Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of October 18, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday, October 18, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:05 p.m. to study Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French).
Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, colleagues. Before we move to the agenda, I would like your agreement to table in the Senate tomorrow the report on expenses incurred during the last session. The committee passed this report under section 104 of the Rules of the Senate at its organization meeting last week. Is it agreed that I table this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will now go to the agenda. The purpose of this meeting is to do the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-3. First, I would like to inform you of a few developments. Last week, after checking with the committee clerk, I found out that there had been no requests by witnesses to appear before this committee. There were some requests for information about Bill S-3 and an expression of interest in it. This morning, I found out that two ministers would like to appear before the committee to express their views. So that disrupts our schedule somewhat.
I would therefore suggest that we proceed as follows this afternoon: we will start by hearing from the sponsor of Bill S-3, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. Then we will take a reasonable length of time for questions and answers, and finally, we will discuss the future of Bill S-3 within this committee.
I would like to say as well that it is difficult to turn down a request from ministers wishing to appear before the committee to express their views on a bill. We will talk about that once we have heard from Senator Gauthier and completed the questions and answers.
I would now invite Senator Gauthier to speak on his bill.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth time I have introduced a bill to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of French and English). You will recall that on March 11, 2004, the Senate unanimously passed Bill S- 4. The bill was sent to the House of Commons for consideration. It began the review at second reading on April 22, 2004. Since both Houses of Parliament were dissolved when the election was called, my bill died on the Order Paper.
[English]
I am trying again with Bill S-3, to amend the Official Languages Act, (promotion of English and French). Bill S-3 is essentially the same as S-4, with a few minor changes to the wording. The summary now specifies that the provisions of questions in Part VII of the Official Languages Act —
[Translation]
You will remember that the committee has reviewed several times the need to amend Part VII of the Official Languages Act to clarify its scope. Section 41 of Part VII has been interpreted by the Justice Department and the courts as being declaratory, not binding.
I was surprised at this minimalist interpretation, because I was a member of the House of Commons committee when the minister responsible for the bill at the time explained the meaning of section 41. I would remind you that section 41 reads as follows:
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
[English]
In fact, when asked the questions in parliamentary committee, Secretary of State Lucien Bouchard responded that section 41 created an obligation for the federal government to take action. The Department of Justice subsequently interpreted this legal terminology as being declaratory, not executory.
[Translation]
Some will recall that the Trial Division of the Federal Court handed down a favourable decision in a case of the Forum des maires de la péninsule acadienne against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision and held that section 41 was declaratory. We were very disappointed with this decision. I have heard that the Forum des maires has tabled a request with the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us hope that the highest court in the land will help decide this matter.
In light of the Justice Department's interpretation that section 41 is declaratory — and must be discretionary — no regulations have been introduced since the bill was passed in 1988. It sets an objective. Regulations are non- discretionary, because they define how the objective should be met.
In other words, an act without regulations is a watchdog with no teeth. Some would even say that it is a lapdog, because it is impossible to find out how it is to be enforced. It is difficult if not impossible to bring a court case under section 41. The Commissioner of Official Languages cannot be involved in such remedies, as provided in section 77 of Part X of the act.
[English]
Legal counsel for the Department of Justice are opposed to the adoption of regulations to Part VII of the act. It is for this reason that I have been trying for years to strengthen section 41, in order to make it enforceable.
The Department of Justice interprets this article wrongly, I think, in terms of thinking back to 1988 and the debate we had in Parliament over what was the purpose and intention of the government, which was to create obligation.
As a matter of fact, every article, if you look into the Official Languages Act, has a disposition saying that ``regulations can be adopted.'' In the part preceding Part VII — Part VI — the last paragraph of that section has exactly what I just said, that the Governor-in-Council can adopt regulations to implement the act.
I think that is okay. What I thought was unusual was for Part VII not to have regulations. I have tried, God knows how many times, to convince Parliament that it is time to stop this kind of here and there, this kind of exercise where communities have to go to court all the time. We know they cannot win because the courts have no recourse and no right to interpret it any differently from the wording, which is a legal wording.
[Translation]
My bill has three objectives. First, it clarifies the imperative nature of the commitment made in Part VII. Next, it places certain obligations on federal institutions through the implementation of this commitment and allows the government to introduce regulations. Finally, Bill S-3 provides for a reparation power enabling the courts to oversee the implementation of the act by the government, and will enable Commissioners of Official Languages to support legal remedies.
I think it might be useful to state that the amendment seeks only to clarify the government's power to pass regulations. Part VII is the only part of the act that does not give the government the explicit power to pass regulations. Even Part VI, which deals with equitable participation, refers to the government's commitment, as does Part VII. The purpose of my amendment is to correct this omission from the act.
The power to pass regulations will enable the government to clarify the scope of the duties institutions have as regards the development of official language minority communities. This is a discretionary power. The government is not required to pass any regulations.
In addition, as an example, such regulations could impose a duty on institutions: first, to determine whether their policies and programs have impacts on the promotion of linguistic duality and the development of minority communities, from the initial elaboration of policies through to their implementation; second, institutions would have to consult affected publics as required, especially representatives of official language minority communities, in connection with the development or implementation of policies or programs; and three, they should be able to describe their actions and demonstrate that they have considered the needs of minority communities.
These examples of the duties involved were taken from the accountability framework with which you are all familiar, namely the action plan tabled in Parliament last year, at pages 66 and 67. That is clear. I have distributed copies of this document. You will see that I copied exactly what is stated in the action plan.
[English]
The bill takes into consideration most of the recommendations made by the Official Languages Commissioner in her annual reports. The commissioner recommended clarifying the binding nature of the commitment in order to ensure its implementation. She stated that the proposed legislation should provide for regulation-making authority. This is in essence what I am seeking to do with Bill S-3.
[Translation]
I want to strengthen the accountability framework of federal institutions. You will find the definition of a federal institution at section 3 of the Official Languages Act. That is clear. It includes all the institutions and agencies of the federal government, even Parliament. And I say that with a little smile, because in 1988, I tried to convince the government that Parliament — the House of Commons, Senate and Library of Parliament — should be accountable for their actions. We won. You will tell me: ``Yes, but you took it out of your bill, Jean-Robert.'' Yes. I do not want the executive to be issuing government orders through an act. I'm a little nervous about that, because I do not think the executive should be telling the Senate or House of Commons how to run their institution. I think we can decide for ourselves what our objective is and how to achieve it.
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied this bill two years ago. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages also considered this issue last year. More than 35 witnesses were heard, including ministers, and about 10 meetings were held. Mr. Michel Patrice, parliamentary counsel for the Senate, was of great assistance to me in drafting the bill. I would like to point out how readily available and how professional he was. He recommended that I remove the adjective ``nécessaire'' in clause 1 because the English translation does not use the word ``necessary.'' It is not essential in the explanation.
[English]
We are speaking two languages.
[Translation]
Therefore, I also removed the adjective ``nécessaire'' in clause 2, subsection 43(1). Once again, the English translation does not use the word ``necessary.'' It in no way changes the meaning of the clause. The rest of the bill is identical to the bill passed by the Senate last March.
[English]
As I said in the Senate, I would appeal to your kindness in adopting this bill without amendments — that is, to adopt this bill this week at all stages before my retirement on October 22. I would be more than pleased if this were to happen because I remain confident that Parliament should clarify the purpose of section 41. By so doing, the Senate, along with the standing committee, will have shown the commitment to promote language questions and that we have taken decisions that are good for Canadians.
I thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to thank Senator Gauthier for his very clear presentation on the issue and on the challenges that we are facing.
Senator Comeau, did you wish to speak?
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to subsection 2 and for you to explain it to me in your own words. It says the following: ``...federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken...'' How do we know if that is mandatory or binding?
Perhaps I could answer the question: paragraph 3 gives the governor in council the authority to take measures. I do not think that the words ``positive measures'' are mandatory or binding.
Senator Gauthier: I am sorry, I do not have the right document.
Senator Comeau: Subsection 2 uses the expression ``positive measures.'' I am trying to understand how that makes this legislation mandatory or binding. My impression is that the expression ``positive measures'' means well but does not particularly have any teeth. How can you say that this makes Part VII of the act binding?
Senator Gauthier: First, it does two things. It gives the government the authority to pass an implementing regulation, which the current legislation does not provide for.
Senator Comeau: Subsection 3?
Senator Gauthier: Parts 2 and 3 are new. I did some renumbering. Subsection 41(1) begins with: ``The Government of Canada is committed to...,'' and subsection 41(2) includes the word: ``...shall...'' The English version is quite clear.
[English]
``...the scope of their functions.'' Federal institutions shall ensure —
[Translation]
``Federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken...'' That means that measures will be taken to move things forward. This is the type of language that is used in the legal domain and which simply means that quantifiable measures are being taken, measures that can tell us that something is being done.
The idea is that an institution, for example, no longer be able to say to us: ``This does not affect us because section 41 is declaratory.'' Subsection 41(2) states: ``...federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken...'' They no longer have the choice: they will have to ensure that positive measures are passed to ensure that the legislation is implemented.
Senator Comeau: The English wording, ``shall ensure,'' is very strong, whereas the French wording is ``il incombe.''
Subsection 3 states that ``the governor in council may.'' Is it the usual practice to say ``peut'' or ``may'' rather than ``shall'' or ``incombe?''
Senator Gauthier: Each part is accompanied by a section stating the governor in council may make regulations. Section 41 did not contain any such reference. In my view, that was a difficulty since there were several examples of situations where minorities were unable to assert their rights. The claim was made in courts that the commissioner did not have any choice, because of the existence of section 77. In Part X, there was no reference to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Thus it was impossible to call upon the commissioner, you needed to have deep pockets and good lawyers. It is not easy.
We thought that we had won in the case involving the Forum of mayors of the Acadian Peninsula, but the Appeal Court overturned the decision. But they will be appealing to the Supreme Court. I am convinced that they are right, they do have obligations and they must comply with them.
[English]
Senator Comeau: Proposed subsection 43(1) states, in part, that ``the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures.''
[Translation]
``The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures...'' Am I correct in assuming that the new wording here is ``appropriate?'' That would appear to be the case.
The Chairman: Whatever is underlined is the new element to be included in the act.
Senator Comeau: I simply wanted to confirm that. That answers my questions.
Senator Gauthier: It is simply a matter of ensuring that measures are taken. Without this wording, Canadian Heritage would simply say: We have no obligation. But now there would be a requirement. Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status, that is, neither more nor less.
Senator Léger: Bill S-3, previously S-4, was debated as it should have been but the election was announced and everything came to a stop. Why are we going back to square 1?
It seems to me that the purpose of Bill S-3 was to ensure justice under Part VII, which is not binding, so that would be in the interest of justice. It seems to me we have said everything we had to say and, it is a matter of course.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to thank my colleague, what she says is true. It is a repeat of Bill S-4 that was already adopted by the Senate. I had no choice: if I wanted the act to be amended, I had to come back again with a new bill. Bill S-3 is a new bill, almost identical, except for two minor translation changes.
It is unacceptable to me that the executive would cause any further delays, since they have had several months to examine the issue. It is not something that just came up yesterday. The bill has been under study by the Senate for four years. There was Bill S-32, then S-11, followed by S-4 and lastly S-3. These bills have always set out the same fundamental principle, namely that the Official Languages Act should be made binding with clear conditions that the agencies and departments will not be able to get around.
Let's take the example of the Forum of Mayors of the Acadian Peninsula. There was a 50 per cent reduction of the workforce in the peninsula without any consultation. That meant that a large number of workers found themselves jobless. The municipalities got together and announced these cutbacks. They also demanded the right to have services in both official languages, calling on services to be provided in both the north and the south.
The Federal Court ruled in their favour. However, the government and the agency decided to appeal the decision. Although the Federal Court did recognize the validity of their position in its ruling, unfortunately it is powerless since the act is not binding but rather declaratory. In other words, nothing requires departments and agencies to comply with the act.
Senator Comeau: In the case of the Forum of Mayors of Municipalities, was the government's argument, with respect to the measures contemplated, that section 41 of the Official Languages Act was not binding?
Senator Gauthier: Our researcher has prepared, at my request, a document on the subject tabled here today. I would encourage you to read it.
The government did indeed invoke the declaratory position, as opposed to binding.
Senator Comeau: Let me apologize to the researcher. I arrived shortly after the beginning of the meeting. I did not have a chance to see the document. However I can assure you that I will have a close look at it.
Let me stress once again the importance of this bill. We must ensure that it becomes legislation rather than a statement of intent. Senator Gauthier has already been working on this for a long time.
I would now like to come back to the issue of the application on the part of the ministers.
The Chairman: First of all I would like to find out whether other senators would like to ask questions of Senator Gauthier.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: For the moment I will listen attentively to what you have to say. I may be asking some questions later.
The Chairman: I do not have questions for the time being. I understand the purpose of the bill.
We must now decide, honourable senators, if we will proceed to the clause-by-clause study of the bill, as set out in today's order paper.
As I mentioned, two ministers asked to be heard. However they were not available to make their presentation this evening to the committee. We would like to find out when they will be able to appear before the committee but we still have not received an answer.
We find ourselves in a rather delicate situation. Courtesy requires us to give the ministers a hearing since they have requested it. As a matter of fact, I do not think that a minister's request to appear before a committee was ever turned down.
So that is the situation we find ourselves in. The agenda calls for clause-by-clause study. On the other hand, we received this late request this morning. What are we to do?
Senators Gauthier and Comeau have asked to speak. First of all I would like to hear Senator Gauthier's comments, since he is the sponsor of the bill. We will then have our discussion.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: I was surprised this morning when I heard that two ministers wanted to be heard. We have heard the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Heritage.
Can we accept that they can more or less control how committees of the Senate operate? Can we accept that, when a minister calls, we have to say ``Yes, sir?'' Can we accept that our work here is subject to a delayed procedure by an executive that says, ``We want to be heard on that?'' I do not think the Senate operates that way. I do not think we should, as a Parliament, take orders from the executive.
I object strongly. As a member of the House of Commons for 22 years, I objected strongly to any interference by the executive in the work of the Parliament of Canada, and I still object today. They call and say, ``We want to be heard,'' knowing darn well that I am retiring this week and hoping that, if we put this off, in a week or two or three the matter will die. I would hope, as I said in my speech, that we would have the understanding to tell them, ``Sorry, we heard you, and we know what you want to say, but we believe strongly that this bill is good for Canadians as well as for the minority communities.''
Finally, they will have a chance to be heard in the House of Commons, because that is where they are. All they have to do is phone their chairman or the clerk of the committee and say, ``I would like to be heard.'' I can accept that, and I will even go and hear them, but I do not think they should be telling the Senate how to operate.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: I do not consider this application to be a binding order on the part of the executive. If such were the case, I would be opposed and I would refuse to go along with it. In any case, I do not take orders from the Langevin Building. At the same time, we do have new ministers of Justice and Official Languages. Their testimony may prove to be quite useful. They may have positive or negative suggestions about the bill. As a matter of courtesy, I think that we should hear them.
Senator Gauthier seems to be concerned that this may merely be a way of delaying things. Let me reassure him.
[English]
The bill will not die. We will not allow it to die just because Senator Gauthier is retiring. There is not a chance of that. We have worked too hard on this. We have shown the support that it has had from the Senate in the past.
[Translation]
There is no doubt about it, we will do what it takes to go ahead with this bill. However, as a matter of courtesy, it is important for the committee to hear the two ministers.
Senator Léger: If there had not been a general election, the bill would have been passed. I do not understand why we have to go through all this work again. Would it really be a lack of courtesy? Discussions have taken place and the study is completed. Why do we have to keep on with it? It seems to me that it is a waste of time. I realize that when an election occurs, everything dies on the Order Paper but nothing prevents us from continuing where we had left off.
The Chairman: As I understand Senator Léger's position, she is willing to begin with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill today.
Senator Léger: Yes, since the matter has already been studied in committee.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: When the House of Commons receives a Senate bill, is it necessary to have a debate and the support of ministers?
The Chairman: We are talking about a private bill. It is not the government proposing this bill but rather Senator Gauthier. Thereafter a member of the House of Commons will be sponsoring the bill during the different stages of the legislative process, that is first reading, second reading, a possible debate, referral to committee, study, report, and lastly third reading. These are the same stages as in the Senate with a possibility for members of the public and ministers to intervene. And if the House of Commons were to propose amendments to the bill, a message would be sent to the Senate along with the proposed amendments and a debate would once again ensue.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: At the present time, the climate in the Senate is different and it may be necessary for us to obtain the cooperation of ministers. It may be necessary for us to devote a bit more time to it but I sincerely appreciate the position of Senator Léger. Since the situation is quite different now, it is unfortunate that the bill was not adopted last spring.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: It was passed by the Senate last February or March. My difficulty with the approach is that, at third reading in the Senate, as opposed to at third reading in the House of Commons, we can propose amendments. If any senator has amendments, those amendments can be proposed at third reading, where they will be debated.
I have never heard of any senator who is in disagreement with my bill. I now hear that two ministers want to be heard. We have already heard them, and they speak for the government. They do not speak as individuals when they come here; they speak for the government. Both of them were negative. I have been around here long enough to know a minister who does not follow the proposals of the bureaucrats is a dead duck.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier said the following:
[English]
Both ministers were negative.
[Translation]
What do you mean?
[English]
Senator Gauthier: They did not support it. Minister Copps was supportive of the spirit of the objective, but she was directed by cabinet not to give her support. As far as Justice is concerned, I have always had difficulties with Justice. They claim that the basis for all of this argumentation was declaratory. It was supposed to be a nice principle.
[Translation]
It may be a fine provision but it is not binding. Many examples have shown that the communities are required to bend over backwards in order to be heard by the courts. If a provision of the law were to state that there are regulations, such examples would not exist. But the section does not have any regulations and that is something I do not understand.
The Chairman: I would like to put another question to Senator Gauthier. In previous studies of the bill, when ministers appeared, did any of them propose amendments to your bill in order to improve it?
Senator Gauthier: No.
The Chairman: Never?
Senator Gauthier: The Commissioner of Official Languages as well as people from the University of Ottawa did propose amendments that I included in my bill. But as far as I know, the government never suggested anything in the way of improvements to the bill.
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Jaffer, I appreciate that you have good reasons for arriving late, like Senator Comeau, by the way. I presume that you have the gist of the discussion we are having. Have you an opinion to offer as to what we do now? Do we hear the ministers or do we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-3? What is your view?
Senator Jaffer: My view is that we should proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. We have heard from the ministers. I know there is a new government, but we cannot revisit. The ministers have already made their presentations, and there will be opportunities for them to be heard in the House of Commons. I believe we should proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: I would feel quite uncomfortable about refusing to hear from ministers. I think that we could reach a compromise and require the ministers to come and give their testimony within a few days. I really don't see how the new chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages could tell the ministers that the committee will proceed without giving them permission to appear.
I feel bad because it would be the first time that we refuse to allow ministers to appear. It may well be that we want the ministers to appear in the future for different reasons. But this is why it is important for us to maintain cordial relations with them. It is quite possible that in the future we may have to work with these ministers on different issues.
The Chairman: I feel a bit like King Solomon in all his glory having to resolve the matter. It is never an agreeable position. However I did listen attentively to what each of you had to say. You expressed your position frankly. We may agree or not but I tend to go along with Senators Trenholme Counsell and Comeau. Obviously, considering the general mandate of this committee, we will be required to work in the future in close cooperation — the word was used on several occasions — not only with these two ministers but with other members of the cabinet.
Our clerk informs me that she tried all day to get some kind of commitment from both ministers on a date and time for their possible appearance before this committee. Obviously nobody, least of all myself, wants this to drag on. Although we want to be courteous, polite and cooperative with the departments, as Senator Gauthier said, the departments do not give orders to the Senate; but we have to work together. The clerk tells me that we are doing everything we can to get the ministers to meet with us later this week.
We were thinking of meeting on Wednesday at 6 p.m. Nothing is confirmed, everything is on the table. And just to show how open we are to courtesy and cooperation, I would suggest that we adjourn. I would gladly entertain a motion to adjourn today's meeting, provided that we can meet this Wednesday.
I fully understand how Senator Gauthier feels. He has poured his heart and mind into this bill. He is leaving us at the end of the week. The Senate generally agrees with the substance of the bill, so much so that there was no debate at second reading. The Senate unanimously decided to refer the bill to our committee. It was fully understood that this was pro forma, given that the bill had been examined in detail in the previous months and years. So I will entertain a motion to adjourn momentarily. If you do not agree, you can say so, but I have something to propose to you.
Senator Gauthier: Could I suggest, Mr. Chairman, given your comments, that both of the ministers in question submit their comments to the committee in writing by tomorrow evening so that we can study them? If they have nothing to say and it is to slow the committee down or just to put aside a bill that I think is important, we will see on Wednesday if they have not answered.
The Chairman: We are going to accept this proposal from Senator Gauthier and I am going to ask the clerk to inquire of the ministers' representatives whether that is doable. What I am mostly concerned about, given the bill's history, is that in the past, the ministers did not propose any amendment to the bill. Do they plan to propose any this time or just to oppose it? If they oppose the bill, they will still have a chance to do so in the House of Commons. What they say has no bearing on the Senate as such, but we are prepared to hear them out.
Senator Comeau: Is it possible to organize the meeting on Wednesday afternoon? Could we deal with today's agenda, that is, clause-by-clause consideration? And if they have nothing new to say, we could just go ahead with detailed examination of the bill and adopt it Wednesday afternoon.
The Chairman: Is Senator Comeau proposing that the agenda item having to do with clause-by-clause consideration be postponed until the next committee meeting later this week?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
The Chairman: Is that an acceptable motion?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do we not need to be more flexible with the ministers? Is Wednesday at 6 p.m. the only option or is it possible to have breakfast or something?
The Chairman: It has to be a formal committee meeting. It basically depends on room availability.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is it possible to request another time or is it just Wednesday at 6 p.m.?
The Chairman: We have to stick to the availability of meeting rooms. That is the problem, and that is always the problem. If it is absolutely necessary, Thursday morning might work, right? No, that is not an option; so it is either Wednesday evening or next week, and next week, Senator Gauthier, unfortunately, regrettably, will no longer be with us.
Senator Comeau: For your information, if it is impossible to meet on Wednesday evening, we are not required like this evening to get it done then. But for now, we would like to get it done on Wednesday evening. But the same decision that we have just made today can also be made on Wednesday evening. We are the masters of our committee.
The Chairman: What bothers me most is not hearing from the ministers, especially after they expressly indicated their desire to make a presentation to the committee. I would never want to say no.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I hear what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and I understand what you are saying. My short experience has been that sometimes ministers are busy for a long time. The least we owe Senator Gauthier is that we will go ahead, if not this week, next week, so that there is an understanding by the ministers that this is not going into never-never land. I think we owe that much to our colleague.
The Chairman: We all appreciate, and Senator Trenholme Counsell knows, at what point ministers can be overburdened —
[Translation]
— and tugged at from all sides by all kinds of concerns and interests.
[English]
We have to be respectful, too, of the fact that ministers cannot always attend at the committee's preferred time. We will do our best. I am sure that in the spirit of cooperation they will also do their best to accommodate us.
It has been proposed, I understand, by Senator Comeau that we not now proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill S- 3 but that the matter be adjourned to the next meeting of the committee, which we hope will take place this week, Wednesday, at 6 p.m.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is adopted.
The committee adjourned.