there is nothing prohibits the use of any other language.
I would also point out that we have not alluded to section 15(2) of the Charter which specifically allows the government to take steps to promote a minority group or interest.
I personally agree with this. However, I do have some concern about the specifics of Senator Corbin's motion. Four hours may be too little advance notice to be able to get translators. I also question that we specify only Inuktitut. It may be a good pilot project to start with Inuktitut, but I would like this motion to read: "any Aboriginal language'' rather than "Inuktitut.''
The Chairman: As to the wording and where we go from here, we might have, say, a three-person drafting committee that will discuss the matter with both leaderships to see if we can reach a consensus on the wording. We want to do something, and I certainly want us to do something.
Senator Di Nino: I, too, am very much in favour of the principle of this motion. This is not the first time you have heard this around the table, but I think it is worth repeating that it cannot be strictly related to Inuktitut. In my opinion, as others have stated here, if it is to happen, for now it should be boxed in, fenced in or restricted to Aboriginal languages. However, I am not the person to speak on that. Others with much more knowledge on that can refine the wording so that it cannot be interpreted to mean some obscure dialect that is spoken in some corner and for which interpretation would hardly be available. I support the spirit of this motion but I, too, believe that it should include all Aboriginal languages.
I would leave the time frame to the staff, but I would think it would probably need to be extended considerably. Unless we put some people on payroll, I am not sure that we will be able to find someone, within a four-hour period, to interpret. I would point out that you would need two interpreters, not one. The interpretation would have to be provided in two languages simultaneously. You would need someone who understands Inuktitut to translate into English and Inuktitut into French. The four-hour period is not extensive.
Those are my main points. Your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is to put together a small subcommittee to deal with this. The caucuses should also be informed of this so that they have some feel for what we are doing. I am in favour of the principle, and I would support it, with those changes.
The Chairman: I think everyone would want this done in a cost-effective way.
Senator Watt: If I may make a remark on the intent of Senator Corbin's draft, if I understand it correctly, this will only apply in the Senate chamber. In other words, it would not apply to committee work.
The Chairman: That is the wording of the motion as it stands.
Senator Watt: If that is the case, perhaps Senator Corbin, as mover of this motion, would consider finding an innovative way of having this also apply to committee work.
Senator Corbin: I am all for that.
Senator Watt: That would be useful.
Senator Corbin: The aim is to facilitate working conditions and the free expression of your thoughts and contributions. If you want to do that in your native language as a senator working in the Senate context, whether it is on the floor of the Senate or in a committee, that would be wonderful. That is what is behind this motion.
Senator Watt: I would like to raise another point, and since Senator Corbin is the mover of this motion, I should consult with him to get his thoughts on this. Giving at least four hours notice before the start of the sitting of the Senate could be somewhat of a problem. I am not saying that it cannot be solved. Perhaps it could be more flexible and it could allow us to not operate on a fixed timetable. I raise this issue as one on which we should focus because we may have difficulty finding interpreters who will be available to meet our requirements for only a short period. That may create a problem. Who will hang around and wait for our call? I know there is a significant number of freelancers in Ottawa who speak Inuktitut, English and French, but they are fully occupied. If we are want to make it attractive for them to acquire the post, then I think we should be moving in the direction of making the position attractive. In other words, what we should be looking at, rather than a part-time person, is perhaps a full-time person. Has Senator Corbin given this some thought?
Senator Corbin: I could perhaps inform the committee how this text came about. It is not something I personally drafted. My personal effort was 20 years ago, but my most recent effort lasted about two years because I had to consult a number of people.
Mr. Audcent's office, the office of the law clerk was contacted. I discussed with him the thrust of the intent behind the effort. They first suggested moving a motion to request that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — Senator Furey was not chair at that time — put a system in place that would allow our Inuktitut-speaking colleagues to express themselves in their mother tongue on the floor of the Senate. Upon reflection, we thought that if we sent that immediately to Internal Economy, they would say that they could not touch it because of a constitutional problem, so the suggestion was to send it to the Rules Committee. I said we would do that. I asked them to put something together for me that would allow me to present the issue or challenge on the floor of the Senate. I asked for a text that would open a crack in the door. I would make my comments, other senators would join in, and we could thrash over the text in whichever way we chose. We could modify it as long as the principle does not go out the door. I could not care less how we go about doing it.
I do not know all of the means at our disposal to accomplish this, but I was told that there are, in Ottawa, interpreters who, given sufficient notice, can make themselves available to the Senate. That is what is behind this.
That is why I plead with you to not hang your head on every word and paragraph in this motion.
Tear it up and save the principle, but devise the means to allow it to become a reality. That is my advice to you. These words are not sacred as long as you do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Chairman: We have the item before us. You can assume that before this committee adopts any report we would have input from translation services and determine the cost-effectiveness of this measure. I have heard that the system in Yellowknife is not cost-effective, but that is another story.
Senator Corbin: If I may suggest at this time, although it may be premature, private agencies provide translation facilities in many languages, including Inuktitut.
The Chairman: That is a good point.
Senator Furey: I want to add my voice to those who have congratulated Senator Corbin for bringing forward this initiative, which is good. As to speaking in favour of it, I would find it impossible to add to the eloquent intervention of our colleague, Senator Joyal.
Senator Robichaud: It was a very good speech.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I support Senator Corbin's proposal and I commend him. I would like to see this implemented in a coordinated way and applied fairly to all Aboriginal peoples. We must also examine the impact of this system on the Senate committees' operations. Everything must be done to show that we believe this is a right and not simply a privilege we are extending.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: A committee is a good idea.
The Chairman: If we have consensus, we will discuss this with the leadership on perhaps a three-person steering committee to keep this issue alive. At our meeting next Tuesday, we will hear from Mr. Gary O'Brien and Ms. Heather Lank on the clause-by-clause item. We should ask if Mr. O'Brien could be prepared to report as well on the background. The clerk has pointed out that he is the person who oversees translation.
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Mr. O'Brien is responsible for liaising with the interpretation services to ensure that all senators are served in the chamber and in committee. He is ultimately accountable for that, so it would be appropriate for Mr. O'Brien to speak to the issue.
The Chairman: We should have greater input on this matter, which will not be wrapped up in one session. We will continue our discussions on the subject.
Next week we will deal with the clause-by-clause issue. That may be completed in one meeting, after which we will return to this item.
Senator Watt: I put a question to Senator Corbin, through the chairman, about this motion applying only to speeches in the Senate chamber. I am of the view that this should also apply to committee meetings.
The Chairman: Everything in the transcript of today's proceedings will be reviewed and we will seek input. Sometimes you have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run. Senator Corbin's motion is a foot in the door. It may not be perfect on day one, so we will seek additional input.
Senator Watt: If you allow me, there is another way to deal with the other question of the need for proper translation. I cannot speak for the other Aboriginal groups at this time. If we want to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, we could do that, although that does cause me some concern. At this time, this would apply to only one or two Aboriginal languages spoken by senators, but in the future it might apply to all Aboriginal senators.
The Chairman: I appreciate that.
Senator Watt: I want to stress that I am not against the idea of all Aboriginal groups being included, but I am worried about the exposure.
Senator Di Nino: I want to ensure that the mandate of the subcommittee is to look at the use of Aboriginal languages only within the Senate and not other languages, because that would open a can of worms.
The Chairman: We have consensus on that, I believe. I heard Senator Robichaud on that point. It could be a scary road to go down.
Senator Watt: I would use the language of the Constitution.
The Chairman: I am advised that some say the number is 50, some say it is 53, and some say it may be as high as 70. If no one in the chamber speaks those languages, it is theoretical. We will develop the appropriate terminology to create the principle as well as the practical means. We must remember that this involves tax dollars, so we must do it in a cost-effective way.
Mr. Armitage: I have a practical consideration for senators. The chamber interpretation booths as they are currently constituted would not allow a three-way interpretation scenario, and many of the committee rooms are set up in the same way. That will have to be considered.
Senator Corbin: That is not so in this room.
Mr. Armitage: This room has the capability but not all committee rooms are set up this way.
Senator Di Nino: That is why this is the Aboriginal room.
The committee adjourned.