Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 12:33 p.m. to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-14, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Today we will be hearing from Mr. Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister with Canadian Heritage. He is accompanied by Mr. Kevin MacLeod.
Mr. Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs and Communications, Department of Canadian Heritage: I am very pleased to meet with you today to discuss Bill S-14. Because of my responsibilities at Canadian Heritage, I have two important reasons to be interested in this issue.
We at the department are responsible for administering the Promotion of Canadian Symbols Program, as well as for matters relating to official languages.
In that area, we are involved in both of these issues, which have an impact on our department.
[English]
In our role as the promoter of national symbols, we have noticed Canadians taking much more interest in their national anthem over recent years. We have noticed, in particular, the growth of the use of unofficial, bilingual versions of the national anthem. Canadians, more and more on their own, have been choosing to use our national anthem in a way that reflects, in part, both official languages.
We receive a significant number of requests in our department for the materials that we produce to help support the symbols of Canada, and I brought with me today a few of our products that promote our national anthem. If any senators are not familiar with our promotional materials, we would be happy to show them to you. Certainly, your offices have access to those materials if they would be useful to you.
In doing some research before our appearance today, we noticed that in the year of the 100th anniversary of Confederation, there was a debate in Parliament on whether we should have an officially bilingual version of our national anthem. The consensus at that time was that it could have been more controversial than helpful in the Canada of 1967.
We think, because of what we see, that Canadians have changed a great deal since that time. The official languages policy that flowed from the policies of the 1960s has created generations of Canadians who are now much more open to the idea and more able to express themselves in both official languages.
[Translation]
Today, some 2.5 million Canadians are able to use both of our official languages and are proud to do so. That was not the case in 1967 or 1980, when we formalized, through legislation, the status of O Canada as our national anthem.
Nowadays, Canadians of all origins, across the full range of our diversity, speak both languages; they take pride in that and seek opportunities to do so.
[English]
We believe that the initiative you are examining would be a positive step for Canada. We welcome the chance to speak to Bill S-14, from the department's point of view, in favour of this idea.
We have one question that we would like to raise. In the use of a national anthem, the impression that people get of being included often comes from the first few lines. We think it unlikely that people would use the bilingual version frequently unless it were available in two versions: one primarily for use by francophone audiences that would begin in French, switch to English and then return to French; and one primarily for anglophone audiences that would begin in English, switch to French and then return to English.
We understand there is an additional complexity. If honourable senators would like to see them, some of my staff members have prepared versions A and B of the bilingual O Canada.
We would ask you to consider the possible reaction in some parts of the country if people tried to use the official bilingual version that began in the official language that was not that of the majority of the people in the room at the time. This additional flexibility being offered to Canadians would make it more likely that more groups in more places would use the bilingual version across the country.
We are pleased at the message that would be sent by this action in terms of Canada's official languages policy and law. It would be helpful to us in our promotion of both the official languages policy and our national symbol present in the national anthem if, through legislative action, we could have a pair of officially bilingual national anthems.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to say a few words to you. We would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: Your responsibility is to promote our national symbols. The national anthem and the Canadian flag are very powerful symbols for Canadians.
Does Canadian Heritage have an appreciation of the deep sense of pride that Canadians feel when they sing their national anthem? Indeed, that is the reason why we sing the national anthem. And Honourable Senator Lapointe will certainly agree with me when I say that when you sing the words, you feel them more deeply than when you simply recite them. Reciting them is not enough; they have to be sung. Does Canadian Heritage have a sense of the emotion associated with that symbol?
Mr. Moyer: Certainly within our department, there is a very visceral reaction to our national anthem. It is used at key moments in our common experience. I think you are absolutely right to point out that people react to the national anthem, or to any national symbol, at several different levels. When the symbol is the national anthem and it is sung, that reaction is certainly increased two- or three-fold. Singing together, as part of a group of individuals, and expressing one's pride in that way goes beyond being an individual experience; it is a collective experience. And that is what we are aiming for in promoting the country's national symbols.
Seeing the fundamental values of our country reflected in the words of a song is another way of feeling that pride. We are seeing this more and more in Canadians. A perfect example would be the Olympic Games, where those two powerful symbols — the flag and the national anthem — have a strong presence.
Senator Léger: We now have three versions of the national anthem. We have Senator Kinsella's version, which suggests the alternative of beginning the anthem in French. In my opinion, the national anthem and the flag should not be used as tools for promoting bilingualism. Such symbols are not promotional tools. They transcend that simple objective.
So, we have version A and version B. Are we prepared now, in 2003, to favour one version over the other? Is there not a danger that this will once again lead to squabbling? Some already are expressing reservations about the idea of having two versions.
Mr. Moyer: As I understand it, the reason why we are now considering a bilingual version is that we would like the national anthem to increasingly reflect the two linguistic components of our country. I believe the objective of using the bilingual version as often as possible is a good one.
However, we do believe it will be more difficult in 2003 to have people in some areas of the country start signing O Canada in a language which is not used by most of the people living there. That applies to both the West and Quebec. People more readily accept a bilingual version if it starts in their own language before switching to the other.
Senator Beaudoin: In my opinion, a bilingual national anthem is preferable. I have always found it upsetting to realize that when people sing O Canada, they cannot hear what others are singing. That makes absolutely no sense and I think we have to do something about it.
I like the version proposed by my colleague, Senator Kinsella, in that it is partly in English, and partly in French. At the same time, I am not under any illusion: I know that some people will never sing in the other language. It is a shame, but that is the way it is. You cannot change the world overnight.
I think we should avoid making things too complicated. Complications are for scholars, and not for ordinary mortals. In my opinion, the national anthem should be partly in English, and partly in French, but with those parts always being the same. If you have one version that begins in English and another version that begins in French, Francophones will use the second version, and Anglophones will use the first. In that case, we will not be any further ahead, and the cacophony will in no way be reduced. People should be singing in the same language, at the same time.
I do not understand the idea of saying that in Quebec, we will begin the national anthem in French, whereas in the nine other provinces, people will begin in English. We are not solving the problem by doing that; on the contrary, we are just complicating matters.
The whole objective here is to get people to sing together in French and English. That is the best suggestion. I do not know whose idea it was to have people in Toronto start singing in English, whereas people from Quebec City and Montreal, would begin in French. That will not change a thing in terms of the general cacophony.
In my opinion, we should sing in unison all across Canada, in both French and English. There is a very simple reason for that. In the Ottawa region, a lot of people are bilingual. If we give people a choice between starting in French or in English — which may well be the case — we will still be grappling with the same problem. We will have some people singing in French, and some people signing in English. Under such a scenario, the problem we are trying to fix remains unresolved.
Consequently, I believe the national anthem should have the same number of words in French and in English.
The one problem we do have to resolve is the language in which to have the anthem begin. Both languages are official and have equal status. However, we have nine provinces where the majority is unilingual — with the exception of New Brunswick, which is bilingual. We can always give it a try.
I think we have to keep working at this. However, it has to be simple. The same number of words in French and in English. Everyone should be singing in the same language at the same time. I am 100 per cent in favour of that.
Any other variation would be a mistake. It would be worse if you had parts in French and parts in English and gave some people an opportunity to begin singing in French, whereas others would begin in English. That is certainly what is likely to happen. And we will not solve the problem by doing that. My colleague, Senator Kinsella, certainly never intended to end up with a dog's breakfast.
Mr. Moyer: That is the suggestion that has been made by our department. We are basing ourselves on our experience in terms of how the national anthem is currently used.
[English]
Canada is evolving, in the use of our national anthem, in a direction that we like, but we have to be realistic. There are still places in Canada where people react badly if the national anthem begins in a language that is not theirs. Therefore, we thought that while like every other Canadian we aspire to simplicity, our country has given us a legacy of complexity, and that we can live with that degree of complexity.
However, our intention here today was only to furnish you with another option. In the end, if it is the wish of the Senate to have a single bilingual version, we still believe this is a great step forward. As the people responsible, we would put our full effort into promoting that new national anthem.
We do believe it warrants a careful debate. We in the National Capital Region are sometimes protected from realities elsewhere. They accuse us in the public service of that all the time.
There are not very many bilingual audiences in Canada such as the one we have here. It is those audiences that we are particularly anxious to reach out to through this new bilingual version.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: That does not answer my question. In Montreal, people could start singing in English, whereas in Toronto, they might start in French. In Ottawa, we really do not know, because everyone is bilingual.
Mr. Moyer: In Ottawa, you could use both versions, one after the other. I cannot guarantee you simplicity in all of this. I am not here to engage in a big debate. If we have a bilingual version that begins in English, I do not think that would go over very well in Quebec City, for example, where some people would like to see our national anthem used more often.
Senator Beaudoin: There will always be places where one version or the other is not appreciated or accepted. We live in a bilingual country. So, there are places in Canada where people will not be happy.
The Chairman: I have to interrupt you, Senator Beaudoin, because the other senators also want to ask questions.
Senator Lapointe: I am opposed to this idea, but it is not something personal. I received the notice yesterday. Unfortunately, Senator Kinsella was not available. There are some questions I would have liked to put to him directly.
Given my profound attachment to the national anthem, I will not let anyone lay a hand on it. You referred to the Olympic Games earlier. I have attended a number of Olympic events. I am a French-Canadian and a Quebecer. There is nothing more moving than seeing the flag being raised while the national anthem is sung, with the camera trained on the athlete who won and the crowd around him. Some people sing the national anthem in French, and some people sing it in English. As far as I am concerned, that is a clear demonstration of this country's unity.
Just try getting people in Quebec to start singing their national anthem in English. It is going to be a major problem. Then go to Calgary, and try to get them to do the reverse; again, you will be facing a major problem. With all due respect for Senator Kinsella, I really do not understand why he thought it would be appropriate to write a bilingual national anthem.
I sometimes dream in technicolour, but Senator Kinsella must be seeing a thousand different colours. It simply is not true that people are confused about what they are hearing or that this simply results in cacophony. It is not true. We sing our national anthem with conviction. In Toronto, for example, I sing it in English out of respect for the people around me.
So, this can only create a lot of problems. In the Senate, you will have to face off against me because I will put every ounce of energy I have into ensuring that it does not happen. It is a noble gesture on the part of Senator Kinsella, whom I admire and who is a very decent fellow.
But I will be one of those fighting to avoid a version of our national anthem where one paragraph is sung in English, and the other in French. Senator Léger said earlier that it is the music that is most important in a national anthem. Some national anthems are played only at certain international events. I imagine there is a reason for that. Take the example of Switzerland and Belgium, where they speak three languages. I may be wrong about Belgium. But there are countries where people speak three languages.
So, I am against this. I gave a speech in the Senate chamber; I do not know whether you heard about it, but there must be some reason why this particular speech, which was hardly brilliant, was talked about all across Canada, or just about. It obviously relied a lot on humour. But the basic message was there.
Mr. Moyer: More and more Canadians are seeking a bilingual version of the national anthem. People want to show their respect for both languages by including a part to be sung in the other language. This is not something that was invented by legislators. There is nothing we can do to stop people from raising this question. Do we want to channel that desire towards an official bilingual version, or are we content to let Canadians make up their own bilingual version?
I have to say that at our department, we are responsible for organizing events on the Hill, such as Canada Day, and so forth, for which we invent an official bilingual version; I should also point out that it is not the same version year after year.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to pursue that line of questioning. Fortunately, the music is universal. We have had the same debate in the past, in Parliament, about laws. We would be given the translation of a law that had very often been drafted in English. I remember hearing the Anglophones say:
[English]
You do not talk the same way in French as you do in English.
[Translation]
To which I would answer: Well, no, we have a different way of saying things, but the idea is the same. There are 20 million unilingual English-speaking Canadians and 4 million and a half unilingual Francophones in Canada. I told Senator Kinsella that this would be a very big challenge: wanting to ensure that all unilingual Canadians, both Anglophones and Francophones, would get used to singing in both official languages. Yet they have trouble accepting bilingualism.
In the national capital, a debate is currently raging around the idea of making this country's national capital a bilingual city. It is an endless debate that will certainly be an issue in the upcoming municipal election. According to protocol, who exactly decides in what language the anthem will begin at national events such as those you referred to earlier, like Canada Day? Is that your responsibility?
Mr. Moyer: When an event is organized by our department, such as an event on the Hill, we decide. But in every other place where the decision is made to use a version incorporating both languages, that decision is made by the people organizing the event.
Senator Gauthier: So, you are the ones who decide?
Mr. Moyer: Only when we are organizing the event in question.
Senator Gauthier: That means that if you invite a Francophone artist, he will not be able to decide to use French first; he will have to use the language that you have decided will come first.
Mr. Moyer: That was the case with Canada Day. But if that individual is invited by the other senators in Ottawa to sing at a hockey game, then it is the team's organization that will decide to what extent and how the two languages will be used. The same applies throughout the rest of Canada.
Senator Gauthier: I have no problem with that way of doing things. I pointed out earlier that Senator Kinsella's bill presented a third option. You are now coming forward with a fourth.
Mr. Moyer: Yes, but it is still only an option. Everything that we are proposing is purely optional. We now have two options, and Canadians are attempting to invent a third; the issue is around whether we should pass legislation to provide them with another version and, if so, whether we should do that by including components A and B.
The Chairman: Just as a supplement to Senator Gauthier's question about who makes the decisions, if an event is organized, not by your department but by someone else — for example, the event held yesterday in the Senate was organized by National Defence — are these departments subject to the Official Languages Act? Would it not be simpler to have just one national anthem? Would that not facilitate the decision-making process for the people who have to organize these events?
Mr. Moyer: Yes, it certainly would, and since we are responsible for promoting the symbols, we are not in a position to promote a bilingual version if it is not a formal bilingual version.
Senator Gauthier: Are you the one to decide, or is it the Protocol people?
Mr. Moyer: The Office of Domestic Protocol is located in our department. So, the answer is both the Protocol people and ourselves. If it involves international protocol, the Department of Foreign Affairs is the one that decides.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: It is good to welcome former colleagues from the department of what was, in my day, Secretary of State, and is today Canadian Heritage. I am one who salutes the work that you do in promoting Canadian identity and so forth.
Yesterday, as Senator Losier-Cool has indicated, we had a remembrance ceremony in the Senate chamber. We had a beautiful choir of young people, and when they began to sing the national anthem, it did not matter whether one's first language was English or French; it begins with exactly the same words in both languages.
Because — and this is very important, and I think Senator Gauthier will agree with me — English and French are exactly equal in Parliament, they are completely equal in all aspects. Therefore, in terms of the concern about if, after ``O Canada!'', comes, as in my suggestion, ``Terre de nos aïeux'' — that is equal to the English words.
Yesterday, I did not know what lines they would sing next. I looked around the room and I could see people were not sure what version they would sing, and it is a pity. At least as far as the institutions of Parliament, the Official Languages Act, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights are concerned, it is clear: English and French are equal. That obviates the problem of continuing after O Canada in English or French as far as the institutions of Parliament are concerned.
I can understand that perhaps in certain parts of Western Canada — and we all saw the terrible dispute at the Grey Cup last year around the national anthem — there would be offence caused if after ``O Canada!'', one continued with ``Terre de nos aïeux.'' In Chilliwack, British Columbia, I suspect that they would continue to sing O Canada in English, and in Trois Rivières they would sing O Canada in French.
However, in our province, there are so many events at which people can sing in either English or French, but they usually only sing it once, and I think that there are many occasions, when, as you mentioned, people come up with their own combination. That brings me to why we chose these words.
We were driven by a principle of inclusiveness. I am glad to hear that the officials in the department have looked at another combination. However, we have another bill, Bill S-3, which I support, and Senator Lapointe spoke eloquently on it the other day. That bill speaks more directly to the English hymn with respect to language that is not inclusive, and Senator Lapointe and I want to change that.
This bilingual option is 100 per cent inclusive. It avoids words like ``thy sons.'' It was more than a coincidence, because we tried to ensure that this bilingual version would be 100 per cent inclusive. I recall Senator Kroft making that point in our debate at second reading. When we studied it, he was happy to see that we avoided those issues. Bill S- 3 and this bill, in principle, are like hand in glove.
The other point is, just to underscore that this is not intended to replace anything for those in Rivière-du-Loup who wish to sing in French or those in Regina who may wish to sing in English, it would have helped us in the Senate yesterday if there had been a Senate version, and custom would develop around usage.
I should think that it might help your department, which sponsors and organizes so many national events, to have the recommended parliamentary version when we make it bilingual.
Perhaps you may want to react or comment on that.
Mr. Moyer: It would be very helpful to us in our role as the promoter of national symbols to have an official bilingual version. This will allow us to promote an approved bilingual version.
We receive many requests from schoolteachers who want to teach the official bilingual version in their schools. This is happening more often because there are more bilingual Canadians in all parts of the country. Young choirs who are proud to sing the national anthem in our two official languages have received you as parliamentarians.
It would be helpful if, as a result of this process, we can produce an official bilingual version. We only threw the additional option on the table because of the issues that have come up in the conversation about it. Clearly, communities where that might be difficult could still use either the English-only or French-only version. That would not have helped us out with the problem we had last year at the Grey Cup. We were trying to go just a little further. However, I repeat, it is only an idea on our part.
The Chairman: I would promote the idea that teachers anywhere in the country who teach the national anthem to their students start here, with one official bilingual version. That is my view.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: When I first heard about Senator Kinsella's bill in the Senate, my reaction was that the intention behind the bill is a very good one. I spoke in the Senate and expressed support for the bill based on my own personal experiences. I am a Francophone from Western Canada. We hear very little French in the western provinces.
So I dared to dream and to consider the possibility that if we had a third version that included both official languages, the French language might play a larger role at some of the major events that occur in Western Canada.
The reason I say I dared to dream is that I know full well the reality will be quite different. Some people just do not value the French language enough to want to sing the national anthem in both languages.
I listened carefully to the comments made by you and my colleagues. I honestly believe that federal departments need official versions. If they have a version in both official languages, they will be able to continue to promote our linguistic duality. It would be third version. My concern is the language in which we will begin singing our national anthem.
In my area of the country, if we try to have people start singing in French, we will be pelted with tomatoes. In other regions of the country, at official events, people would have to start singing in French, and then switch to English. That is where things get complicated. I really am not sure whether there is any simple solution. The idea and the intention behind this initiative are extremely laudable. I just do not know whether it is really possible to develop a version of the national anthem that is not too complicated, and that people will actually use.
Mr. Moyer: I am going to try to respond to your concerns. Why are we so afraid of complexity? That is our legacy! I would like to meet the challenge of promoting a bilingual version of O Canada that would start in French to a teacher in Alberta. In that mailing, he would receive the official English version, the official French version, and the official bilingual version used in other parts of the country.
He will say to himself that now he has a version he can use in his classroom. He may also think that Canada is a complicated country. That is a lesson in itself. That is the reality we have to live with on a daily basis.
The Chairman: I agree with you about throwing out this challenge. When I went to school as a small girl living on the Acadian peninsula, I used to sing God Save the King.
We have another challenge for future generations. That could be a very interesting challenge.
Senator Beaudoin: Developing a bilingual and bijural Constitution was easy, because there are two columns and they can be equal. That is the advantage of laws. They are in both English and French. Both columns are equal and there is absolute equality. Whether it is on the left-hand side or the right, it makes no different.
All federal laws are bilingual and Canada's Constitution is bilingual, because what is written in each column has equal status. As far as the music is concerned, there is no problem. We cannot totally resolve the problem in terms of the words that are sung. I accept that.
I do not understand why we could not sing the national anthem in one language and then the next, one after the other. I am afraid that human nature would soon come to the fore and our laziness would triumph, so that after the first time, we would not start singing the same music again in other language. That is the problem. I have heard O Canada sung first in French, and then in English. It is very beautiful, and especially when it is sung by a great singer.
There is no way out of this. There is no perfect system. The perfect system would be to have two columns, but we do not have that.
I think this is much better than what we currently have. And I wonder whether in practice, that is not what will end up happening. We should be singing the first part in French, and the second in English and/or the first part in English and the second in French. In terms of what to do for the rest of it, we can simply make the decision based on where we are. In New Brunswick or Quebec, there will be a problem because in both those provinces the two languages are equal. In the rest of Canada outside Quebec, it will be sung in English. I guess New Brunswick is really the only province to be completely different in that respect, because there is absolute equality.
I personally do not believe there is any ideal solution. But I do think the answer in this case is to go with what seems easiest. We will still have the problem of knowing in what language we should begin. Once we have started singing, we will have to sing the whole part in French or in English, and then sing the second part in the other language. That is the only solution; it is easy to understand. Everyone will understand what to do. Anglophones will begin in English and sing half of it in English and then finish in French. Francophones will begin in French, and finish in English.
The Chairman: Senator Keon has not yet had an opportunity to ask questions.
[English]
Senator Keon: I apologize that I could not be here sooner, and that therefore, I did not hear everything that was said.
It seems, from what I have heard, that we begin with a statement that reflects our linguistic duality, ``O Canada.'' We then have a few French phrases, and then more in English, ending in English. I am not sure that we can improve on that.
I think it would be burdensome to hand out four versions of our national anthem. Three are enough. We could have the French, the English and the bilingual versions — official versions. I am sorry for using the word ``version,'' but I cannot think of a better one.
If someone does not want to begin in French, let them sing the whole thing in English. If they do not want to end in English, let them sing the whole thing in French. They have three options, and I think this is a wonderful thing. We should keep it simple. I think the kids will all be singing this before long, because they are much more malleable and sensible than we are. I think it will catch on, and I think we should just move on.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Keon. Mr. MacLeod, would you like to add any comments?
Mr. Kevin S. MacLeod, Manager, State Ceremonial and Canadian Symbols, Canadian Heritage: I would reinforce what Mr. Moyer said earlier. On a daily basis I am on the receiving end of many telephone calls from across the country, especially from teachers, and not necessarily teachers in either English or French immersion, but teachers who simply wish to empower their students with knowledge, awareness and appreciation of our second language. Often, they say to me, ``What better way to start that process than with the very emotive words of our national anthem.'' On a daily basis, we are asked whether there is an official bilingual version that can be used with students. Unfortunately, our answer is that there is not, but that they are at liberty to pick and choose.
As Mr. Moyer mentioned earlier, the existence of an official bilingual version would be of great assistance to not only those types of educators, but also to people across the country who are proud that we are a bilingual country and proud of our national anthem. It would be of tremendous use at an official level to have a standardized official version.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacLeod and Mr. Moyer.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-14?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have a question for the sponsor of the bill. Why does your version begin in French?
Senator Kinsella: Because based on the principle of inclusion, by starting in French we avoid a problem with the English version. ``All thy sons command'' can be completely set aside if, instead, we say ``terre de nos aïeux''.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, that melds the two. I agree.
Senator Léger: In that respect, I really analyzed the wording to see whether the different passages in French and English make sense when presented that way, and I think they do. It does make sense when you sing the bilingual version of O Canada.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Léger: You are going too fast; I did not even have a chance to say no!
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the Schedule pass?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall the bill carry without amendment?
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: Madam Chairman, can I ask you what the title is? I was not able to follow; I was trying to find the right paper.
The Chairman: The title of the bill is Bill S-14, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada.
Senator Lapointe: I am voting against.
The Chairman: Senators, shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be reported without amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: Pardon me for interrupting you, Madam Chairman, but we were supposed to have a second round; I had questions to ask and comments to make.
The Chairman: Did you raise your hand? I did look to see if anyone else had questions.
Senator Lapointe: I did gesture to you. It does not matter; it will be coming back anyway.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall I report this to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The motion is carried on division.
The meeting is adjourned.