Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence, June 6, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 6, 2006
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:32 a.m. to give consideration to procedural issues related to the User Fee Act.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to our first meeting of session.
Before us today, we have one item. There is a background note in front of you by now, I would hope, on Bill C-212. A private member's bill, respecting user fees, was passed. I believe a condition of the bill was that whenever a change was proposed to the user fees, particularly an increase in the user fees, the proposals were to be tabled in the Senate and House of Commons and reviewed, or may be reviewed, by an appropriate standing committee. It is that issue we will discuss. Rather than my giving you any further information, I will turn it over to our witness, this morning, Dr. O'Brien.
Gary O'Brien, Deputy Clerk and Principal Clerk, Legislative Services: Honourable senators, the User Fee Act was adopted in 2004. As the chair explained, it was a private member's bill sponsored by Mr. Roy Cullen, M.P. The purpose was to provide a consultation process with the stakeholders before the introduction of new user fees, or the increase or extension of existing user fees. The legislation sets out an approval process by Parliament.
In a nutshell, honourable senators, documents come forward from various government departments and agencies — Industry Canada, Parks Canada and the CRTC. The various departments are now required to submit to Parliament a list of proposed fees that are either to be extended or increased. These documents are tabled, pursuant to this new legislation, in both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Cullen drafted his bill from a House of Commons perspective. In fact, when the bill arrived in the Senate, there was no mention of the Senate procedures — or the approval of the Senate, for that matter — with respect to the Senate's input on approving these user fees. It is not surprising that Senator Robichaud is smiling.
The Senate, as it has done in the last number of years, has stood up for its rights and amended the bill. The amendment included that any approval for user fees must include the consent of the House of Commons, as well as the Senate.
Unfortunately, the bill was structured more on House of Commons procedures. When documents are tabled in the House, they are automatically deemed referred to the appropriate committee. The House of Commons has structured its committees around departments, so the appropriate committee was identified easily; if it was Industry Canada, that committee deals with Industry Canada issues.
The Senate committees, as you know, are structured more on policy lines, and they go back for many years. We do not have the one-to-one link with each of the departments.
We noticed this when the act was passed, but elections had intervened. At least three reports from departments were tabled in the Senate, but they were not deemed referred to any appropriate committee, basically for the lack of an identifiable procedure. We come before you today as a way to facilitate the proceedings in the Senate.
There is a 20-day time limit from the time the document is tabled in Parliament to the time that the committee is deemed to have adopted it. If the committee takes no action, the document is considered to be approved. The purpose of coming before you is to discuss options for the appropriate procedure to refer these documents describing user fees to the appropriate committee.
Basically, there are three options. One is our normal procedure. The document is tabled first by the Deputy Leader of the Government. Either that day or later, the deputy leader gives notice of a motion that the documents with respect to user fees on fisheries be referred to the fisheries committee — or the deputy leader suggests which committee the documents should go to. It would be put to the Senate by a motion; and it would be adopted like a normal order of reference for a committee.
A number of these things can come up in the course of a fiscal year. In that case, one committee could be identified as the committee responsible for user fees, such as the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I believe that Mr. Cullen's bill did go to the national finance committee. I think that committee dealt with the bill originally and that is where that bill was studied.
Then you might want to consider making a change in rule 86, identifying user fees increases as part of the broad mandate of the national finance committee.
Or, and this is perhaps a little bit more problematic —
[Translation]
Section 4 of the Bill states:
The Committee is deemed to have been advised of any proposal that is tabled in accordance to subsection 2.
[English]
Every proposal tabled under subsection 2 is deemed referred to the committee.
We have this wording that once the document is tabled, it is deemed to be referred to the appropriate committee — assuming that there is almost no debate; that there is an automatic order of reference that would be a statutory order of reference.
To be honest, a number of statutes have this wording — that this annual report of a committee is deemed referred to the appropriate committee. Notwithstanding that, the Senate has most often exerted its privileges in the sense that notwithstanding whatever a statute says, we have the privilege to determine our internal proceedings. That is our right. We decide which committee or which action to be taken with respect to referral of a committee report or whatever.
We have had examples where, notwithstanding that there might be a deeming section within a particular statute, an appropriate motion is made, debated and referred to a committee. However, as has been pointed out, this wording is finding its way into many statutes — that things are deemed referred to a particular committee automatically.
Senator Joyal: Which article are you referring to?
Mr. O'Brien: This is clause 4, subsection 4 of the act, on page 3.
You might want to consider, as an option, that the rules of the Senate could be amended to allow the Deputy Leader of the Government to name the committee to study the proposal when tabling the document. This option means that no debate on that issue would be held. Perhaps an announcement could be made immediately upon the tabling of the document that pursuant to the statute or pursuant to the rule, if one was to make a rule, this document is referred to the fisheries committee, the agriculture committee, or whatever appropriate committee the user fee is dealing with.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, those are the key points of my presentation this morning.
[English]
The Chairman: Just to clarify, I think your briefing note states that three times there could have been referrals to committees. How did we deal with them in the Senate?
Mr. O'Brien: We did not take any action, nor did the House of Commons. There is a 20-sitting-day timeline; and because of elections and dissolution, the thing died upon dissolution.
We are coming back to you because we have word from the departments — especially from Industry Canada — that a report will come before Parliament shortly.
The Chairman: For our records, each time there has been an instance where the item should have been referred, the 20 days elapsed and it was automatically deemed to have been accepted. Is that correct?
Mr. O'Brien: No; the dissolution occurred before the 20 days were finished, so they have to start over again.
The Chairman: I do not know if that is as clear as mud. We will go to questions now.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to reflect without thinking of the obligations the way they are stated in the legislation. The 20 days are, of course, the 20 sitting days. It is a short period of time. It can happen at a moment that Parliament is caught with —
Mr. Robert: Twenty days, not 20 sitting days.
Senator Joyal: It is even more stringent.
Mr. O'Brien: For example, today is the twentieth sitting day of our new Parliament, which started April 3. We are now June, so 20 sitting days can be —
The Chairman: Do we need a clarification?
Mr. O'Brien: Sorry, it is 20 sitting days.
Senator Joyal: It is 20 sitting days.
The Chairman: Now that it is clear, can we continue?
Mr. O'Brien: We will look at section 6(2).
Senator Joyal: Twenty sitting days is a short period of time for a session. If a committee were in the middle of consideration of other proposed legislation or reference mandated by the House, it would have to stop those deliberations and decide whether to consider the increases. For example, there might be an increase in Parks Canada fees, which is a large application across Canada. The issue would create general concern because there are many implications. Therefore, the committee would want to hear from Parks Canada officials from the various regions to have a full understanding of the potential impact of that increase across the country. Given the time limits involved, we should adopt the procedure that would provide the fastest referral to committee.
The longer we wait within those 20 days, the less time the committee has for its deliberations.
We should adopt the procedure that would be most effective for quick referral of the matter to committee so that it has sufficient time to consider the issue fully. Otherwise, the changes might simply be rubber-stamped, thereby not satisfying the objective of the legislation, which is to give both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to examine the increases and their impact.
In your view, which option should provide the fastest procedure?
Mr. O'Brien: Usually it is pretty non-controversial to refer a matter to a committee. At most, it would take one day to give a notice of motion that senators will refer the Parks Canada matter to the environment committee. One sitting day is five per cent of the time. Obviously, the most efficient way is to determine which committee is most appropriate to examine these changes in user fees, to make it known to the House and to have an entry in the journal that this document was deemed referred to the selected committee.
By having one day's notice, you have an opportunity for discussion, perhaps, among the house leaders to reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the committee. For example, if you were to refer these matters to the national finance committee then, if someone were to object, you could make an exception to the rule. The notice would allow discussion among committee chairs and you might find additional delays if you do not have the right committee.
Senator Joyal: Let us take another example, such as an increase in passport fees, which could cause lengthy debate, or perhaps a new kind of identification card, vis-a-vis our friends south of the border. Those changes would bring about a highly political discussion that could lead to greater debate of the procedure than the substance of the issue. The most important thing to keep in mind is the substance of the increase, the reasons behind it and the impact on the country; not where it should be debated. The substance, reasons and the impact come first. Then where it will be debated comes next, while reserving as much time as possible to accomplish that. That is the purpose of this statute.
It should be more the prerogative of committees. Then, it would be better to amend rule 86 to make it part of the terms of reference of the committees. We could adopt a standard change to rule 86, whereby each committee enumerated is competent to take any discussion as to increases in fees. Then, the issue would be referred automatically to the committee.
The Chairman: I have a clarification. Would option one be more flexible, whereby the house leader could submit the item to a committee that could deal with it in a timely way rather than send it to a pre-designated committee that might not have sufficient time to deal with it. I put that forward for consideration.
Charles Robert, Principal Clerk, Procedure, Senate of Canada: It is to try to respect the language of the law that the Senate has adopted, and to take the meaning of the word ``deemed'' more seriously. To take the point of Senator Joyal, it is important to maximize the time available to the committee to examine the user fee application increase. Perhaps, through a change in the Rules of the Senate, the Leader of the Government or the Deputy Leader of the Government who tables the document could be authorized to announce to the house what committee the matter would be referred to and that would allow the declaration to be deemed, for Senate purposes, an order of reference. There would be no real debate. Presumably, the debate would take place prior to the tabling through consultations, scroll meetings and other occasions between the members of the leadership.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: That was my suggestion. The Deputy Leader of the Government and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, after consultation, could enter it on the scroll so that the two sides of the House can be properly advised and, from there, we take the shortest route to send it to committee. The consultation would also help determine, in some cases, which committee really has the time to deal with such a proposal. Sometimes committees may be travelling or have work that is scheduled well in advance. After consultation with the concerned committee chairs, the two Leaders could then make a proposal to the House.
[English]
Senator Smith: I am trying to keep an open mind. I respond favourably to the point that Senator Joyal has made that we have to be expeditious. An act was passed some years ago, to which I was sympathetic, called the Clarity Act. I know that not everyone agreed with it but I like the clarity concept so you know what will happen.
The referral to committee should happen expeditiously so I am open to the third option of automatically sending the matter to the national finance committee. I cannot recall them travelling in recent years, although maybe they do. In that way, there would be equality in terms of having the same committee group hear each one out. If the increase were related to farmers' fees and the matter were referred to the agriculture committee, the members would be against it. We know that before it even gets there. Maybe you have something where nobody is adversely prejudiced, if there is equal treatment. I am thinking out loud.
Another thing, in a system where the government decides arbitrarily and unilaterally which committee it might go to — and presumably, there would be a rationale for it — is it desirable to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide where it would go when the votes might not be there in a minority situation such as we have now? I am not being negative against this or any government. I am still open-minded, but those ideas are ruminating in my mind.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If it is a question that concerns fisheries — let's take the increase in user fees for example — the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries would not take kindly to having another committee handle an issue that directly concerns fisheries.
Over the years, the Fisheries Committee has kept abreast of increases in user fees and would therefore be in a better position to study the proposal. This would be the case for all committees since each one develops its own expertise. That is why the issue of user fees must be sent to the committee best qualified to study it.
[English]
The Chairman: Was it a question to Senator Smith?
Senator Robichaud: It is a comment or question.
The Chairman: Let us get a few more people in here and we will get a wider opinion.
Senator Cordy: The point has already been made that we must get it to committee as quickly as possible because 20 sitting days can go by quickly, particularly if the committee is involved in a study of some kind, has arranged speakers for particular dates or is travelling through Canada gathering information at hearings.
The first point is that the matter has to go to committee quickly.
I would hate to tie ourselves up by saying every single thing has to go to the national finance committee. Many things would likely find their way to that committee but I would not like a blanket statement that they must automatically go to that committee. I like the idea of a discussion between house leaders on both sides and that a referral be made by the Deputy Leader, because there could be extenuating circumstances where perhaps the agriculture committee, or the energy committee if we are looking at raises in park fees, would get it. I can see situations where committees with specific interests and background knowledge relevant to the user fees in particular situations would want to deal with it. In that case, they might be a bit upset that the national finance committee gets everything. I understand that all senators can take part in all committee discussions, but I would hate to have our hands tied to just one committee.
The Chairman: No one has talked about the amendment to the bills to give 60 days, but I will let that go.
Senator Joyal: I was thinking, too, about possible amendments to the bill as an option.
The Chairman: It will probably pass.
Senator Joyal: I was first attracted by Senator Smith's point. Let us send them to one committee, national finance. It is simple. Moreover, by tradition in the Senate, the national finance committee is chaired by a senator from the opposition. An increase of fees must be scrutinized by opposition eyes because taxpayers end up paying. Thus, there is a rationale behind this.
However, I have the same perception as Senator Cordy and Senator Robichaud, which is, if we do that, we will do it differently from the other place. Mr. Robert will correct me, but if I understand clause 4(4), where it is deemed referred to the committee, it means to the appropriate committee. In other words, the philosophy of the bill is to have each increase referred to the appropriate committee in the other place. We would change that in the Senate. We would say one committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
If the other place thinks it is more appropriate to refer the increase to the appropriate committee, as Senator Cordy and Senator Robichaud said, it is because the domain where the fees will be applicable will call upon the members to know about the reality of that domain. There is certainly a good rationale for that because that is what was in the bill originally.
I think that Senator Smith's point of view is good, which is to send it to national finance, because it is a financial issue. The estimates normally are referred to national finance, and budgetary legislation is normally referred to national finance unless a committee wants to address a specific issue.
The only place I would not like to find ourselves, to quote Senator Smith, is to use the clarity bill principle, whereby we give an opinion that is not binding. It is fortunate that this bill gives us full authority to say no to any increases. Otherwise, the other place could do whatever it wants. I want to close that parenthesis immediately.
We should refer it to the appropriate committee. I think it is closer to the scrutiny that we hope to give to an increase of fees. I think of many fees that could be the object of hot discussion, and I prefer to have a procedure whereby it is automatically referred to the committee in the 20 days.
I have seen issues whereby the Deputy Leader or the Leader of the Government would want to consult their caucus to know where it should go, and so on. Since the period of time is short, as you said yourself, we should consider extending it, and then it is open to the ``game'' of delaying tactics to avoid having the issue dealt with at the committee.
We should have a procedure that is clear. I then parallel my friend Senator Smith, clear and automatic to the committee, and if we need to amend the rules I think we should recommend that.
The Chairman: If we need to amend the rules, I have a suggestion from the clerk.
Senator Smith: I want to wrap up.
The Chairman: I will get back to you and then Senator Robichaud in a moment.
Mr. O'Brien advised us that the structure of committees in the other place is departmental and ours is different. What I have concern over is that if we try to define the appropriate committee in the Senate, we may get involved in more debate and more adjournment debate, et cetera. Will you refresh our memory again about how the two differ in the structure of committees?
Mr. Robert: Because the House of Commons is the chamber that holds the cabinet responsible, the House committees are structured to mirror the structure of government, so where there is a department, there is likely to be a committee. Requests originating from a given department will be referred to the committee that mirrors that department.
The task of identifying to which committee it should go in the House of Commons is relatively simple and straightforward. In the Senate, because our committees tend to be structured more broadly or thematically, identifying the appropriate committee may not be as straightforward. I take the point that it is the preoccupation of this committee, in looking at this rule, that it should be as quick, and perhaps even as automatic, as possible to maximize the time for review.
Mr. Robertson: In the House of Commons, as you know, all estimates are referred to the appropriate committee because, as Mr. Robert has said, it is the confidence chamber. Therefore, every committee in the House has estimates referred to it.
As a result of those decisions, which have been made over the years, all the annual reports of departments and agencies, all the Order-in-Council appointments tabled in the House and all the other sessional papers follow that general decision. Therefore, in every case that a document is tabled in the other place, it is clear and the Journals know to which committee the document goes. There is no question in any case of which is the appropriate committee, which is the wording used in this bill.
The Chairman: Which is not as clear.
Mr. Robertson: Exactly.
Senator Smith: I think it is relevant to remind ourselves of certain realities that have occurred since this bill became law. This bill received Royal Assent in March of 2004, before the 2004 election. At that point, there had been majority governments in place, except for the nine-month Joe Clark government of 1979, all the way back to 1968. It was overwhelmingly the norm to have a majority. The members on the appropriate committee in the House of Commons would be whipped and it would pass. That is the reality.
The norm at the moment is minority governments. I know that some of us in this room would prefer to go back to a majority situation of one colour or the other. When that was put in place, no one was worried about whether it would go through.
If there is a Conservative majority in the near future, the government still will be in a minority situation in this chamber for a while, and who knows what committees would do. However, there is not the same automatic reaction.
Senator Cordy expressed concern about all user fee documents going there. However, in two years there were only three, so it is not a heavy load.
I like clarity. If they all go to one place, at least they will all get equal treatment and everyone will know the system. Having said that, although I am not hung up about appropriateness, you may want to amend it from 20 days to 60 days in case there is a big dust-up about which committee it should go to. If the issue affects agriculture, for example, the odds are overwhelming that the agriculture committee will say no, and in the current situation in this chamber that will be a steep hill to climb, unless I am missing something.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: To reiterate what Senator Smith put forth, the procedure must of course be clear. Those who handle the issue must fully understand how it will apply to users. I think this point is even more important.
With regard to the 20 days, could we not agree that the proposal for referral to committee, or the report, not be tabled in the House until the two Leaders come to an agreement with regard to which committee the report should be sent? Can we not delay tabling it in the House?
Mr. Robert: The issue has not been resolved, at least not according to Law. I believe you do have that option.
Senator Robichaud: That would give us some latitude. So, once the two Leaders have come to an agreement and after consulting committee chairs, they could table the report and the motion, which would go directly to the agreed- upon committee.
[English]
The Chairman: My concern is that could easily eat up a week, because a sitting week for us is only three days. It would certainly eat into the 20 days and could do so substantially on controversial issues, as I think raising passport fees could easily become.
I am your humble servant, but I express a thought that came to mind.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The 20 days are counted from the moment the report is tabled, is that correct?
Mr. Robert: Indeed, it is only from that moment.
[English]
The Chairman: Exactly. If it takes three, four or five days, which could be two weeks in our calendar, to reach an agreement between the two leaders, time is eaten up.
Mr. Robert: Senator Robichaud's point is that if this discussion begins before the document is presented, it does not count as part of the 20 days.
The Chairman: I understand that, but if the issue is controversial or political, it will not be done.
An Hon. Senator: Our clerk has an interesting idea.
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Our clerk is trying to be discreet.
Senator Smith: He is not proposing it; he is just floating it.
Mr. Armitage: Our clerk was wondering whether it would have to be tabled before the two deputy leaders reached an agreement so that it would not eat up the 20 days.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can wrap up and make a recommendation.
Senator Joyal: Are there principles based on the institutional understanding of the Senate whereby we should support the view that it is preferable to send the issue to the appropriate committee? Considering the role of the Senate, the way it is structured and its duties, would it be better to refer approval of the increases to the appropriate committee rather than to one committee?
Mr. Robert: The Rules of the Senate provide mandates for every standing committee. Presumably, that is the case because you want to concentrate your expertise with that committee.
If one committee over another might have some knowledge or experience that would be able to address, over time, perhaps more competently, the issues of user fee increases because of their acquaintance with the stakeholders, they might be able to bring more knowledge to bear.
The National Finance Committee has a great capacity, competency and skill. It has adapted itself to be able almost in a chameleon-like fashion to address those issues. You have to determine whether you want to look at the user fee issue to be addressed by national finance, with its capacity to be neutral, or to be addressed by the appropriate committee with members who may have more experience and knowledge of stakeholders. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
The Chairman: I do not think so.
Mr. Robert: That is a decision you have to make as to how you think the user fee issue would be best served — the analysis that you want to bring to bear on the application for user fees — because, for sure, the department will make the recommendation because it feels it has no choice for a variety of circumstances. Those people obliged to pay the fees may have complaints about the burden it may impose on them. Who then becomes a better judge of those issues; a neutral party such as the national finance committee or a committee that has knowledge of the players, both government and non-government?
The Chairman: I am not sure we have any consensus, although I thought we did at the beginning. The consensus seems to have slipped away. I would like to ask, first, which of these ideas will require changes of the rules? Some of them will, and some of them will not. I think the easiest way to deal with the concerns expressed by Senator Joyal at the beginning — which I share, and I believe from the way discussion has gone, most of us share — is to do an amendment to the bill to change that time period to 45 days or 60 days. That change solves all of these problems.
Senator Robichaud: No, it does not. If I may, Mr. Chairman, if the bill comes to us before we have a proposal, if it comes to us before that bill has been through the Senate and then through —
The Chairman: I agree with that, but in the meantime we would have to deal with the issue under the rules we have today. However, I am prepared to have a motion from one of our colleagues as to which way to go. There certainly does not appear to be a consensus. I am happy to make a recommendation, but as chair, I usually try to be the humble servant.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: The arguments to determine to which committee it should be referred have been well presented by both sides. However, this is a bill on user fees and, because of that, it becomes very important to have a good understanding of the users. I would tend to side with those who want to refer the proposals to the committees who have a particular expertise and who know the users best.
[English]
James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: I had a suggestion and I have not had a chance to discuss this with Mr. Robert, but I ran it by Mr. Armitage. The deputy leader could propose in the motion the order of reference as to which committee the issue goes to; make it clear in the report that the committee expects there to be consultation among the house leaders about this and to make sure that there is agreement.
That motion could be deemed adopted as soon as it is tabled unless there is a motion to vote on it, which would allow the opposition party or the majority in the Senate to vote down and substitute otherwise, and it could be provided that there be no debate on that motion to ensure that no time is wasted.
Essentially, the government proposes which committee the issue goes to, following consultation. If there is no agreement among the leadership, and if the majority of the Senate disagree with the proposal by the government, there would be an expeditious vote on that motion and there could even be provision that a substitute motion would need to be provided so that there is less delay before it goes forward.
Mr. Armitage: The awkward element is that it is being done during routine proceedings. We are in routine proceedings, the house leader has tabled a document and everything is done with deemed mechanisms in place. However, if there are actual motions and other proceedings, it opens up for abuse, routine proceedings that you may come to regret at a different time and at a different juncture in the Senate.
The alternative to what Mr. Robertson has suggested might be to safeguard that consultation process and wording that was to that effect, which is presumably the opposition house leader could raise a point of order at the end of question period, the beginning of the orders of the day, to indicate that they did not feel appropriate consultation had been given. I do not know how it would be resolved. It would be one person's word against another, but it could be a way of signalling complaint, which is often a use of points of order as well.
Senator Joyal: I think it should be as automatic or operational as possible to avoid that kind of delay of debate.
Mr. Armitage: You could give credit to the house leader to do the appropriate consultation.
Senator Joyal: I can see, for instance, an increase of user fees having been accepted in the other place. Then they say it is in the Senate and the Senate is lagging and not considering it, and so on and so forth. Then they use that argument to pressure the Senate to approve the user fees. I would not like to see the procedure open that kind of opportunity: in other words, to play a game with the debate so that the other place has adopted it and it is used as an argument against the senators.
The Chairman: I must admit that I have come to lean towards Senator Smith's original idea to send it to finance and make that recommendation. The Finance Committee deals with the budgets. The budget has every single line item of the budget. That would seem to me to be the cleanest and most automatic way of dealing with the issue.
Senator Robichaud: I disagree greatly. I think user fee documentation should go to the appropriate committee and there should be adequate time for the leadership to consider it. It will happen if the leadership has adequate time to consider where to send it. They will come to some agreement. I have been there and there is usually a lot of dealing. People understand what is happening in the committees and they will come to some understanding before the report is tabled in the Senate.
I would give leadership some time so as not to take time from the 20 days after it is tabled. I think everything will fall right in order after that.
Senator Cordy: I agree with that, to put in the wording ``consultation with house leaders in the Senate,'' or ``deputy leaders.''
The Chairman: The leadership.
Senator Cordy: The leadership, thank you. What worries me about saying ``national finance'' is the lack of flexibility. I am not saying it can never be sent to the National Finance Committee, but I would hate not to have flexibility. I would go along with discussions between the leadership and then a referral by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
The Chairman: Can we have a motion to that effect and we will deal with it and go forth? Are you suggesting that item one be changed to say, ``after consultation with the leadership of the opposition leadership,'' or appropriate words of that nature?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Senator Smith: The consultation must occur before the tabling.
The Chairman: Yes, I understand that.
Is this what you recommend?
Senator Robichaud: To the appropriate committee.
The Chairman: Of course, that is what I heard you say.
Mr. Robert: May I seek a clarification?
The Chairman: Please, Mr. Robert.
Mr. Robert: Is this being done as moving a motion subject to debate, or moving a proposition that would deemed automatically adopted.
The Chairman: The latter is what I understood.
Senator Smith: I can live with that consensus.
The Chairman: We will prepare a report together with the appropriate changes and we will bring it to you at the next meeting for consideration so it appropriately reflects our discussion.
Do we need to deal with any other items this morning?
Senator Joyal: We have discussed the issue of Aboriginal languages and I listened to the debate last week in the chamber. Our committee has done work on this and I suggest that the steering committee consider the possibility of taking it up where we left it and moving on. I would not like all the work we have done with you, Senator Smith and the other senators who participated in that subcommittee, to be left pending for months. Mr. Chairman, can you make representation to our respective leadership and ensure we conclude on this.
We had put together a minimum of consensus in this committee. Mr. Robertson, our researcher, participated in all those meetings. We made some preliminary conclusions and we should start with those. Could you be our spokesperson on that?
The Chairman: I need some guidance. Since it is in the chamber now and is still being debated, is it appropriate for us to continue?
Senator Joyal: I would do that on a non-official basis.
The Chairman: I understand that while it is still debated in the Senate, we should await the Senate's instructions. We are the Senate's servants. Are you suggesting unofficially to restructure the subcommittee, or a subcommittee, to take a look at that?
Senator Joyal: It is merely non-committed. I understand the rules of the Senate and we cannot discuss it.
We have a done a lot of work, explored a lot of aspects and have come to some preliminary conclusions so I would like it if you and our deputy chair take it on the non-committed basis to our leadership to see how we can manage that.
Senator Smith: I welcome that suggestion. It is my understanding that the committee last time was ad hoc and so I am not aware of any rule that prevents an ad hoc committee from remaining ad hoc.
I was a little uncomfortable with that discussion in the house about the most recent version of the proposition that was being put forward, because there has been a 180-degree turn. There was a huge principle involved that we must endorse this proposition without clearly defining what it all applies to, how many languages it applies to and with no idea of the cost.
I can tell you that the amounts it would cost, including interpreters and unions, et cetera, would be a multiple of the numbers that were expressed in the chamber.
I am open-minded about trying to make a statement that is respectful of our Aboriginal communities and respectful of our colleagues in the house who wish to do this, but these dollars are public. We need clarity on what will happen, and an approximate understanding of what the cost is rather than signing a blank cheque before the amounts are filled in.
Senator Joyal: I totally agree with you and it was not the level that the subcommittee, or the ad hoc committee, had reached at that time. We were talking about an experiment to see how it works before we commit. I think that is in the best pragmatic, empirical, British tradition of adding to the improvement, and I am still convinced that is the best way to do it. I understood the debate on the motion but that is why I suggested you, our chair and me. We were part of the ad hoc committee. I suggested that you especially because you are now the deputy chair take it to the appropriate level and propose that as the way to make progress on an empirical, experimental basis. To me, that was the most sensible approach to the issue.
Since the committee at that time seemed to share that the approach was non-committal for the future, but we would learn from that experience, that was the way to go. That is why I raise this issue. As you said yourself, adopting a full change or a permanent one on the basis of what might be contemplated is not the appropriate way to move on this.
However, there is a way to move on, too. That is why I call upon your experience, wisdom and common sense to make the representation and see how we can move on this.
The Chairman: Thank you for the compliment. Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the motion now before the senators no longer mentions Inuktitut as the only language but would apply, in fact, to all languages of the communities. I remember the debate on this motion: I remember that it was not a question of money but rather a question of principle. It think that that was clearly indicated.
If the motion was to be adopted by the House, it would go directly to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy to have the whole system implemented so that it would function that way. We'd have to ensure that the mechanism is set up if we want to study the costs and, in fact, how it could be implemented in order to have the motion referred to committee before adoption. Otherwise, it would go directly to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
The Chairman: I would like to express the same concerns as Senator Smith. The original motion was considerably different than the one we are dealing with today. I believe I recall correctly when I state that there was probably at least general consensus and pretty much a unanimous agreement that the principle is something that we should try to accommodate. I feel the same way.
We are dealing with a totally different issue. It is not an occasional opportunity for those who wish to express themselves in one of the Aboriginal languages with appropriate notice, which is what we are dealing with right now. It is, if I understand the debate correctly, to have a permanent type of ability for those who would like to express themselves in a number of Aboriginal languages, however many that may be.
There are huge concerns. One of the concerns, I think we were told during our discussions, is to find people with the skills and ability to translate those languages. The cost is another one, and also the accommodation of the translators in the facilities that we now have, which may mean that we would have to change physically some of the locations.
I wanted to put on the record that I totally agree. We are not dealing with the same issues, Senator Joyal. I have no problem, if Senator Smith agrees, for us to speak with our leadership to see if they would like us to reactivate the ad hoc committee, and I will report at the next meeting.
Senator Joyal: That is essentially the way I would be happy for you and the deputy chair to act.
Senator Smith: When the motion first came into existence, it referred only to Inuktitut. The matter was then sent to this committee, which reached a consensus that whatever we do, we should have the same rights for any senator who uses a Canadian Aboriginal language — this equal access was universally agreed to.
When it was first discussed, the concept was that sometimes there would be special occasions when groups would be in from different areas and it would be respectful to be able to speak in the chamber on it, and this would be a manageable thing if we had a certain period of notice. Then there were discussions about what is a reasonable period of notice. Could you live with a week, if we have to fly in interpreters from up North? What seems to have happened is that some members jumped to the conclusion that it has to be available all the time.
If you give total equal treatment, even on Inuktitut only, and you increase all the translation by a 50 per cent cost — and it may be more than that to get it going between three languages — how many people are you hiring and are you doing it in every committee? We are talking many millions of dollars.
I recall when Senator Adams, the originator of the motion, heard that to fix the booths for the original concept would cost $1 million, he said if he had known it would cost $1 million, he would not have done this. Yet $1 million would have been nothing compared to what is now being articulated by some proponents of it.
I think that most of us are comfortable with something that is practical, respectful and relatively affordable. However, it has to have definition or you are signing a huge blank cheque.
Senator Joyal: I agree. When we had our discussion at our subcommittee, some members around the table at that time did not have the benefit of all the opinions and points of view that we have exchanged. I think the point we reached among the subcommittee members — that is you two and me — was a positive step. To me, that positive step is still valid today and that is how we could make some more progress.
That is why I rely on you both in your capacity to try to convey that point of view to the leadership, so we could try to make progress.
The Chairman: I certainly will on my part. I cannot commit for Senator Smith but I am sure he would agree to have a chat with his leadership and we will come back to the committee.
Having said that, if the Senate refers the issue to us today, we will deal with it. That is always the option that our colleagues in the Senate have.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Yes, but the honourable senator must propose that the motion be referred to committee otherwise, if we vote on the motion, it is accepted in the timeline proposed.
[English]
The Chairman: I think you were clear on that. All I am saying is that we will initiate the discussion with the leadership to restructure that ad hoc committee — I do not want to call it a subcommittee. However, in the meantime, if it is referred to us, we will have to deal with it.
I suggest, since we do not have anything particularly pressing, that we do not meet tomorrow and that we meet next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
Thank you, and we will have a report prepared on this other issue for your consideration.
The committee adjourned.