Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Pearson Airport Agreements
Evidence
Ottawa, Tuesday, October 17, 1995
[English]
The Special Senate Committee on the Pearson Airport Agreements met this day at 8:30 a.m. to examine and report upon all matters concerning the policies and negotiations leading up to, and including, the agreements respecting the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport and the circumstances relating to the cancellation thereof.
Senator Finlay MacDonald (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Come to order, please. It seems empty today with no witnesses, but, in keeping with our -
Senator Bryden: They are there, Mr. Chairman. They have just been whited out.
Senator Kirby: He is in good form this morning, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I apologize for calling this meeting on such short notice, but as a result of correspondence last week and our difficulty with documents and with witnesses, we decided that it was necessary to issue a second report to the Senate, which we would propose to do this afternoon.
The report bespeaks our frustration. You have the draft report before you. In reality, what we are trying to do now is to test whether or not the powers which we assumed we had when this committee was established, as a child of Parliament, with all the powers vested in it, is that provided that the committee of inquiry relates to the subject matter within its competence and is also within the committee's own order of reference, we the committee have worked under the assumption that a parliamentary committee has virtually unlimited powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents.
The extensive powers which a parliamentary committee of a house of Parliament enjoys are not commonly understood. They are seldom used and, therefore, at times not properly respected.
Now, maybe we will find out what the procedure is.
You have before you the draft report. I welcome any comments any honourable senator for may care to make on the report.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Chairman, two things; first, I hope that we are not to regard your opening statement as an expression of the collective wisdom of the committee, because I for one, although I am no longer a member of the committee, would want a fair number of footnotes to that statement - qualifications.
I do want to move now to my second point. It relates to the proposed report. To save time, let me be blunt. It seems to me that this is a circuitous route and it is a route which is calculated to fail. I will deal with the two points together.
The Senate will pray and His Excellency will hear their prayer, and His Excellency will turn to his ministerial advisors. His ministerial advisors will advise His Excellency that insofar as documents relating to the work of a previous government are concerned, their hands are tied by reason of practice. So it is circuitous and I think it is calculated to fail.
Let us see what will happen in the Senate.
The Chairman: You suggested that I was making assumptions. You're making assumptions now yourself, senator.
Senator Stewart: All right. I would be prepared to demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong.
What will happen in the Senate? You will move the adoption of this report. Some honourable senator will ask the obvious question: "Have you, Senator MacDonald, asked the Right Honourable Kim Campbell if she is prepared to have this document or these documents put before the committee?" That's the obvious question, and I assure you it will be asked.
Now, if the answer is "yes", you will be invited to say what the answer was. If your answer is "no", you will be asked, "Well why didn't you ask her?", instead of resorting to what is really a pretty arcane procedure.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Can Senator Stewart explain what advantage there would be in Mrs. Campbell saying "yes"? Would the documents be released automatically as a result?
Senator Stewart: It seems to me that there are two steps.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, you said the first question that would be asked of Senator MacDonald is, "Did you ask Mrs. Campbell for authority to release the documents?" Let's assume she says, if she's been asked, "yes".
Senator Stewart: Then the ball is in the hands of the present government, and they will take the responsibility one way or another for what they do. But it seems to me there is no point in going to the present government until the procedurally prior step has been taken.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yours is a much more circuitous route. Why not go this route, and then if the government says yes on the understanding that Prime Minister Campbell will approve, then we can go to Mrs. Campbell. But the final authority is the present government's.
Senator Stewart: Are you saying that there is reason to believe that Mrs. Campbell will say yes?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I have no idea. I have no idea.
Senator Stewart: That's the question that will be asked in the Senate.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: She's not the final authority. Whether she says yes or no, it's the present government that has the final responsibility.
Senator Stewart: As I understand it, her agreement is a condition precedent to a decision by the government.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, no. Where do you find that?
Senator Stewart: That is the practice, is it not? It is the practice that a present government does not release documents of a prior government without the agreement of that government.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The agreement of that government does not necessarily mean that the documents will be released.
Senator Stewart: I agree. I assure you that is the question that will be asked.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If that's the only action, I am reassured that we're going the right way.
Senator Kirby: Mr. Chairman, just to make a comment just for the record: As you know, you and I have discussed this issue two or three times over the last couple of weeks. My position is essentially the same as Senator Stewart's. I was quite happy to support a request from this committee to Ms Campbell to see whether or not she would agree to release the documents which were her government's documents, frankly, on the understanding in my view - I have not been officially told this, but it has always been my understanding that if the former Prime Minister agreed to release the documents, then, in fact, since they were documents of her government and not of this government, that this government would effectively automatically agree to that. That was always my understanding, and I told you that. I said several times to you that if in fact the report, or whatever the format was, was a request to Mrs. Campbell, I would in fact be supportive of that.
I happen to think that this is not only a circuitous process, it is one that doesn't make a lot sense, because frankly, in my view, the key decision maker on whether these documents get released is in fact the former Prime Minister, not the current government. And so I had frankly, as I have said to you on the phone privately - I do not understand why we are going this route, but I would have been more than happy to support a direct request to Ms Campbell to see whether or not she would be prepared to release the documents.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you saying, Senator Kirby, that if Ms Campbell agrees, the present government will agree?
Senator Kirby: I'm saying I would be quite surprised - the blunt answer is I haven't asked anybody that, but I would be quite surprised if they didn't agree. I mean, I can't understand why, if a previous government was prepared to release a cabinet document, why a current government would not want to release it.
Senator Tkachuk: No one knows for sure.
Senator Kirby: I understand that.
Senator Tkachuk: It requires the permission of the present government.
The Chairman: Senator Kirby, there are several avenues we could explore, and none of them guarantee success. The one we have chosen put the wheels into motion. Maybe Mr. Nelligan can refer to -
Senator Kirby: We should be clear, Mr. Chairman, that the "we" you are referring to is yourself and counsel. If we are going to use "we", I just want to be sure that we're not included in the "we", or at least I'm not included in the "we", since I specifically objected to you in private conversations about it. So I have no difficulty with you saying "we" have chosen, as long as you identify who "we" is.
The Chairman: Mr. Nelligan, would you like to indicate why we have chosen this route?
Mr. John Nelligan, Q.C., Counsel to the Committee: Senators, as you might expect, there are certain procedural difficulties in communications between the Senate and the executive. We have had reference to the Manual of Official Procedures of the Government of Canada, and I'm referring in particular to page 27, where it distinguishes -
Senator Kirby: Is that an old document?
Mr. Nelligan: It is one of these things that clerks are able to produce from the bowels of the archives.
Senator Kirby: Go ahead. It is a matter of idle curiosity. Go ahead.
Mr. Nelligan: It is a very thick document. It is here and available.
Senator Kirby: I know you're going to quote from it accurately. I was just curious, because it is a document I have never heard of.
The Chairman: It is the Manual of the Official Procedure of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Nelligan: I thought it was in the reading room of the Senate and was referred to constantly by members.
In any event, under the heading "Cabinet Records", paragraph 8 has this to say:
In Canada ministers are given access to Cabinet minutes only of the period of their membership in the Government. They cannot have access to minutes for any time during which they were not in the Government. It is recognized that former ministers may, on request, have access to Cabinet minutes and Cabinet documents covering their period of office as ministers.
Then paragraph 9 deals with disclosure:
Disclosure of Cabinet records is regulated by the Privy Councillor's oath* and by the concept that Cabinet decisions are advice to the Sovereign which may only be revealed with his consent.
And this is what we are basing this address on.
Permission is sought through the Prime Minister who may recommend to the Governor General that it be granted, limited or refused. Permission is regarded as applying only to the occasion for which it was sought.
And then it goes on to say that it is normal to grant permission to resigning ministers to explain the reason for their resignation.
It would also appear that the form of communication between the Senate and the Governor General is by way of address. It was hoped that in stating the position of the Senate and its desire to have this matter fully publicly examined, that the most efficient way of making that demonstration on the record was by way of address.
Now, I think you are all aware that, in matters of this kind, ministers, both of the present and the past government, are strongly influenced by the advice they receive by their Privy Council advisors, and we thought that before any steps were taken, that a strong statement by the Senate indicating the importance of this matter and the desire to clear the public record, to have this matter put straight, could be dealt with by way of this address.
As the senators have mentioned, there is no guarantee of success, but I think it demonstrates our position. It was hoped that the whole matter would be considered very seriously by all ministers past and present, if this statement was on the record. That is the purpose of this particular motion at this time.
Senator Stewart: May I ask, Mr. Chairman? Perhaps I was not listening attentively enough. Did the passage that was quoted just now with reference to an address to the Sovereign deal with documents of a previous government as well as the documents of a present government?
Mr. Nelligan: That is my understanding, because advice to the Sovereign always remains advice to the Sovereign. I think there has been some confusion between the personal documents or materials of a past Prime Minister, which he may keep for his own autobiographical purposes or send to the archives, and the question of advice to the Sovereign. It is important here as to this distinction between access and disclosure.
I think it is entrenched really in the constitutional practice that while there may be a consent by a previous Prime Minister, or a previous minister, that it is still within the purview of the Governor General in accordance with our practice.
Senator Stewart: And the Governor General as advised by his present -
Mr. Nelligan: Obviously. That is right. That is right. And I'm not aware of any situation where a past Prime Minister could take any step without the consent and assistance of the present government.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I still think you are going to have to confront the question. Have you talked with Ms Campbell?
The Chairman: I will be prepared to answer that question if it arises.
Senator Bryden: Just for clarification, and the only thing that I've heard or investigated or whatever about this is what I've learned this morning, but it would seem to me, just as a common sense analysis of it, that granted the executive counsel presently are going to have to make the decisions as to whether these documents are released, it seems pretty clear from what I've heard this morning that that decision cannot be made in the affirmative without the approval of the present former Prime Minister, that that would be a condition precedent from anything I've ever read or heard, that that former Prime Minister would not necessarily, even the approval, but would record that she would have no objection to the existing government revealing that. So if that is a condition precedent for them being able to act, to say yea or nay, they are going to have to determine that first.
I just wonder whether we are putting the cart before the horse by asking for something without having determined whether or not the previous Prime Minister would have no objection to these documents. Anyway, I don't need an answer to that; I just wanted to put it on the record.
The other thing that concerns me a little bit about this whole issue is, as I've said on the record before, I would like to see these documents.
The Chairman: Oh, yes. You've made that very clear.
Senator Bryden: But let's keep them in perspective here. These are documents that in one instance were stolen and given to the press and in another instance were included in a box by mistake. And I would be willing to bet, when we get these wonderful documents - if we ever do - that they will shed very little additional new light on the circumstances that we're examining as to what we've been able to garner ourselves from other sources. And I just hope that this committee is not turning what is a very serious inquiry into an issue which is of great significance to the public and the taxpayers of Canada into some sort of foray into an almost grandstanding confrontation between the Senate and what we can do and what our powers are and that of the executive, or the Governor General, or whatever.
We appear to some extent to be getting side-tracked chasing rabbit tracks, when the big game that we were supposed to be looking at is sort of wandering off in the forest somewhere.
The Chairman: Just one correction. I wish you wouldn't refer to the Senate. I wish you would refer to a house of Parliament.
Senator Bryden: Are not we the Senate?
The Chairman: We're a house of Parliament. We're the Upper House. But do not think for one moment that there are not members of the House of Commons that are keenly interested in the outcome of this particular resolution, this report, and the address.
Senator Kirby: I understand and I have to agree with what Senator Bryden said. But I think the point the chairman is making is that he is viewing this as an issue of the rights of parliamentary committees, not merely the Senate. I think that's the point you're making. Am I correct?
The Chairman: Parliamentary committees, of course. We are creatures of the house which gives us the mandate and who has an obligation to support us if that mandate is impaired by not getting the information that we require. This is a very, very, serious principle involved here.
Senator Bryden: In any event, I find it a little bit hard to accept that we treat ourselves as this wonderful parliamentary group on occasions when it is to somebody's benefit, and there are other times when we use the same committee system to, in fact, prevent the parliamentary will being exercised. And I'm not talking about this particular committee, but it seems interesting for us to be addressing the Governor General when we've got other bills that have been buried in the black hole of the legal and constitutional affairs committee for over a year now and we can't even get it back to the Senate so the Senate can vote on it.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Parliamentary will includes the Senate.
Senator Stewart: Oh yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. But on the question of these submissions, the main responsibility here is to look into the Nixon report, and particularly its conclusions. And both Mr. Nixon and Mr. Goudge told us when they were here that part of their conclusions were based on these submissions. So it is not rabbit tracking or trying to emphasize the autonomy and power of committees. We want to get key evidence, key documents which were used to come to some very disturbing conclusions in a report which led to a very disturbing bill. Any means, I think, is good to get these submissions, particularly as now they are public documents. They have been in the press, directly or indirectly; they were seen by the Nixon staff. Obviously, our gum shoes have been all over them or the government's million-dollar gum shoes have seen them. Everybody seems to have seen them except us. I think we should go this route. We should ask to Ms Campbell; we should speak to anybody who can help us.
Senator Kirby: Just to clarify, Senator Lynch-Staunton, the only disagreement certainly between the chairman and myself has been not over desired outcome, it's been over process and whether this is the right route to go, or whether asking Ms Campbell was the right route to go. In any conversation I've ever had with the chairman, there has been no disagreement about the desirability of getting the documents. I think the point Senator Bryden was making - and Senator Tkachuk, I think, would agree - is: Let's not elevate these documents to a level of importance they don't deserve.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: But you have elevated them. You've made an issue out of them.
Senator Kirby: We haven't. We haven't even seen them.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You go around telling everybody everything's in those submissions.
Senator Kirby: That's right.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You, yes. The government - you, as a supporter of the government.
Senator Kirby: Mr. Chairman, who is the "we" that has gone out? I have not done that; he has not done that.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Members of the government have suggested repeatedly that it's in these submissions that we will find the reasons for the "sleaze", the cesspool and all the other nasty adjectives used about -
Senator Bryden: Those are your words.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, sir. Those are your friend's, the Minister of Transport's words.
Senator Bryden: Hold on just a second, now. He can turn a phrase!
The Chairman: Order, please!
Senator Lynch-Staunton: When he wants to distort the truth.
The Chairman: Order please. Just clarify my memory. Who was it that said, "I would give my right arm" - or words to that effect - "to have these documents"?
Senator LeBreton: It was Senator Bryden.
The Chairman: Was it Senator Bryden or Senator Kirby?
Senator Kirby: No.
Senator Bryden: Wait now. If he's going to quote me, he has to be accurate. And Senator Lynch-Staunton knows, I generally remember exactly what I said. I said, "No one in this committee's eyes or hands would more like to see those documents than me."
The Chairman: Oh well, that's all right.
Senator Bryden: And that's true.
Senator Kirby: The confusion, Mr. Chairman, is that that line was attributed to me in the press and in fact I didn't say it. But, nevertheless, I'm happy to take credit for a line that Senator Bryden used.
The Chairman: Is it not a fair statement to make that whether or not we're disagreeing on the form or the procedure that we're taking, is there anybody in this committee who does not want to see these documents?
Senator Bryden: No.
Senator Jessiman: No.
Senator Stewart: No.
Senator Kirby: No.
The Chairman: Okay. All right.
Senator Stewart: The problem is you're going by a route which, as I said initially, is circuitous and, I think, is calculated to fail. Whereas if you'd go the simple elementary route of asking Ms Campbell then when her consent is given, the present government, I am confident, will agree and we'll have the document.
The Chairman: Senator Stewart, you bring up a very interesting thing.
Senator Stewart: Well, it's hypothetical.
The Chairman: But you're hanging your whole arguments on documents of a previous administration.
Senator Stewart: So?
The Chairman: Well, I am aware of those conventions. They weren't used very much before the Diefenbaker-Saint-Laurent change, but we have a compendium of all of the conventions that are followed.
I'm curious. Do you know whether or not there was ever an agreement between the Campbell government and the Chrétien government with regard to the custody of documents?
Senator Stewart: No. I think you should ask one of your colleagues.
Senator Jessiman: Well, the present government is one of the parties. Why can't they be asked? They are the government. They're going to have to make the decision anyway. What's wrong with having the government say "Yes, we release them subject to getting consent from the former Prime Minister"? I do not think there's anything wrong with that.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are Senator Stewart and Senator Kirby suggesting that the only -
Senator Stewart: No.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Well, let me finish.
Senator Kirby: It's just that you usually misquote us.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I'm asking if you are suggesting that all we need are the former Prime Minister's approval and these documents will be released gladly by the Government of Canada?
Senator Stewart: No.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Then let's proceed this way and ask Ms Campbell and find every other route we can to get the documents.
Senator Stewart: Take the steps in the logical order. You don't go to the present government, as is opposed now, by saying if Ms Campbell gives her consent. That's a hypothetical approach. Go to Ms Campbell and really put the pressure on the present government. Get her consent and then go, look -
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Let's go to the Senate and debate that.
Senator Stewart: If the previous Prime Minister does not object, why should you object? Surely you don't. I'm convinced that they will not object and you will have your documents. I hope they satisfy everyone on the committee when they are produced.
The Chairman: Well, now, everyone is in favour of getting these documents, then. That has been made clear.
Now, you have heard Mr. Nelligan describe from the Manual of Official Procedures of the Government of Canada the reasons why we have chosen this route.
Senator Stewart: The ancient procedures.
The Chairman: Now, is the committee ready for the question?
All those in favour say "aye".
All those opposed?
Senator Kirby: We're happy to abstain, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Carried.
Our next witnesses - we are going to invite Mr. Rowat to appear to address several matters which haven't been fully explored. Mr. Rowat, as you know, was, at that time, Associate Deputy Minister of Transport. We intend to summon two members of the Department of Justice, who are also Department of Transport lawyers, Mr. Pigeon and Mr. Green. They are the two gentlemen who Senator Kirby and I requested to appear and were refused by the Deputy Minister of Justice.
In fairness, Senator Kirby, in talking to me on Friday, suggested that we call back Mr. Thomson to explain his reasons for declining our request. I disagreed with Senator Kirby, saying that that would only mean a seminar of - a debate on whether or not the client-solicitor privilege obtained in this case or whether it didn't, that it would just be a back and forth type of thing that might be of interest to a political scientist or a lawyer, but wouldn't get to the heart of the matter. We wanted to talk to two lawyers who were on the firing line during all this business, and so we want the source. We want Mr. Pigeon and Mr. Green. Since the Department of Justice will not give them to us, we will summon them. We need a resolution to that effect.
Senator Kirby: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I can ask two questions, maybe in the reverse order. One is the question of can someone - I don't know whether I'm looking at the clerk or the counsel to tell us when was the last time - give me a bit of history on the summoning of witnesses. That is one thing.
Secondly, just to get back to the conversation that you and I had on Friday, given the comments you made a few minutes ago about requesting the Treasury Board documents and trying to understand the powers of parliamentary committees, et cetera, as you know, in the conversation you and I had - I guess the two we've had - I've taken the position that I'm in complete agreement with you about the conversation - sorry, about the importance of establishing the power of parliamentary committees, particularly vis-à-vis advice provided by in-house counsel to other public servants as opposed to ministers. That is an issue that I would still very much like to see explored, and yet you just dismissed that. That's an issue, by the way, which I think would be of interest to parliamentary committees in general, not merely Senate committees. You seemed to dismiss that a minute ago by making the observation that - I think your statement was that it would lead to an academic seminar, or whatever. I'm not at all convinced that it would. My view is that we, being parliamentary committees in general, need to firmly establish on the record what the authority of a committee is. I, for one, do not accept most of the statements made in the Deputy Minister of Justice's reply to the letter that you and I jointly sent him on the 27th of September. I guess I still don't understand why you have taken the view that that is not an issue worth resolving because it seems to me that it is an issue very much worth resolving. That's one question.
Second, I would like to know a little bit about the precedents related to summoning because it is a process that I kind of intellectually knew we had the power to do, but I have never been involved in using.
The Chairman: In answer to your first point, I am not suggesting that it might make a very interesting exercise in talking to Mr. Thomson and asking him for the reasons as to why he quotes these precedents or refusing to allow his officials to appear before us. I think it might be great. I think we could hire a hall, and it would be a very interesting exercise.
I'm saying now that we're drawing to a close. To quote Senator Stewart's words, why should we use the circuitous route of engaging a debate with the Deputy Minister of Justice when we have the power to summon the two lawyers we originally requested in our letter that Senator Kirby and I sent?
Now, what was your second question with regard to precedents?
Senator Kirby: By the way, it seems that this document exists, and it should have been made available to us before today, but that is to other members of the committee. The clerk just handed me a copy of a document I've never seen before. It's entitled "Procedural Memorandum" on the issue of summoning witnesses to appear before a select committee. I think, in fairness to the members of the committee, it would have been appropriate first to read it.
As I look to the answer to my question of precedents - and the clerk can correct me because I'm just glancing at this and reading - there are two precedents, one in 1904 and one in 1982. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: As far as the Senate goes, that's right. The last case with regard to the Senate was the joint committee on regulations and statutory instruments in 1982. You would have to go back quite far - you would have to go back to 1904. There are a number of cases before that - 1872, 1891, 1904. However, the House of Commons committee -
Senator Kirby: Is this in the same document?
Mr. O'Brien: I'm not sure if it is.
The House of Commons committees have summoned witnesses to appear on several occasions in recent years. The last case we have here is May 4th, 1993, by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
Senator Kirby: Who was the witness? I don't mean by name, but by position.
Mr. O'Brien: I'm afraid I don't have that.
Senator Bryden: Mr. Chairman or counsel or somebody, what happens if they don't answer the summons?
Senator Jessiman: The Black Rod.
Senator Bryden: The Black Rod? What does he do - beat them around the head and the ears?
Senator Jessiman: He takes the police with him. I'm not sure it's the RCMP. It may be the RCMP.
Senator Bryden: The only precedents I know of is any time the witnesses decided not to appear, they didn't appear. That's it. We have some arcane thing that we can send the Black Rod after them, but it doesn't seem to work. I guess the use of the words "We have the power to summon" -
The Chairman: We not only have the power to summon, but if they refuse to appear, we report that to Parliament, which in this case is the Senate. The Senate then decides what to do. It is the chamber that has the power of sanction or enforcement. I mean, we're getting into a -
Senator Bryden: And we ultimately get to the Black Rod. That's scary.
Senator Tkachuk: Very scary.
Senator Kirby: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of frustration to the clerk, if we knew this was going to be discussed, it would not be unreasonable for those of us on the committee to have been given some briefing material on the process before this morning. I mean that's just really annoying to me, frankly.
The Chairman: Yes. As a matter fact, it's a little bit annoying to my colleagues too.
Senator Kirby: No, no. I want to be clear. I said "the committee". It was not a partisan comment. Obviously you don't produce a document like that before an 8:30 meeting in the morning. So, it was obviously available, at the very latest, yesterday. This extract that was handed to me was available before five o'clock yesterday afternoon. Just as a matter of process - I don't like the process.
Can I just ask a couple of other questions. When I skim the process here, it says that a member of the committee must have certified in writing the evidence that the witness is to provide is material and important. Either you or I would be glad to do that, so that's not the issue.
The Chairman: Would you really?
Senator Kirby: I wrote the letter to - I signed the letter with you on the 27th of September asking these witnesses to appear because - let me now quote from the letter signed by both you and I and which I think in fact I probably did the first draft of, not the final draft, but the first draft of. I will quote from the letter:
We believe that it is crucial to the work of this Committee that we be able to question Messrs. J. Pigeon and R.J. Green on the advice they gave to various public servants with respect to the Pearson Airport Agreements in general and, in particular, on their views on the question of the precise point in time at which the Agreements were fully binding on the federal government.
Obviously, I've already said in writing - and this is a public letter - that I think that this is important information. So I have no problem.
Can I finish my question? Having read the other side - having read section 7.3.9, which says a member of the committee must have certified in writing, my question to you is just a process question.
Is it the committee that summons them, or does an individual just sign a piece of paper? I'm trying to understand the process, and my frustration is not having been briefed on the process before today. I understand that this is true for all members of the committee, not just for me.
The Chairman: To answer your question, there is a certificate that must be filed and a resolution to have these certificates filed before a witness is summoned. I happen to have them in front of me. It's addressed to the Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on the Pearson Airport Agreements, "in my opinion, that evidence be obtained from", in this case, Mr. Jacques Pigeon, Q.C., and in the second one, Mr. Robert Green Q.C., "that the evidence to be obtained from them is material and important to the investigation respecting all matters concerning the policies and the negotiations", et cetera, et cetera.
Senator Kirby: Can I ask you -
The Chairman: Let me finish.
Senator Kirby: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand the process.
The Chairman: One member of the committee -
Senator Kirby: Signs those forms.
The Chairman: - signs those forms. I'm just going back to the answer we finally had from Mr. George Thomson.
Accordingly, I respectfully suggest that it is neither appropriate nor necessary for Messrs. Green and Pigeon to appear.
We both agree. We both disagree.
Senator Kirby: You and I both disagree with that letter. We disagree with a lot of other parts of that letter.
The Chairman: Would you care to sign these?
Senator Kirby: I'm happy to sign one of them, if you want to sign one.
Mr. Chairman: I can't, as chairman.
Senator Kirby: Can I ask what the process is for a second? I want to be clear. We have signed the documents. Is it a committee... The committee then votes? Someone just explain the process.
Senator Jessiman: I agree to sign it.
The Chairman: When a committee requests a person to be summoned to appear, it usually passes the following motion, and then we pass that motion.
Senator Kirby: Just one last question. Since we got the reply from Mr. Thomson, the Deputy Minister of Justice - I'm looking at counsel - have you had any further conversations with Justice telling them that the chairman and I were quite annoyed at the failure of these gentlemen to appear?
Mr. Nelligan: I did indicate to them what the nature of the proceedings were going to be this morning and they assured me that they heard what I said. I got no further.
Senator Kirby: That proves they are not deaf, counsel. Does it tell us anything else?
Mr. Nelligan: That basically was what it amounted to. So quite frankly, I -
Senator Kirby: You weren't able to persuade them to voluntarily appear?
Mr. Nelligan: Well, I had thought that, having advanced that information to them, I might have got further communications from them, but I haven't received it as of yet. So I don't know what's going to happen.
Senator Kirby: Okay, that's all.
The Chairman: Could I have a motion that the names -
Senator Kirby: I don't mind signing.
The Chairman: All right. Maybe Senator Bryden might sign the other one.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Let's make it bipartisan. These lawyers stick together.
Senator Bryden: He may be back in private practice.
Senator Kirby: Heaven forbid.
The Chairman: The certificates being signed then, may I have a resolution that the names that appear there, Mr. Green and Mr. Pigeon, be summoned to appear to testify before this committee on the date to be determined?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If they don't come, you two go and get them.
Senator LeBreton: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: That they be summoned on Monday, October 23rd at nine o'clock. That is moved. Do we need a seconder for that? No, we don't.
Agreed? We all agree on that.
So that's the document, and the witnesses are Mr. Rowat, Mr. Pigeon and Mr. Green.
Senator Jessiman: When you said Rowat, does that mean the same three that came before, or is that Rowat by himself. There was Desmarais, Jolliffe and Rowat together.
Senator Kirby: I assumed you meant Rowat.
The Chairman: Mr. Rowat can bring who he wants.
Is there any further business to come before the committee?
Senator Kirby: So, Mr. Chairman, we're adjourned until nine o'clock Monday morning, is that correct? Monday is the 23rd, so I just want to be clear. It's nine o'clock, Monday morning?
The Chairman: That's correct. And nine o'clock on the 30th.
Senator LeBreton: The 30th?
Senator Kirby: Well, I didn't pick the date.
Senator LeBreton: He's deciding when he's going to appear.
Senator Tkachuk: Can we write him a letter and tell him to pick another day?
Senator LeBreton: That's the day of the referendum. For heavens sake, he can't be that busy.
Mr. Nelligan: There has been a great deal of difficulty in getting all of the assorted people together for that day. I don't think they were being difficult. I think it was just Mr. Goudge's schedule, and he wanted Mr. Goudge there, and we eventually came to the conclusion that that was the best we could do. We're all aware of the difficulties of that day.
Senator LeBreton: It's a little too cute by half, I think.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues. The meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.