Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 17, 1997
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to Rule 86(1)(f).
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order.
Thank you very much for coming on such short notice, honourable senators. The reason I felt we should move is that we have to give some directions to the subcommittee. Following what happened yesterday with the passing of a resolution in the Senate, I think our committee has to sit down and take a look at where we would like to go. We should at least think about it over the first part of the holidays. Perhaps immediately upon our return we could come up with what we feel should be the next step.
The document in front of you talks a bit about provincial legislatures and what happens there. Not all of us are aware of what happens in all of the legislatures.
The third item on the agenda is to take a look at the report from Mr. Robertson concerning the joint committees. I have spoken with Mr. Adams who has suggested that there could be agreement in the House of Commons to set up a set of joint rules concerning standing committees.
Senator Robertson: With regard to the motion that was passed in the Senate yesterday, we really cannot do anything until we see if Senator Thompson arrives in February. As I read the instructions in the motion, the matter will be referred to this committee only if he does not show up in February. In the meantime, we might just be spinning our wheels, until we see what happens to that effect. Our reference does not become effective, if I read this correctly, until the house resumes sitting.
The Chairman: You are quite right, Senator Robertson. The reason I am asking honourable senators to take a look at it is that there is a possibility that in the middle of February we will be asked to submit a report to the Senate. I think we have to think about it. We can do nothing, however, until February 6.
Senator Kelly: If I understand correctly, we are to examine this and see what thoughts it causes us to have on the subject. Is there a case for us individually, once we have looked through the whole thing, to make contact with you, Madam Chairman, or with Mr. O'Brien before February to see if we can start to move? I totally agree with the position you take. I think this committee must accept clear responsibility to make the final recommendation in terms of what might be considered in the chamber as a whole.
Regardless of the Senator Thompson issue, there is the broader issue. I hope that we do not stampede ourselves in trying to correct a very extreme situation when it is far removed from anything of a similar nature in the chamber now or in the immediate past.
The Chairman: I agree. I would suggest that Mr. O'Brien be our contact and that he take note of certain comments.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the fact that somebody wrote a document on attendance in provincial legislatures. Would it be too much to ask our personnel to prepare a document on the application of the rules of attendance in Westminster and in the Parliament, especially in the House of Lords? Our practices, our customs, our rules can be constitutional. If we find it difficult to interpret the rules, we can follow Westminster's practices. I would like to have a thorough document on this.
We shouldn't solely rely on the practices of a legislature which is subordinate to the Canadian Parliament; we should rather follow the long-standing practices of the British Parliament. Even if , for practical purposes, we broke all bonds with the British Parliament, it is obvious we can still fellow Westminster's tradition.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien has indicated that he could do it. My personal feeling is that we not look too far into the past. The world has evolved; our Parliament has evolved; and --
Senator Corbin: I do not think you understood.
The Chairman: Yes, I totally understood you, Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: I think you should put your personal thoughts aside and try to respond to the wishes of the committee.
The Chairman: Exactly. Mr. O'Brien will do it.
Senator Milne: I was just thinking about Westminster and the House of Lords where many of the hereditary lords never set foot in the place, although I would imagine there were very few.
Senator Corbin: That is exactly why I raised the question. There is a procedure to deal with that.
Senator Milne: Is there?
Senator Corbin: Absolutely. Briefly, at the beginning of each session, the Lord Chancellor has a document sent out to all lords indicating if they request leave of absence for the session or the Parliament, and there are dispositions to deal with them. I do not see why a rule of that nature could not apply in Canada. I think we must look at all angles because the British parliamentary system is one to which even the separatist Province of Quebec adheres. There must be many good things in their rules and in their long-standing practices going back 700 years. I think it is incumbent on us to look there as well.
Senator Kelly: May we assume they will be sent out when the research is done?
The Chairman: All right. We have some notes for the subcommittee that I might just share with you, one of the recommendations on poor attendance.
Senator Pearson: As you know, and you have ordered it for yourself, a book on the House of Lords was published this year. I must say that it puts a little humour into the whole situation. I recommend this book to every one. It is an anecdotal history of the House of Lords, accurate but anecdotal, and shows the origin of some of their practices. It was given to me when I was in England in March. Senator Maheu has ordered it from Smith's. It is entitled House of Lords: An Anecdotal History. Its author is John Wells. It will inject some humour about the situation.
Senator Rossiter: How expensive is it?
The Chairman: It is $46.
Senator Pearson: I am prepared to lend my copy to anyone. Perhaps we should get two or three copies for the Library of Parliament.
Senator Corbin: I think we could use some humour. I could use it myself. I accept the pill. However, that book in no way, shape, or form will ever be quoted in the House of Lords or in Westminster for precedent. It is just a best-seller, and that is all.
The Chairman: I was mentioning the absenteeism notes that were taken with the subcommittee and an explanation of the reason for adding a section to the Rules of the Senate of Canada. Section 15 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons states that every member being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act is bound to attend the sittings in the house unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business. It has been suggested that a similar provision might be made in our rules so that it is part of the swearing-in process.
Senator Kelly: It presupposes that the Senate is a full-time job.
Senator Rossiter: When called.
Senator Corbin: Is this an urgent matter, or is it something into which you want to delve in detail?
The Chairman: I think in February we really have to delve into it, and the rule changes may help us along the way, if need be. I am in your hands. You have much more experience than I do. Senator Grimard especially worked on revision for a long time. I think it is something we must do.
Senator Corbin: You are telling us there is a sense of urgency.
The Chairman: There is no urgency over the holidays, but in February we must have some suggestions for the house. We have two weeks after a decision on Senator Thompson to present a report in the house. That was agreed to yesterday.
Senator Kelly: I resent, frankly, the fact that the mandate to deal with Senator Thompson came from The Ottawa Citizen. From here on in, we should not have a host of other similar situations. For us to feel that we must rush at this is wrong-headed. I do not think we need to drag our feet, but the only thing which causes me to feel that we will panic and get something done immediately after we deal with the Thompson affair is because we are surrounded by similar situations just lurking to leap out at us, and we are not.
The Chairman: I think the Thompson affair is unique, yes.
Senator Kelly: Let us take the time we need and not set a deadline mandated by The Ottawa Citizen.
The Chairman: Our mandate was decided in the Senate yesterday. The committee must report within two weeks.
Senator Kelly: I am sorry, I missed that.
The Chairman: We have two weeks from the day the matter is referred to the committee.
Senator Corbin: We do not have that document.
The Chairman: It was in the Senate yesterday.
Senator Corbin: This is a working paper. Obviously we should have it here.
The Chairman: We should. The motion is in hansard but it should be here.
Senator Kelly: I will make my intervention in the Senate then.
The Chairman: It reads:
That Senator Andrew Thompson be ordered to attend the Senate in his place when the Senate resumes sitting in February 1998 following the Christmas adjournment;
That, should he fail to attend, the matter of his continuing absence be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders for the purpose of determining whether his absence constitutes a contempt of the Senate;
Senator Kelly: The mandate is to deal with that situation.
The Chairman: The committee is obliged to undertake a study.
Senator DeWare: They must report within two weeks.
On the other hand, Madam Chairman, if we have to decide whether Senator Thompson is in contempt, does that mean that we need something in place referring to the fact that he is in contempt? How do we make that decision as a committee once the matter is referred?
Senator Robertson: If it is referred to the committee, it means the Senate has deemed that he is in contempt. Then the committee must determine what to do with someone in contempt.
Senator Kelly: That is a serious charge.
Senator Robertson: We will need legal counsel.
The Chairman: Can we have advice on this issue?
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: The last time a question of privilege was referred to this committee, it was a question of privilege regarding Senator Carney. We took on not only legal advice, but also advice from parliamentary law counsel Joseph Maingot. Perhaps the committee could give us the authority to approach Mr. Maingot to see if he would be available in the event that Senator Thompson does not comply with the order of the Senate.
Senator Grimard: He is very knowledgeable. He wrote a book as well.
Senator Robertson: That is a good idea. I move that he be on standby in case we need him.
Senator Corbin: He would be on standby to this committee.
Senator Robertson: Yes.
Senator Corbin: He is an expert on privilege.
The Chairman: Is the committee in agreement that we get in touch with Mr. Maingot?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robertson: Should the clerk of the committee provide documentation for the members of the committee while we are away during the break? I believe it would be helpful for such documents to be circulated to our offices, and our offices can then fax them to us wherever we are so that we have an opportunity to read and think about this issue more clearly.
The Chairman: I agree.
Senator Corbin: The federal Parliament is the only one with an upper house in Canada. I talked about Westminster. Other upper houses in the British Commonwealth follow the Westminster tradition. Could we expand our examination of the situation to include some of the older, established parliaments of Westminster tradition?
We are innovating here. I think we ought to be prudent, careful, and come up with the best possible advice. Mind you, again I repeat what I said in the chamber the other day: I am not the devil's advocate; I am just as concerned as anyone could be about this situation. However, I think we ought to proceed with an open mind and in a very fair way, respecting long-standing rules and traditions as they are applied here and elsewhere. Otherwise, we could find ourselves in trouble down the road.
The Chairman: We can get the research necessary. I do not believe it will help us with respect to Senator Thompson. The question is: Is he or is he not in contempt of Parliament? That question will be put to us.
Senator Corbin: There may be similar cases in Australia or elsewhere.
Senator Robertson: It will be interesting to hear what Mr. Maingot says about defining "contempt".
Mr. James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Mr. Maingot has just published the second edition of his Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which includes a chapter dealing with contempt of Parliament. We shall endeavour to get a copy or a summary of that chapter and circulate it to all members of the committee.
Senator Lewis: We face two situations with Senator Thompson. First, is he in contempt because he has been absent for so long? Second, will he be in contempt if he does not answer to the present inquiry? We have to separate the two issues.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the motion reads, in part:
That, if the committee is obliged to undertake this study, it be authorized to examine and report upon any and all matters relating to attendance in the Senate...
The scope is broader than just Senator Thompson.
Senator Robertson: Could you read the entire motion?
The Chairman: The motion reads as follows:
That Senator Andrew Thompson be ordered to attend the Senate in his place when the Senate resumes sitting in February 1998 following the Christmas adjournment;
That, should he fail to attend, the matter of his continuing absence be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders for the purpose of determining whether his absence constitutes a contempt of the Senate;
That, if the committee is obliged to undertake this study, it be authorized to examine and report upon any and all matters relating to attendance in the Senate and how it specifically applies in the case of Senator Thompson; and
That the committee report its findings and any possible recommendations within two weeks from the day the matter is referred to the committee.
Senator Robertson: From the staff, we will need references not only to the situation relating to Senator Carney, but also any other references to this committee over the years relating to contempt so that we can see how they were handled? That would be helpful.
Senator Rossiter: The motion asks that Senator Thompson attend the Senate when it sits again in February, but notice will have to be served on him. He will presumably reply. This could conceivably drag on. He might say, for example, "I will see you on May 15."
The Chairman: Then the Senate may choose to do something.
Senator Rossiter: There is no time frame. This could drag on until 1999.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. O'Brien: One would have to anticipate his response to an order of the Senate and his reasons if he chooses not to comply. One would then have to decide whether those reasons were contemptuous -- i.e., does he have a medical appointment somewhere? One would have to judge.
It is difficult to determine what constitutes contempt.
Senator Rossiter: That is right.
Senator Petten: I think Senator Thompson has done everything wrong. He should attend, but he has a medical certificate.
Senator Lewis: We presume.
Senator Petten: We presume he has a medical certificate. If he has, where does all this fit into the equation?
Perhaps I should address the question to Mr. O'Brien.
The Chairman: I do not think the motion touched the issue of a medical certificate. The medical certificate never entered into it.
Senator Petten: Should it?
The Chairman: We were not given the mandate to check a medical certificate or his reasons.
Senator Petten: Has anyone given consideration to the fact that Senator Thompson has a medical certificate? It has never been explained to me. I should just like to know.
I am no advocate for him, I assure you.
Mr. O'Brien: The report of Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration merely stated that the committee takes note of the attendance. A recommendation was then put forward that his resources -- that is, his office funds -- be taken away because of his attendance record. However, it did not go beyond that.
I do not think the other order from the chamber, which was moved by Senator Kenny, was connected at all with the Internal Economy issues.
Senator Petten: I was not speaking to the resolution; I was asking the question for clarification, if you will.
The Chairman: This resolution was attached after the fact. The Internal Economy report was accepted and voted on by the Senate as well.
Senator Corbin: I received a copy of yesterday's decision and the adoption of Senator Kenny's and Senator Nolin's motions. The third paragraph of that motion, on the top of page 828 of the Debates of the Senate, reads:
That, if the committee is obliged to undertake this study, it be authorized to....
What is the meaning of "if the committee is obliged to undertake the study?"
The Chairman: It means "should the Senate request the committee to undertake the study".
Senator Milne: It refers to the referral in the previous paragraph.
Senator Pearson: It may refer to the fact that he may show up here.
Senator Corbin: Are we dealing with a hypothetical situation or is the fact before us now?
The Chairman: The motion states, "should he fail to attend".
Senator Corbin: We are anticipating that, are we?
The Chairman: To a degree, yes.
Senator Corbin: Concerning the matter of reporting, there is no strict obligation here. The practice in the Senate has always been that if a committee feels it needs more time it can always go back and report. If and when we get that motion <#0107> and I am not opposed to anticipating that situation but we are not there yet -- let us be clear about what we are doing at this stage, that is all.
The Chairman: I think we are clear on what we are doing.
Senator DeWare: They are certainly giving you quite a challenge here. If you have to report, you must examine and report on any and all matters related to attendance in the Senate in two weeks.
Senator Corbin: But it is not here now.
Senator Kelly: You can interpret that in two ways. You can interpret it that we are to examine Senator Thompson's behaviour relative to the current rules. That is what they are asking, namely, if he is breaking an existing rule.
Senator Robertson: The paragraph to which you referred specifically applies. All we have to do is relate that to the Thompson case over the two weeks.
The Chairman: It also says that we have to report on any and all matters relating to attendance in the Senate as well as how it specifically relates.
Senator Robertson: No. The motion states "and how it specifically applies".
The Chairman: You do not think it means "as well as how it specifically applies"?
Senator Rossiter: It seems to me that there would be a specific reference from the chamber that would not necessarily contain the exact wording of this motion. It could be broken up and state "In relation to the Thompson report", and then a further reference following that could clarify things.
Senator Corbin: What is the rule with respect to medical certificates? From where does that arise?
The Chairman: I asked that question yesterday. One of our colleagues had a very bad case of the flu and, after an absence of three days, was asked by the clerk to supply a doctor's certificate. The particular senator was in the house choking and coughing. She was unable to sit in her place and was spreading germs.
Senator Corbin: You are talking about Senator Pépin, are you not?
The Chairman: Yes. She then went home to bed. After an absence of three days, it was recommended that she supply a medical certificate. I do not know about the rest of you, but I found that extremely insulting. We all saw how sick she was. I shared that thought with the clerk but he said that it is the practice in the Senate. I do not know when that practice began. That was to be one of my questions to staff; namely, to find out under what circumstances we need a doctor's certificate.
Other senators have been away one week prior to an adjournment week and are still ill with the flu one week after. As a result, they lost two weeks of Senate time, yet there was no question of a certificate.
I should like to find out why we are asking for a certificate in this case. Are we reacting in this case to the newspapers as well?
Senator Kelly: That must be the subject of a Charter challenge.
Senator Corbin: When we reach that matter, perhaps could we invite the clerk here as our witness to explain this whole process.
Senator Robertson: The clerk is only doing what the Senate tells him to do.
Senator Corbin: But what is the source of this? We must know that. Is there a rule or is not there a rule? If there is a rule, what is it and how does it apply to every senator?
Senator Robertson: Mr. O'Brien, do you have that information?
Mr. O'Brien: No.
Senator Lewis: I was given to understand when I came here -- and I do not think anyone worried about it when I first came here -- that if you were sick for one or two days and could not attend here, that was all right. You could say that you were was sick. However, if you were absent for over three days, then you had to provide a medical certificate. I never saw any rule on it, though.
The Chairman: I asked if it was written somewhere.
Senator Corbin: There is one other matter that I should like to raise, honourable senators. I am grateful for your patience.
Will we be free to discuss the Speaker's ruling of yesterday in our examination of this whole thing? I do not want to be held in contempt of the chair. I have accepted the ruling; but, surely, if we are to exercise our mandate freely, I want to know if that can go as far as quoting from or questioning the Speaker's ruling. I want to be clear on that. Would that be out of order or not?
I do not want to do indirectly what is not permitted directly, but we are talking about attendance. I will be quite open. The last paragraph of the ruling on page 825 of the Debates of the Senate says:
It is precisely because the report --
That is the Rompkey-Nolin report. His Honour went on to state:
-- is essentially about resources, and not about attendance, that I conclude that it does not involve a question of privilege.
I think that is the nub of the whole issue that we are asked to examine and I cannot agree with that.
The Chairman: Rule 18(4) states:
Except in accordance with provisions of rule 37(5), all decisions of the Speaker shall be subject to appeal to the Senate, and such an appeal shall be decided forthwith, without debate.
Senator Corbin: Yes, in the Senate, but we are in committee here.
Senator Robertson: I think it is improper to relate to the Speaker's ruling. I do not think we can do that. However, we certainly could assess the rule from which His Honour drew his conclusion without any reference to him. We can look at that rule some time and see if we would want to change it.
There seems to be some confusion there. I thought the Speaker's ruling was well put, but I also respect Senator Corbin's intervention. One was based more on precedent and the rules are ambiguous in that regard. That is the way I recommend that we get around it, namely, by looking at that rule sometime. Would that be satisfactory, Senator Corbin?
Senator Corbin: I know what you are getting at. Nevertheless, rule 19 applies specifically to a matter during a sitting of the Senate. It does not refer to committee.
However, this committee is special. It is empowered to examine all aspects, including decisions. We cannot avoid it. I only hope that if we do that with an open mind nobody who raises that kind of an issue would be held in contempt of the house, the chair, its rulings, or anything else.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we look at that rule when we are studying the rules?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: There is one other question I would like to ask those of you who have been around the table for a long time. There is a book entitled, "Compilation of Selected Legislation, Rules, Committee Reports and Other Material Pertaining to Senators". Has everyone seen that?
Mr. O'Brien: It is a document prepared by staff and a fourth edition is near completion. It is more of a working document. It is now on the table of the Senate. It was put there yesterday officially so that it can be consulted. It has been distributed to everyone. It is in both languages. It is more of a working reference document which has been updated and will be circulated.
Senator Rossiter: This was prepared during the last review of the rules.
The Chairman: This one says April 1994.
Senator Corbin: We dealt with that in committee. Senator Robertson will remember that we had agreed that it would be laid on the table. It is at the disposal of members who wish to obtain references on certain issues. I think we also agreed that it is not a document that could be quoted as one of the authorities. It is simply a reference; it has no official status.
Senator Robertson: It is a reference. It puts together all of the other references to the rules so that we do not have to go searching through books.
Senator Corbin: It is to facilitate our work.
The Chairman: Should we look at it when it is distributed?
Senator Robertson: We tried that, Madam Chairman. I hope that now we might get more response from the caucuses. We tried what you suggest but did not get a response from certain members of the caucus.
The Chairman: With your permission, honourable senators, if we have time, could I ask Mr. Robertson to give us a bit of an update on the joint committee discussions we have had?
Mr. Robertson: At the last meeting of this committee, we went through the proposed procedural rules. Basically, the proposed rules for joint committees were acceptable to the members of the committee. There were a number of comments and a few minor changes that were made which I have incorporated into this document. They are shown in italics with the word "Senate" before them.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons considered the proposed rules for joint committees last Tuesday. Essentially, they agreed to proceed, and were in agreement with the proposed rules. They did make some minor changes or additions of their own. Most of these involve membership, and the presenting of reports from the House, things which really involve the internal operation of the House of Commons. There are some rules in here which pertain to how the joint committees will function, once they are up and running, but other rules involve the internal operations of each chamber. The feeling is that so long as it involves only the Senate, it is up to the Senate to make decisions and not for the House to tell it how or why to do things.
Most of the changes are not that dramatic. The one change that does alter somewhat is on page 5 of the English version under "Voting". The original proposal from the informal working group in the last Parliament was that the co-chairs would have a right to vote when chairing a meeting and otherwise but could not cast a deciding vote. The Senate rule would apply whereby the chair votes on any motion and, if it is a tie, the motion is defeated. The House rule is that the Chair does not vote on any motion unless there is a tie, and then he or she casts a deciding vote.
The House committee did not feel that either co-chair, whether chairing or not, should have an original vote. It would only be if there was a tie of the members voting that the Chairs would then have a right to vote and, if both of them voted on opposite sides, you would end up with a tie, which means that the motion would be deemed defeated.
This is a variation from the existing proposal. We could do up both alternatives in the draft rules that we present to you in the new year. You could then make a decision and, perhaps, persuade the House committee otherwise; or perhaps it is an issue on which the two chambers will not be able to agree.
Senator Robertson: Staff has been working on this draft for some time. It is good that the two Houses are finally coming close together on this. I should think that this committee should either approve or not the draft recommendations as soon as possible so that it can go to the chamber in report form and other members of our caucus can study it to see if they deem it a proper avenue of cooperation to accept. Perhaps, at our next meeting, if we are all satisfied, we can approve it and send it off to the house so that the other members can have a look at it.
I so move.
Mr. Robertson: Over the Christmas holidays, we were going to have staff from the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament work on the actual wording that would implement these particular rules. We will have that ready for you when the Senate resumes sitting in February.
At that point, it will be just a matter of ensuring that the draft rules correspond to these instructions. At that time, it will be open for the caucuses to be consulted. Obviously, at some point, both committees will have to report to their parent chambers to propose the adoption of these rules or to table them and then it can be discussed by the leadership.
Senator Corbin: As well as the independent senators.
The Chairman: Is there anything else?
Senator Robertson: I have one other issue to bring up. As you know, and as Senator Lewis knows, there is another issue before us that I would like to bring to your attention and get approval for a quick subcommittee so that we can work on it. It is the same issue that was brought up a few years ago relating to handicapped people.
The Chairman: Senator Robertson, I would like to stop you. We discussed it. I have spoken to Senator Stewart; I have spoken to Senator Doyle. I have asked the clerk to give us an update.
Senator Corbin: I do not know what you are talking about.
The Chairman: Exactly. We were not ready to bring it to this committee until Mr. Bélisle gave us something to tell us where we were.
Senator Robertson: I was not aware of that. In our last conversation, you and I discussed approaching the Speaker. Since that appointment was not made, we did not go. Senator Doyle came and spoke to me a few months ago. He is retiring in the spring. He has some difficulty speaking in the chamber; he is exhausted afterwards. Still, he has much to contribute.
The same problem arises with handicapped people who do not have the opportunity of being heard at committees. Our chamber has no one speaking on behalf of the 15.8 per cent of Canadians who are handicapped. Senator Doyle feels very strongly that we should be doing something positive in this regard.
We have had preliminary discussions with people who know how to remedy the situation as they did in the House of Commons. We are way behind the House of Commons in this regard. It would be a simple matter of making the Senate accessible to all types of handicapped persons.We would not have to spend the money up front but, rather, we could do it gradually, depending on which handicapped group wanted to appear before us.
The ultimate goal should be for some prime minister, in his or her wisdom, to appoint a handicapped person.
Senator Corbin: There was a blind person in the House of Commons.
Senator Robertson: Yes, and there is a person with a speech or sight handicap in the legislature in Toronto, as well as one in Victoria. That is what it is all about. I hope it does not drag on too long because Senator Doyle would really like to be the first person to use it.
Senator Corbin: We should also accommodate Senator Doyle. We ought to amend our rule to allow a person like him or another senator with a handicap to perhaps read in the first paragraph of their statement and allow the remainder of the text to be included in hansard. I would like to see that at some point.
The Chairman: Before raising this matter again in this committee, our intention was to seek out information regarding what has been done in the past. Mr. Bélisle has documents which should have been ready a little sooner, but he obviously has not had time to prepare them or we would have them.
I apologize, Senator Robertson; you are the only one I did not call. I did not do it purposely. I am still awaiting Mr. Bélisle's documents. Much work has been done in this regard.
Senator Robertson: The House of Commons is way ahead of us.
Senator Lewis: Again it is a question of degree.
The Chairman: I will speak to the clerk again. We were so preoccupied with this issue that we were side-tracked.
Senator Robertson: We should raise this again at our next meeting. If we do not, Senator Doyle may have retired and we will not have offered him the courtesy of fully participating in the Senate debates.
Senator Corbin: I see no problem with that.
The committee adjourned.