THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 30, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET], in public and in camera, to study Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material; and to consider a motion regarding the taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Senators, we have agreed that we will report tomorrow on the motion. You’ve instructed me to say yes, on division. Does everybody agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We then go on to the report. I understand that there were some general comments before we proceed with the report.
Senator Batters: What I thought this particular report should focus more on, in keeping with many of the reports that we’ve done at this Legal Committee for so many years, is that generally this type of report should probably be briefer. It should talk about how many hours we studied this very important constitutional motion, when that meeting took place, how many witnesses, the fact that it included the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice and federal Justice senior officials. The draft report that has been provided to us, how it currently reads, contains more things that are generally more properly the subject of observations in a report and have certain things that are, I believe, contentious.
I have to say, when I first looked at this draft report, I was a little surprised because it seemed that it reflected a different meeting than the one I attended last week. I wanted to make sure that it more closely mirrored what happened at that particular committee meeting and if there are issues of divergence or perhaps areas that may be better the subject of observation rather than being part of the report. But to have things that I believe are very contentious and saying that “the committee notes that” and “the committee expressed concern” — I don’t believe that is the case on some of these particular issues.
The detailed part that follows your name on this, Madam Chair, I believe much of that is more properly the subject of observation and not being part of our committee’s report on this issue.
Senator Cotter: I agree with Senator Batters in the observations that she has made. I also would like to say three things. There are one or two what I would call factual errors in the report.
Second, the tone and tenor of it are remarkably sympathetic to CP, in my view, which isn’t actually supported by the evidence around the matter. If we are producing something, these are closer to observations than they are findings or the substance of the report. I’m happy to elaborate on each of those points. I don’t think I need to repeat the observation of the structure of the report that Senator Batters provided. I’m not entirely sure here which draft report I’m working from. I now appear to have gotten three, the last one at 4:06.
To those who have it in front of you, I’m looking at a small factual point. The second paragraph reads:
When the Province of Saskatchewan was created this tax exemption was included in section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, which has formed part of the Constitution of Canada since its patriation.
As I see a constitutional lawyer in the room — Senator Gold, shaking his head — the phrase “since its patriation” is inaccurate. It formed part of the Constitution of Canada when it was adopted in 1905. Those three words have to come out no matter how much we like the rest of the report.
The Chair: We will go to the details later, Senator Cotter. From what I’m hearing so far, it doesn’t look like people want to deal with the report itself, but let’s have some other discussion.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that there are maybe two comments to make. I certainly agree that the report can include observations. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that I beg to differ with Senator Batters about the content of a report. I know that’s her view. She has stated it over for the last four years I have been here. For every report she has said that. It is certainly reflective of the old traditions of the reports from the Senate when there was less independent people than nowadays.
I know over the last four years we have tabled reports with a lot of observations, not only about the number of witnesses and the number of hours, but with much more substantive comments. So for me, this is a new trend, which I’m not really trying to get away from. I think it is a good practice.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My point of view on this is that it is primarily a Saskatchewan issue, where there is an agreement between the federal government and the province, I believe. I think it’s very important to listen to Senator Batters’ concerns because it’s primarily a Saskatchewan issue. Upon closer reading of the report, there are elements that are perhaps more subjective and that must be corrected. I agree with Senator Batters’ position.
Senator Dupuis: If I may say so, we have had this kind of discussion in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It is true that on some occasions, we have chosen to produce a more factual report.
My concern is not that, because it is Saskatchewan, we will do as Senator Batters or Senator Cotter ask. Tomorrow, when we deal with a Quebec constitutional amendment, you will do as Senator Dupuis or Senator Boisvenu says. That is not the issue for me.
The issue for me is this: We heard some very interesting, very instructive things from the witnesses and we must say so. One witness said this, another witness said that; the Department of Justice said there was no problem; Saskatchewan said the motion was passed in response to the litigation. That has to be reported, because that’s what we heard, regardless of what we think. That’s my general position. There are things in there that may be personal observations that you want to add, but some of them are not personal observations, they are accounts of what we heard from all the witnesses, including, if you must, the possibility that all CP wants is a bargain to have a better deal compared to what it had in 1881, for example. We heard that too. Is it possible to have a report on what we heard during these meetings?
[English]
Senator Arnot: I would like to concur with the observations of Senator Batters and Senator Cotter. I think the tone of this report is not reflective of some of the things we heard. I agree with Senator Dupuis’s comments concerning the answer to the question of what is a win-win situation. The witness for the CPR clearly indicated he was looking for some kind of a partnership between the federal government, perhaps, the provincial government and the CPR, which seems to me an indication that the litigation was designed to lever such an agreement. It seems to me the CPR didn’t come to equity with clean hands, and that’s the tone that should be reflected.
I believe, as well, that the expert evidence from the three experts, surprisingly, was very congruent, very concise and consistent. They did raise a concern, but they had no comments with respect to the legality of what’s being proposed, so I wanted to put that on record.
The Chair: Senators, from what I’m hearing, we could remove all things except the agreement and that senators should raise things in speeches. We could agree to the motion, and then all the things in the report we could raise personally in our speeches.
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: I will report that we agreed to the motion, which we all have agreed to. That’s not a question. If people want, they can elaborate in their speeches. That way, we can deal with this today expeditiously. There is no way we can decide on what is being suggested in what is available in today’s time.
Senator Batters: Madam Chair, I think that would be a very good way of proceeding on this particular issue. In the relatively limited time we have today, that would be the most expeditious way. I certainly agree that when we’re going to do a lengthy fact-based report and say this witness said this and this witness said this, and it basically contains some summary of their testimony — which I note would also include more of what we heard from Dwight Newman, the law professor from Saskatchewan, and I don’t see much of anything in this particular draft from his point of view — and that would be a much lengthier type of report than the page and a half that we have here. That would be over several pages, and I don’t think we have time to prepare that sort of thing. What you suggested, Madam Chair, would be a good way of proceeding.
Senator Clement: Warning, new senator question here. I agree with the comments made about the report being so brief and not reflecting all of the very good work that was done last week, but I guess that’s because of the timeline we’re dealing with. We have to do something by tomorrow, so that’s why we have such a brief report. Is that correct?
The Chair: That’s correct.
Senator Clement: And we don’t usually operate with that type of timeline?
The Chair: No, very rarely.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Can you explain to us why the report is to be submitted to the Senate tomorrow?
[English]
The Chair: That’s the order of the Senate, that we must report by tomorrow.
Senator Pate: I apologize, I can’t claim new senator status anymore, but does that mean we’re still going to talk about observations?
The Chair: From what I understand, I will just report back that we said “yes” to the motion, and then individual senators will be able to make observations in their speeches. I may be wrong, but that’s how I have understood it.
Senator Pate: If I may, Madam Chair, I would still like to offer the observation that I’ve provided. I don’t have a need to make a speech, and I don’t know that we need to have long speeches.
The Chair: If we’re just going by me saying “yes,” it’s difficult to then have an observation. There is no explanation of the meetings or what has happened and then an observation. It is my experience that observations happen after a report. We are not presenting a report, so it would be awkward, but I will have the clerk answer that and put him on the hot spot now.
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: The committee can do whatever it decides to do. If the committee decides to add observations, it could do it.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Madam Chair, I think that you fully understand what we ourselves understood from your proposal, namely, that we say yes to the motion, full stop. If we want to add things, we will have to do so in a speech that we will have the opportunity to make if we so wish. It was very clear as you presented it, and we accepted this way of doing things.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I have a question for committee members. Is anyone in the least bit queasy about the fact that something as important as this went through the Saskatchewan legislature unanimously, went through the House of Commons unanimously, and not a single witness was called? Does anyone get queasy at being the sober second thought in this whole process?
I’m not comfortable with this. I’m not comfortable with the whole nine yards of it, but I recognize I’m in the minority. To explain myself, and not being a lawyer, I see this as an opportunity for government to avoid having a decision in the Supreme Court of Canada on what is clearly a contractual matter for fear that it will go against them. I really worry that we’re allowing them to get away with that.
I thought the witnesses we had were excellent. It was the best discussion I’ve heard in a long time, but there was a bit of queasiness on their part. Some of it had to do with the fact it was retroactive.
As senators, surely part of our discussion has to be looking at the process. We get a bill, $300 million, a contract in perpetuity, that if it hadn’t gone, the country wouldn’t have been built. How do we justify that virtually it wasn’t even looked at? It was put together, rubber stamped, sent to us, and we’re expected to do the same thing. I’m very uncomfortable with that.
Senator Dalphond: For those who are listening, we started with a real report, and now we’re going to finish up with a report that says “Your committee recommends that the Senate adopt the said motion, on division,” which was agreed upon at the beginning of the meeting “without any observations,” and we are not summarizing what four panels, four hours of witnesses, have indicated to us.
The purpose of the Senate, as a chamber of sober second thought, and of this committee holding hearings further to the motion proposed by Senator Tannas was that we will have an opportunity to study this issue in depth. We certainly have the benefit, as a group, to have heard the witnesses and have raised some issues — especially about the retroactivity — which are of concern to some and maybe all of us. We’re not going to say that to the Senate, but you’re suggesting that we go on and report, each on our own, the results of our work.
I’m mindful of the time constraint, but I certainly would think it’s not normal for a committee to report with proposed adoptions, on division, without providing any explanation about the work that was done, about the concerns that were raised, about the explanations that were given. If time constraints are depriving this committee of doing its work, fine. I will live with it. But I certainly don’t appreciate that. I’m not at ease with that.
I share the views of Senator Campbell that it’s not the way we should be doing this. If we need one more week to have a report that will accommodate all the twists and minor changes and tweaking and other things that look more neutral, I’m willing to do the work. I’m willing to have another week of meetings and come with a report that says to the Senate, “Here is what we listened to. It’s legal. The next question is, is it appropriate? Is there an issue about something else? The retroactivity, is that a problem or not? This is what you should think about before voting.”
Senator Pate: I wanted to speak to the proposed observation, but it sounds as if we’re on another path right now.
Senator Cotter: In large measure, I want to respond to Senator Campbell but also, to some extent, to Senator Dalphond.
As I understand it, every word of the witnesses’ testimony is available to anyone who wants to hear it. In fact — I’m learning this from Senator Batters — part of exercise is to hear what the witnesses have to say so that you can incorporate their views in your speeches. Every word of that is available to anyone who wants to speak to this when the matter returns to the Senate.
It doesn’t feel like to me that we’re doing this under the cover of darkness in any way. The fact we’re having this discussion in an open forum is a further endorsement of that.
There was significant value in this exercise with respect to others who made these decisions prior to us, to our credit and, in particular, to the credit of Senator Tannas who urged this exercise, but that doesn’t mean that we then have to negotiate our interpretation of what the witnesses had to say. It’s available for anyone who is interested in this matter.
It was also Senator Tannas’s commitment to this exercise that it be addressed expeditiously in the structure of the motion that he presented, and we should honour that initiative on his part.
On the subject matter of whether this is profoundly troubling, I would like to say a few words. First, let me remind you that the witnesses, particularly from CP, acknowledged that they paid provincial taxes for over a century, from 1905 until they began the lawsuit in 2008. The reason the matter of municipal taxes was negotiated in 1966 was because there was no need to negotiate provincial taxes and there was no court case that decided that CP didn’t have to pay taxes.
I would go so far as to say if any of us had won a court case to that effect, we would have stopped paying taxes if a court said we didn’t have to. There is no story other than that CP paid provincial taxes from 1905 to 2008. As a result of the decision in 2007 that said they could sue for retroactive taxes that were unconstitutional or illegal, they constructed a claim to try to get that money back. Having discovered this loophole, my guess is they would have tried to get the money all the way back to 1905.
I don’t think that CP is particularly hard done by. In fact, in the negotiations that occurred in the 1960s, Minister Jack Pickersgill applauded CP for its willingness to start paying municipal taxes and called them a “good corporate citizen.”
My suggestion is that he probably would not have said that if they were claiming they did not have to pay provincial taxes because that does not make them a great corporate citizen in my personal view.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that we don’t very often do retroactive taxes, but let me tell you the Supreme Court of Canada says that’s perfectly legitimate to do. In fact, in some cases for taxes that were held to be illegal or unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada said a government can construct a new tax against that entity, make it retroactive and not have to give the money back. That’s exactly what the Air Canada case says in the Supreme Court of Canada.
If you want to talk about the equities, this is one province of three that have had to or been expected to make available a tax break to a large corporation that no other province is expected to do. I think I would be sympathetic to that view if it was some other province, but I am particularly sympathetic when it is the province I represent.
I should stop there. I think we have ample material, better than the other legislative bodies that considered it, to our credit, to draw upon in terms of our interpretations, and I am going to respect what I anticipate will be a fine speech from Senator Dalphond to articulate his reservations. The material is available for us to address, and we should try to meet the timelines, as we usually do, that the Senate has imposed on us.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am trying to reflect on the concern that we usually have in the Legal Affairs Committee. First, we seek to report what we have heard. We hear evidence because we have to make certain decisions and we need help to shed light on the issues we are considering.
I think it’s important that we can, ideally, provide a document that gives guidance to the people who are listening to us today, or who will read us tomorrow, as to what we’ve heard. This includes the possibility that some members of the committee may have reservations or concerns. We know all these methods by heart. You only have to read the reports of the Legal Affairs Committee over the last six years. I cannot comment beyond the last five years, because I was not there. In several reports, they say: We have heard this and the opposite, and other things and the opposite; some are not comfortable with what we have heard, others are very comfortable. We are not here to make the case for Saskatchewan before the Supreme Court of Canada. As legislators, we’re here to give direction as to what we support, having heard people tell us one thing and another. That is what we have to do.
I would like to recall the words of Senator Baker of Newfoundland, who rightly told us that Senate committee reports are sources of documentation for the Supreme Court, in terms of legislative intent.
It is not a matter of agreeing with one side or the other — and no one will be reconciled on this issue. However, I cannot believe, despite everything, that we will not be able, within the required timeframe — that is, by tomorrow — to find someone who has understood what has been discussed for some time about motion 14, and who is not able to point out the important elements of the testimony we have heard, of the reservations expressed, which leads us to say that yes, we agree with motion 14.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dupuis, our analysts have indicated they will work all night if need be. But it’s not as simple as that. Once they have worked, the committee needs to see the report again, then it has to be translated and then it has to go to the Senate. We could not possibly do it overnight.
Senator Batters: First of all, I have a few things to say to Senator Campbell. I believe that the Senate has definitely exercised sober second thought here and done our job.
To go back, though, the Saskatchewan legislature — which, frankly, is a very divisive legislature — I worked there for several years, it is not something that operates on a consensus or unanimous basis, yet that particular legislature passed this unanimously, with input from the NDP, which resulted in one of the witnesses that came to testify at this particular committee meeting. As well, the House of Commons was unanimous. This was a government motion. In the Senate, we had several speeches in the Senate Chamber, including from the Senate government leader, about the constitutional accuracy of this particular motion. Then we had four hours of witnesses at the Senate Legal Committee, including a number of legal and constitutional expert witnesses.
I think that we definitely have done sober second thought and done justice to this particular issue. It is very normal to have a Legal Committee report on bills. We often would have this — which are very brief — but what is not normal is parts of a report that sets out that the committee agrees, expresses concern or the committee notes if they are in full consensus and that sort of thing.
Senator Tannas’s motion was passed by the Senate on a recorded vote that gives us tomorrow’s deadline. This is not only a recorded vote that took place as to whether to refer this bill to the Legal Committee and what date to refer it to.
Just hearing the name Senator Baker makes me smile. I thank Senator Dupuis for bringing that up. Senator Baker would also, of course, remind us that it is speeches, generally, and witness testimony that are quoted frequently in court decisions, including the Supreme Court of Canada. And if any sort of CP rail decision comes to the Supreme Court of Canada — and that would have a long way to go before it gets there — they will have ample opportunity to use all of that material.
Senator Campbell: I would like to thank Senator Cotter and Senator Batters for their comments and enlightenment, quite frankly, and Senator Cotter and his referral to the different times this has been to the courts, both municipal and provincial.
To Senator Batters, I believe that we have done our job. I absolutely believe that. I wasn’t suggesting we haven’t. I was suggesting this is what we’re here for, when we get bills coming, unanimous, down the road, with no input.
I thank both of you. I’m certainly glad that you’re on the committee.
Senator Gold: Thank you, everybody, for your comments. I agree with a great many things, especially Senator Cotter’s comment. I’ll make a practical suggestion, given the time and the constraints that we’re under.
Could we not find a middle ground that would allow us to accomplish the following: to report back that we’re approving on division, with a set of paragraphs that the analysts could work on — I don’t think you would have to work all night because that’s not what I want you to have to do — simply to provide the factual basis, “we met on such and such a day,” along the lines that Senator Batters provided. Leaving aside the question of observations, we could at least — and I would be in your hands — say that we heard from these witnesses; they said this. As little or as much as you could put in.
Perhaps, chair, not to insist on anything or impose upon you, but you could, if you chose, incorporate more of the nuances or interpretations, at least as you understood them, in your speech.
In this way, we could have the best of all possible worlds. We could respect the deadlines that the motion and the Senate imposed upon us. We could provide the factual context for our deliberations because it was, indeed, really good that we did this study. I wasn’t enthusiastic about it; everybody knows. I supported this motion. But I think Senator Tannas did us all a service by insisting on this, and the study was well done. Thank you, chair, and thank you, members of the committee. I was part of the study. I’m glad we did that.
But we can in fact have the best of all possible worlds. I’m looking to the clerk. I checked with him before. I said, “I’m going to make a suggestion. Is this possible?” And he said it is. I put that on the table for your consideration.
In that way, we could perhaps delegate to steering the ability to fine-tune the draft when it arrives in the morning. It could be easily translated if we’re not talking about pages and pages. And then that could be ready for tabling in the chamber.
That’s my proposal, colleagues. I’m open to your comments.
The Chair: The clerk has a comment to make.
Mr. Palmer: We have a standard paragraph that we’ve used many times before, “The committee met for X hours, met X witnesses,” something like that. We have used it in the past in other reports, and we could put it together very quickly.
Senator Gold: Chair, may I ask a follow-up question?
Mr. Palmer, would you have time to list the witnesses that you heard, identify them, so that anyone who is reading this who’s not reading Hansard would know that we heard from three constitutional experts, from the Minister of Justice, from CP and the officials?
Mr. Palmer: Absolutely. We could basically append our witness list to the report.
Senator Harder: I’ll be brief. I was trying to find a bridge, sort of in the spirit of Senator Gold’s intervention. It seems to me we’re on the verge of making a huge success into a diminished offering. For my part, I think the motion is constitutional, and I think the role that the Senate played in hearing from witnesses to give us that assurance and for us, in turn, to give that assurance to the Canadian public, is important. But we also heard from witnesses about policy concerns, not constitutional concerns. I think we should reference that, not because it’s an obstacle to accepting the motion, but it’s an opportunity to reflect the testimony that we’ve heard, not that we have to endorse it.
I would have thought that would have prevented a lot of speeches in the Senate saying, “Well, the report disguises the fact that there were concerns expressed about X, Y or Z.”
I hope that we could find a mechanism — for my part, at least — that would endorse the motion but also reference that we heard policy issues with respect to retroactivity or legal issues on which the experts expressed some reservations, but not sufficient to change my opinion that this is constitutional.
Senator Cotter: I’ll try to be brief on this. I’m sympathetic to the suggestions that Senator Gold and particularly Senator Harder made. If it’s a brief description of what the witnesses said, I’m not uncomfortable with that. It does produce a bit more of the whim. This report reads like, “These are the findings of the committee.” That’s my problem and, I think, Senator Batters’s problem. Quite frankly, if we go down that road, we have a lot of negotiation to do. I’m more than willing to engage in it, but I don’t think it would be very helpful and constructive. If we can produce something that’s much more factual, rather than the committee’s perception of it, then I’m okay with it. That could be done pretty briefly. There’s more talent in this room, not among the senators, to do that than anywhere else.
If that’s an elegant solution for the committee, I’m not uncomfortable with it. It provides a little bit of a platform for, inevitably, Senator Batters’s brilliant speech borrowing on what the witnesses said that she liked — and probably me, and also Senator Dalphond. But it doesn’t force us to arm wrestle for hours in terms of what the committee thinks. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter an awful lot what the committee thinks. The committee doesn’t get to vote in the Senate.
Senator Batters: The only thing I would be a little bit concerned about is that certain things might seem like potentially just policy issues, but they can, in this context, very easily get into something that’s the subject of a very major lawsuit. So we want to be very careful in that respect, and that’s why I thought the briefer the better on this particular issue.
Because if we were going to say, again, this witness said this, even if it’s very short, and this witness said that, it could take potentially more time. I know when I was on steering I was always stunned at how long it took Translation to translate things. Seriously, even if we’re looking at one page, that could take a few days, I believe. I am looking at the clerk, and he’s nodding his head. Generally, you would actually be surprised how long translation takes. That’s why I’m trying to respect the deadline that the Senate gave us and also noting that policy concerns can pretty quickly, in this particular issue, turn into things with real legal impact.
The Chair: Senators, I’m really concerned. It is now 6:07. We have to leave this room by 6:15. I’m not comfortable when people say “factual,” because what I think is factual, some others will not think is factual. I suggest that we, in our report, say that the committee agrees on division, then we put a list of the witnesses and the time, and I will report to the Senate tomorrow.
Is that agreeable, senators?
Senator Batters: Agreed.
Senator Harder: Agreed.
Senator Pate: Is there any room for discussing the observation?
The Chair: Senator Pate, I hear you very clearly, but it’s 6:10 now.
Senator Pate: Even if we could have a vote on it, because it was circulated ahead of time, everybody has seen it. It was in the agreement that we had. It’s certainly documented by what we heard. And we know we’ve made a commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the government has committed to the reconciliation. So it’s an observation. It doesn’t bind anybody. I propose that we append the observation.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: If you go back to your proposal to do a report with a list of witnesses we heard without any further narrative, I feel that there is no room for observations, because we haven’t had time to discuss it, and I think there should be time to discuss anything that is indicated and added in the report.
[English]
Senator Gold: I appreciate the dilemma we’re in.
It’s unfortunate because, were we to have had more time, then others might have had observations along those lines. So I think, regrettably, I tend to agree with you, chair.
Senator Dalphond: I just want to confirm that because of the time constraint, I think the practical solutions proposed by Senator Gold are the way to go. I understand Mr. Palmer could pull out the usual old-fashioned report. So that would be it for this time, and there will be a few speeches from people referring to witnesses and parts of the evidence to support their views, and that would be it.
Senator Cotter is right to say the committee doesn’t vote. But we know that colleagues sometimes appreciate being told what was said by witness so-and-so — not the answers but just their concerns, issues and different perspectives. It’s shorter than to read four days’ worth of transcripts, which, incidentally, are not available officially now, but you can watch the video for four hours. Most senators are too busy to spend the next four hours doing that.
I certainly appreciate that it’s a good compromise. I don’t see how we could append any observations, as Senator Dupuis said, without having a debate about the content of each observation.
Senator Clement: I have to be on record as agreeing with Senator Pate. We are talking about land. How can we, in 2022, not make any reference to Indigenous issues? I am flabbergasted. I’m sorry, Madam Chair; I had to say it that way.
The Chair: Anybody else?
Senators, I just want to make sure — and I’m extremely nervous even with this task that has been given to steering and the analysts — we’ve agreed that it would be the names of the witnesses; the time it took; and from what I understand from Senator Dalphond now, some facts about what was said. Is that correct?
Senator Dalphond: I agree with Senator Gold. It is just the kind of usual report that Mr. Palmer can prepare including the dates we met, the hours we spent and the list of witnesses.
The Chair: Okay. That’s doable. Does everybody agree?
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I’m sorry we didn’t have more time. Senator Gold, as the leader of the Senate, this is a challenge because the Legal Committee only meets once a week; that’s the challenge we are facing. Thank you very much.
Senator Gold: Chair, thank you. You regularly promote me to a role for which I am completely undeserving, but thank you for your stewardship of this.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senators. Thanks for your patience. Have a good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)