Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Bill C-20
Issue 1 - Evidence, May 18, 2000
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 18, 2000
The Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, met this day at 5:54 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Dr. Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair, and I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Kinsella: I move that Senator Fraser be the chair of the committee.
Dr. Lank: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Kinsella that the Honourable Senator Fraser be elected chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Dr. Lank: I declare the motion carried and invite the Honourable Senator Fraser to take the chair.
Hon. Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Lank and senators. I suspect that this will be one of the most interesting committees upon which any of us will ever have the opportunity to serve. We will be doing good and important work. I thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to work with you. I am very grateful.
The next order of business, honourable senators, is the election of a deputy chair. May I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Gill: I move that Senator Kinsella be deputy chair of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We need a steering committee. The suggested motion calls for a three-person steering committee. It says that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which is the steering committee, would be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation.
I have taken the liberty of doing a bit of advance consultation among my colleagues. Senator Poulin has agreed to be the third member of the steering committee. There is a practical advantage to not having that included in the formal motion, that being that if Senator Poulin is ever unavailable, the chair can ask another colleague to fill in for her. That is why this motion, which is fairly standard for many committees, is worded in this way.
Would someone like to move such a motion?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Hervieux-Payette:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation;
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda and procedure;
That the subcommittee be empowered to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and
That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
Senator Kinsella: Madam Chair, I wonder whether, given the nature of this committee and the work it will be undertaking, we ought not have a steering committee composed of five senators. Therefore, I move, in amendment:
That we strike out the word "one" and replace it with the word "three."
I think that five is not an unwieldy number. The advantage of having five members of the steering committee is that it would make more broad the outreach that the subcommittee could do, particularly in terms of the identification witnesses, and so on.
It is the practice here that some of the meetings of steering committees are not done face to face but rather by telephone conference call. Even from a technical standpoint, I do not think that having five members rather than three creates any difficulty.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If senators are amenable to this, we could agree to set the quorum at three members, in case we do not always get five members to attend. As a rule, we can count on the presence of three members. I do not have a problem with the number five, but we might have a problem if someone cannot attend a meeting. Therefore, I would opt for a five-member committee, with a three-person quorum.
[English]
Senator Milne: I suggest that we stay with three members on the steering committee. I think there will be no shortage of witnesses and we will all have the opportunity to put lists of witnesses before the steering committee for their consideration. In fact, we probably already have a good idea of who all the witnesses will be, and certainly there will be no shortage of them. I think that it is much easier to work with three. I see no problem carrying on with three.
The Chairman: I draw your attention, senators, to rule 96(5), which states:
Subcommittees shall be composed of not more than half the number of members of a select committee...
-- which is not our issue --
...three of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Senator Prud'homme: If we are to go to five members, as suggested, Senator Hervieux-Payette is right in that we had better say that three would constitute a quorum.
Now that you have extended this to say "and one...to be designated," you should extend the same to the deputy chair. If the deputy chairman is not there, it is not written anywhere that he could be replaced or ask one of his colleagues to replace him.
If Senator Poulin is unable to do it, she could ask any one of the other members to replace her. This would be only fair to both sides, especially those in the opposition. I do not represent them, but I have chaired enough committees to know that it could lead to problems.
If Senator Kinsella were to be ill, that would be it. He has a designated job; he is deputy chair. The motion does not say that he, like Senator Poulin, can be replaced by anyone he chooses. Perhaps the clerk can find the appropriate wording so that we can start on a good footing.
I agree with Senator Hervieux-Payette. If we go to five, then we must fix a quorum. This is always agreed upon, as Senator Murray said, as long as the two major parties are represented. The danger would be that if the deputy chairman is unable to attend, then he cannot be replaced.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think we are less likely to encounter problems if the committee has five members rather than three. Obviously, another opposition member will be serving on the committee and we could have the same problem. Our chairperson could also become ill. The problem is exactly the same for us. If we go along with five members, we will have a two-two split, and I would agree to the same procedure as prescribed for a three-person committee, namely "and one other member of the Committee to be designated," which leaves us a certain amount of latitude. In that case, we could come back to your suggestion, namely that Senator Poulin sit on the committee as the designated member, along with one other person. For that to happen, we need to consult with our colleague and choose a member opposite.
[English]
The Chairman: We would not actually have to name the members of the steering committee at this meeting, although I should tell the members of the committee that I do intend to call a meeting of the steering committee as soon as we conclude this meeting. It would be helpful, then, if we had an idea of what our plan is to be.
In terms of the deputy chair being unable to attend, whether it is a meeting of three or of five, we could have the motion refer to the deputy chair or his designate.
Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
Senator Murray: Kindly put the question, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Will Senator Kinsella be the second member of the committee?
Senator Kinsella: No, it will be Senator Beaudoin.
[English]
The Chairman: Since I will have one more arm to twist, I should like the liberty, if you will forgive me, to decide later on my third nominee.
Let us have a quick vote on the amendment.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda pertains to printing the committee's proceedings. I suggest that the committee print 300 copies of its proceedings. There will be a great many people interested in receiving the copies. It will be on the net and we are aware that Internal Economy is trying to limit our use of paper. The proceedings are likely to be quite voluminous.
Would someone care to move a motion to that effect?
Senator Milne: I move:
That the committee print 300 copies of its Proceedings and that the chair be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item has to do with research staff. Perhaps this is the point at which we should introduce some of the staff from the Library of Parliament who we hope to have working with us. They are Jay Sinha, Mollie Dunsmuir and Brian O'Neal.
The library cannot assign these people formally until we have made a request. However, they are experienced people in this field. They are the researchers we hope the library will send to us.
Senator Nolin: Did these individuals work in the committee in the other place or are they brand new to this subject?
The Chairman: I believe two of them worked for the House committee, which is one of the reasons we hoped the library would allow them to work with us because they have already been through a steep learning curve on this issue.
Senator Poulin: Honourable senators, I move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item has to do with the authority to commit funds and to certify accounts. This is a standard housekeeping procedure.
Could I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the chair or in the chair's absence the deputy chair; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next matter has to do with travelling and living dispenses. This is the standard policy for committees. Would someone make a motion to that effect?
Senator Poulin: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item has to do with electronic media coverage of public meetings. This is the standard form of motion for broadcast.
Senator Nolin: You already have the authority to do that. The motion will be to decide when. Will the steering committee decide that?
The Chairman: Yes, the steering committee will decide that.
Senator Murray: What will it decide?
The Chairman: Whether or not we want to be broadcast.
Senator Murray: Do you mean the broadcast of a particular meeting?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Murray: That is difficult. We either open the public proceedings to electronic coverage or we do not.
The Chairman: Looking at it the other way around, if for some reason there were a sitting that we did not want to have broadcast -- and I cannot imagine what it might be at the moment, but there might be such a reason --
Senator Murray: Once we open the proceedings to electronic coverage, I would not want to be part of a vote to exclude them.
The Chairman: I believe standard practice is if a committee is broadcasting hearings on a given bill, it broadcasts the hearings on that bill.
Senator Murray: May I ask, while we are on this subject, in what committee room these meetings will be held?
The Chairman: Room 505, Victoria Building.
Senator Milne: Concerning the electronic media coverage, we have had this debate in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The coverage is normally gavel to gavel. At one point, however, we had witnesses who did not want to be seen on television, and we went in camera for that particular part of that session. It was a legal matter.
Senator Murray: There is no such question before us.
Senator Milne: No.
The Chairman: It would seem unlikely.
Would someone care to move this motion?
Senator Prud'homme: I am not a member of the committee, but I will certainly participate. There is a phrase that bothers me. It is "that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered...." I go know that things go smoothly when start on a good footing. If there is a doubt in someone's mind, then things are not smooth. This motion states:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings at its discretion.
[Translation]
The motion contains the reference "at its discretion," meaning at the discretion of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Some may argue that the precedent exists, but I am not certain that that is the case. Those members who are entitled to vote are the ones who decide whether or not to allow coverage by electronic media. Otherwise, the steering committee holds discussions. The majority of this committee's members are government members and they may decide that there will be no coverage of the proceedings by electronic media.
[English]
I submit that to you, colleagues, as a very strong point. However, if the opposition does not react, that is their privilege.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: The reference in the French version is to "de ses délibérations," while the English version says "public proceedings." When the committee sits in camera, it conducts proceedings. Is that not correct?
Senator Milne has raised a valid point. When the committee sits in camera, it is no longer a public meeting. Therefore, cameras are excluded.
Senator Beaudoin: An in camera meeting is not open to the public.
The Chairman: Then the reference should be to "délibérations publiques."
Senator Nolin: Correct. The reference must be to public proceedings. If a witness asks to be heard in camera and the committee agrees to the request, then the proceedings will be conducted in camera. The House has already authorized the televising of proceedings. The motion establishing the special committee refers to this authorization. Are you now asking if certain public meetings should not be televised?
The Chairman: It is far more complicated when a witness asks to be heard in camera. Permission must be sought from the Senate to hear witnesses in camera and that happens on rare occasions. This goes beyond the scope of today's discussions.
Basically, the idea here is to allow the subcommittee, at its discretion, to turn off the cameras when one or more witnesses testify. I cannot imagine that happening, but one never knows. That is why we have the reference "at its discretion." However, very rarely would this happen.
[English]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The Senate has agreed to televise public hearings, and we should respect that. I do not accept the notion that we turn off the cameras and still keep the hearings public because some witness may be camera shy.
Senator Milne: This was not the case of a witness being camera shy. It was a legal issue.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Then you go in camera and have no public hearing. You cannot go halfway. Either you televise the public hearings or you go in camera.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I therefore move:
That the committee allows coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Assuming that the word "allow" is an instruction, not a whim.
The Chairman: The motion is gone now. We have adopted it.
Senator Nolin: Just to finish that point, I remember when the Legal Committee decided to hold hearings without cameras. We were examining the Young Offenders Act.
Senator Beaudoin: That was a special case.
Senator Nolin: It was a special case, and it was at the request of someone who was convicted under the act when he was young.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: He did not want his testimony on the record.
Senator Nolin: Exactly. He was Mr. X and we agreed to that.
The Chairman: The next item on our list, senators, is a time slot for regular meetings. I have been doing some thinking about this issue, and I should like to make a proposal. My reasoning is that we should make available to ourselves as much time as possible because this issue is not a case where we want to rush witnesses through as if they are on a merry-go-round.
The second element of my reasoning is that since this is such a large committee, if we schedule meetings within the normal Senate hours for committee times, a large number of our members would have conflicts at any given hour. Therefore, I thought we could meet Monday afternoons at 1:30 p.m. and again in the evening, if necessary, meet on Thursday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and meet on Friday mornings from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Obviously, we would not meet if we did not have witnesses scheduled, but this proposed schedule would give us maximum capacity.
Senator Bolduc: Why do we not sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights? Some senators live outside of Ottawa.
The Chairman: As do I, Senator Bolduc.
Senator Bolduc: I would agree that we sit and work 12 or 15 hours a day, but on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. That is my feeling. I am here at 7:30 in the morning.
The Chairman: The problem is that other committees meet in the evenings.
Senator Bolduc: Not on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights.
Senator Milne: On Wednesday nights, four of us sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We could sit on Tuesday evenings, to avoid having to meet Friday mornings. I realize that we cannot get around Thursday evening meetings. Our colleague argues that to avoid Thursday meetings, we would need to meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. However, we could sit from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday evenings, rather than Friday mornings.
[English]
Senator Murray: I have a small point about the suggestion to have evening sittings begin at 7 p.m. Unless there is some good reason for starting that late, I believe we would be better off to start at 6 p.m. or even before that. What we do in some committees is bring in a meal at quarter after five and start at quarter to six. We do not want to interfere with the Senate itself, but perhaps we could begin at 6 p.m., or so, and bring a hot meal in, not sandwiches.
[Translation]
Senator Kinsella: Monday is a bit of problem for me because I teach a class at university on Mondays.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, I have before me the committee timetable. Four committees sit on Tuesday evenings: Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Fisheries and Energy.
Senator Bolduc: Foreign Affairs?
The Chairman: That is what it says here.
Senator Bolduc: When?
The Chairman: Tuesdays.
Senator Bolduc: In the afternoon.
[Translation]
The Chairman: When the Senate rises, but not before 5 p.m.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: Usually we are finished at 6 p.m. That is not a problem.
The Chairman: I do not know what the chair of that committee would think about that. Senator Kinsella was talking about Tuesday mornings also. Four committees sit at 9:30 on Tuesday mornings.
[Translation]
Senator Kinsella: As a rule, I get into Ottawa at 8 o'clock.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you willing to leave this matter to the steering committee?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Next, under "Other Matters" --
Senator Prud'homme: The Senate has a bastion of independents who would be more than happy to replace any member of the committee, including the four who are not here today.
The Chairman: We understand.
Senator Milne: At any time?
The Chairman: Senators, I wish to raise one other matter. Any of you can raise other matters, if you wish. I wondered if we might adopt a motion for a policy that has become fairly common in a number of committees, which is that we agree that there will be no votes taken in the committee until all witnesses have been heard. Basically, the effect of this motion is to liberate us a little bit so that we are not constantly counting heads and worried about something happening if one of our members has ducked outside to make a phone call.
We have copies of such a motion as it has been adopted in other committees, and it is being distributed to members.
Senator Beaudoin: It says "before the witnesses"?
The Chairman: No votes shall be taken until we have heard the witnesses.
[Translation]
The committee can always change its mind by proceeding with another vote. It is normal for a committee to establish its own rules. However, this reflects our intent.
[English]
The wording of the motion is "any consideration or votes on any motions dealing with the disposition in committee of the bill." This does not prevent us from holding votes as we go on to other matters. It just means that we do not find ourselves in the middle of hearings fussing about votes on amendments, or whatever.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It also disposes of the need to have a non-government or non-opposition member the whole time.
The Chairman: In this case, I suspect most members will want to be here.
Would someone care to move this motion?
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will let Senator Nolin have the floor.
The Chairman: The Honourable Senator Nolin moves:
That any consideration or votes on any motions dealing with the disposition in Committee of Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, be held no earlier than at the completion of hearing of all witnesses.
Is it the pleasure of honourable senators to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion agreed to.
[English]
Is there any other item of business that any senator wishes to raise?
Senator Prud'homme: When do we start?
The Chairman: Do we have a budget?
Senator Nolin: No, but perhaps we should look at a budget if we want to have hot meals. Someone will have to pay for that.
The Chairman: The steering committee can cope with a budget, technically, but we have here a draft with an explanation of budget items in the two official languages.
Senator Murray, I think this constitutes a budget for hot lunches.
Senator Murray: Lunch, no.
The Chairman: Hot dinners.
Senator Murray: Dinnertime is dinnertime, and we must have something hot. A dinner is not bringing sandwiches in at dinnertime.
The Chairman: We are allowing a little more money for dinner than for lunch.
Senator Murray: Sorry, Senator Kroft. I know that might create some difficulties for you.
The Chairman: The budget committee approves of this proposal, which is interesting. Will someone move a motion to adopt this budget?
Senator Milne: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Milne that the budget, as presented, be adopted.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do I gather that we will have only seven days of hearings? Is that what I am reading here?
The Chairman: No, we can always come back for more money.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I should like to have an indication of how long.
Senator Kroft: There is a more direct way of getting at this question.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We should not ask for Supplementary Estimates; is that right?
The Chairman: If we meet only one evening a week, the committee could run for seven weeks.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: What is a reasonable timetable before this bill is reported to the chamber, if it gets that far?
The Chairman: I think the steering committee will have to look at that. We are all aware that summer approaches, and we must bear that in mind.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The referendum does not, so I will not worry too much about the summer.
I am an ex officio member, so I do not get involved in the organization of the committee, although I will be here for the votes. How will you handle witnesses and receive names of proposed witnesses? When do you want them to appear and when do you expect the first meeting to be held?
The Chairman: I will answer those questions to the extent that I can.
I think it would be helpful if we could have our first meeting on the afternoon of Monday, May 29, whether or not the steering committee decides that we should meet regularly on Mondays. I say that because it is traditional practice to begin with the minister, and I know that the minister happens to be available that day. We can get him for a long session that afternoon, with ample time for questions and follow-up with officials. It is not easy to pin down a minister for that big a chunk of time, although I, like you, think this committee should take precedence.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No. I think it is his priority, and he will be available whenever we want, period.
The Chairman: We do know that he is available then.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You will not have to write letters to anyone.
The Chairman: We will continue this discussion with the steering committee. You asked when I would like to have the first meeting, and that is when I should like to have it.
Senator Kinsella: In the budget, we should have an item called "Travel," and it should be for an amount of $1. It should be built into the budget.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Travel for whom?
Senator Kinsella: If the committee decides that it needs to travel, and if we have a budget with no such line item, we must provide for that, even if it is just a $1 amount. I do not see how a committee can submit a budget without a travel item when there may be such a demand.
The Chairman: Our terms of reference did not call for travel, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: That is the decision of the committee.
The Chairman: The Senate did not authorize the committee to travel.
Senator Beaudoin: Is it not in our terms of reference?
Senator Kinsella: The bill has been referred to this committee. It is up to this committee to determine how it will conduct its business in examining the bill.
The Chairman: We will have to go back to the Senate, then, for an amendment to our terms of reference, at which point we will include a budget subclause.
Senator Kinsella: Why do we have to go back to the Senate to determine whether we decide to travel and to hear witnesses?
The Chairman: We are not authorized to travel.
Senator Kinsella: Where does it say that we are not authorized to travel? We are masters of our own conduct. If we deem that it necessary to hear a witness in Quebec City, that will be a decision that this committee will take.
Senator Murray: We may not want to do it in this fiscal year, however.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Holding a videoconference is a very interesting alternative. If we want to hear testimony from witnesses who cannot travel, then I do not see why we cannot hold a videoconference, since our government has the appropriate facilities in place in all major cities in the country.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: We may make a prior judgment that we will not travel, but what is on the table before us is a draft budget. We must put in our budget what is a reasonable contingency in terms of the expenses that this committee will incur to conduct its business.
Senator Prud'homme: I always listen attentively when precedents are created. I just heard Senator Hervieux-Payette, who is an astute person, say that it may not be necessary to travel now because videoconference technology is available to us. We could hear witnesses by satellite or otherwise.
Having had to go through that pain and having fallen into that trap, once you accept to travel by air, the precedent is that you have accepted to travel, period. You must be extremely careful. If you say that you will listen to a witness from Newfoundland who would like to be heard via satellite, I can see the clerk immediately looking into the precedent. I may be wrong, but there is a doubt.
The Chairman: Do you have a second point, Senator Prud'homme?
Senator Prud'homme: Second, I am happy that the bill passed today on second reading. I wonder why we had second reading when everything seems to be decided. We already know who the witnesses will be, and so on.
The Chairman: No, we do not.
Senator Nolin: No, we do not.
Senator Prud'homme: The first witness.
Senator Beaudoin: The minister, yes.
The Chairman: If I might revert to the motion establishing this committee, it gives us the power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses. It does not say "in person."
Teleconferencing would be considered examination rather than travel. The motion states that we be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media and that we have the power to retain the services of professional, clerical, stenographic and such other staff, period.
The latest suggestion, which was not a formal motion, is that this item be sent back to the steering committee, which is where it would normally have been considered. Are we in agreement with that suggestion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Further to what Senator Bolduc said, I propose that we meet over three days. He is right in saying that it is not always easy for us to travel, particularly when we must deal with small carriers. I would not want to have to arrive here on Sunday for a Monday evening meeting.
Senator Bolduc: My schedule is fully booked for the 29th. We need to realize that this is not our full-time occupation. I will not work five days a week at this rate. You do not know me!
Senator Gill: It would be convenient for me if we met over three days, if at all possible.
The Chairman: I am going to pass around a piece of paper. For those of you who rely on public transportation -- unlike yours truly who travels by car from Montreal -- could you please write down the times when you can catch an Air Canada flight or VIA train to Ottawa. For example, the flight that Senator Kroft takes usually arrives in Ottawa around the noon hour. If we were to decide to meet on Monday mornings, then the scheduling would pose a major problem for Senator Kroft. However, he could attend meetings scheduled for Monday afternoon. Do you see what I mean? We need to agree on a sitting schedule this evening.
[English]
Senator Milne: I should like to point out that I would prefer to have as many meetings as quickly as possible so that we are not sitting on this particular matter throughout the summer.
The Chairman: The month of July looms, yes.
Is there any other matter that any other senator wishes to raise?
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Speaking of which, we cannot predict the testimony of witnesses. Some made their views known to the House of Commons -- and I have read their testimony -- but we may hear from other people. We may decide that we need to hold more hearings, or even that after a few days of meetings, we have heard from a sufficient number of witnesses. I am not ready to finalize all of the details as quickly as possible. If we want our hearings to be viewed as a credible exercise, we must not limit ourselves to 10 minutes of testimony followed by a 20-minute question period, as was the case in the House of Commons. I will not accept that. If, at some point along the way, we decide that we need to delve deeper into certain subjects, than I think we should be entirely free to do so. I really do not want to sit this summer, but I am prepared to continue working if necessary.
The Chairman: I am confident that all committee members want to approach their work in a conscientious manner. We are not alone in taking holidays in the summer. The witnesses do as well.
Senator Nolin: In my opinion, we should not have to contend with time constraints. We should be primarily concerned about doing a thorough, proper and credible review of the proposed legislation. We must take all the time we need to examine this bill.
The Chairman: We all want to do an excellent job within a reasonable period of time.
[English]
The Chairman: If there are no other matters, I wish to thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.