(Chair) in the chair.

[English]

Colleagues, we are meeting to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Today, we are joined by officials from the Department of Justice Canada to answer technical questions. They will not be making presentations. We’re pleased to welcome back Laurie Sargent, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indigenous Rights and Relations Portfolio; Valerie Phillips, Director and General Counsel, Aboriginal Law Centre, Indigenous Rights and Relations Portfolio; and Jaya Bordeleau-Cass, Council, Aboriginal Law Centre, Indigenous Rights and Relations Portfolio.

Thank you for joining us for this purpose.

Colleagues, I wonder if we could begin by going around the table and introducing ourselves to our vast listening audience.

Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

I am Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, and I represent the senatorial division of La Salle, in Quebec.

[English]

Dennis Patterson, Inuit Nunangat, Nunavut.

Senator Paul Prosper from Nova Scotia, land of the Mi’kmaq.

Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.

Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.

Paula Simons, Alberta, also Treaty 6 territory.

[Translation]

I am Renée Dupuis, and I represent the senatorial division of The Laurentides, in Quebec.

I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.

[English]

Welcome. Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.

Just to go over some ground rules for our clause-by-clause consideration, if I may, and a reminder of a few points. If at any point, senators, you’re not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to make sure that at all times we have an understanding of where we are.

In terms of the mechanics of the process, when one or more amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. I think today, colleagues, unless there has been a development of which I’m unaware, there were two amendments contemplated for one of the clauses. One of those from Senator Jaffer has been withdrawn in favour of an amendment from Senator Prosper. So, I don’t think we will have a problem there.

If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but to vote against the clause as part of the bill.

Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It would therefore be useful to this process if a senator proposing such an amendment were to identify other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have such an effect. Otherwise, it may be difficult for colleagues on the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.

Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence and which ones could at least be contradictory.

If committee members ever have any questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion and make a ruling.

The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and any ruling of the chair can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.

I wish to remind the honourable senators that if there’s uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which will obviously provide unambiguous results. The clerk will conduct such a roll call. Finally, senators, you should be aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. Are there any questions or comments on the above? If not, I think we can proceed.

This is with respect to Bill S-13. I should mention in the discussion and dialogue, Senator LaBoucane-Benson is the sponsor of the bill, and I’m going to try to give her, essentially, the last word in any of our discussions.

Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Is it agreed, with leave, that the remaining clauses be considered in groups — groups of 10 is my suggestion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

Shall clauses 11 to 20 carry? I think this is where — I’m sorry. I jumped the gun a little bit. If I may, apologies, colleagues. Senator Prosper’s amendment is to clause 1. Is it okay if we unwind our vote on clauses 1 to 10?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Thank you.

[Technical difficulties]